Deutero-canonical / Apocryphal Books

[UnityofTrinity]

Interesting. Perhaps this is a good time to consider your existing presuppositions about the canon of the Jews? Perhaps…

My friend, I am not a newbie when it come to Protestantism or Fundamentalism or Sola Scriptura. I was one. I was a strong proponent of it, and I left it.

I did not have a presupposition about the Jewish canon. I use history and historical studies to conduct every single knowledge I know about Jewish canons. We all know that Palestinian Canon was compiled after the Septugint. However, how do we know it is correct? There is no way to know. Before the canonization, there were many traditions and books in the Jewish Scripture itself. From canonical books to deuterocanonical books to books that was written from traditions. We know for a fact there was no such thing as “Scripture” in the old Jewish time. There was the Law of course and we all acknowledge it, but there was no way a formal canon of Scripture. To propose Scripture without the Church or any authority(the seat of Moses) is impossible.

 

[Rightlydivide]

My friend, I am not a newbie when it come to Protestantism or Fundamentalism or Sola Scriptura. I was one. I was a strong proponent of it, and I left it.

I did not have a presupposition about the Jewish canon. I use history and historical studies to conduct every single knowledge I know about Jewish canons. We all know that Palestinian Canon was compiled after the Septugint. However, how do we know it is correct? There is no way to know. Before the canonization, there were many traditions and books in the Jewish Scripture itself. From canonical books to deuterocanonical books to books that was written from traditions. We know for a fact there was no such thing as “Scripture” in the old Jewish time. There was the Law of course and we all acknowledge it, but there was no way a formal canon of Scripture. To propose Scripture without the Church or any authority(the seat of Moses) is impossible.

Yes, you do have presuppositions. It is not possible to not hold presuppositions with the existing evidence unless someone overstates their case. As I believe you are doing.
They are the result of historians who also hold presuppositions. Presuppositions based upon their interpretation of existing historical data. No such thing as scripture in old Jewish times…I believe Paul. He said scripture was inspired and he was directly referring to the Old Testament. You see, the real proof, the only completely reliable historical proof is scripture itself. It does not give any evidence, and quite the contrary, that the Jews did not know what their scripture was.
But you are more than welcome to give historical data from 150 BC to 100 AD to support your view.

 

[SemperReformada]

Well, then I guess we have no basis whatsoever to trust the Bible.

If that’s your conclusion…then that’s your conclusion.

However, we have a canon of both the OT and NT, though we disagree somewhat on the OT canon. We at least we know that much as a starting place. After that there is a tremendous amount of evidence to establish the veracity of the manuscripts we do have. Even agnostic and not all that friendly to the faith Bart Ehrman admits that the textual variations we find in the various manuscripts change no vital Christian doctrine.

With the LXX we don’t know what books were in it or how many versions there may have been at the time of Christ and the apostles. As best I know that is a fact that is not disputed by Catholic, Protestant or any other scholar.

This fact does nothing to call into doubt the authenticity of any single book of the OT (Catholic or Protestant canons) so I have no idea how you leap from not knowing the contents of the LXX at the time of Christ to not trusting the bible.

 

[UnityofTrinity]

Yes, you do have presuppositions. It is not possible to not hold presuppositions with the existing evidence unless someone overstates their case. As I believe you are doing.
They are the result of historians who also hold presuppositions. Presuppositions based upon their interpretation of existing historical data. No such thing as scripture in old Jewish times…I believe Paul. He said scripture was inspired and he was directly referring to the Old Testament. You see, the real proof, the only completely reliable historical proof is scripture itself. It does not give any evidence, and quite the contrary, that the Jews did not know what their scripture was.
But you are more than welcome to give historical data from 150 BC to 100 AD to support your view.

Of course historians do have biasas, but by no mean e are called to always distrust their works. We do have rights to disputes them thought. You are right, both you and I have presuppositions. However, do you have any other evidences to dispute what I said? Do you have any solid evidences to dispute it in any other way? If we all agree that the Holy Spirit used the Church to establish the Canon of Scripture, then who is Martin Luther to decide which is inferior to which? Base on whose authority can you say that some books are not to be included? Indeed even though the greatest of saints might have had disagreements between one another, at the end, they all know to turn to the Church for guidance. The Church is not there to make sure there are no disputes, but the Church was established to make sure all disputes are to be brought together, to be reasoned, and to be defined.

We all know from various historical sources that Scripture was not solidated during the Jewish time. Saducees accepted only certain books while Pharisees accepted others. Geographically, Jews from various nations also have different views. For an example, Jews from Rome would definitely have different views and canon than Jews in Ethiopia(which still exists to this day). If we are to follow the Jews, are we to also accept the Talmud?

We also have the Dead Sea Scroll, while they can be inconclusive, however, they show us tha variety of Jewish traditions and beliefs. Beside the cannonical books(except for Esther), the Dead Sea Scrolls also composed of the Catholic deuterocanonical (Tobit, Habakkuk, Judith…) and even books that could not be found elsewhere (War Scroll, Pesher on Habakkuk …)

Before 1st century CE, we do know though that the Jews do accept the Law of Moses, both venerated as a spiritual guideline and the communal laws. All Jews from Saducees to Pharisees to the other sects acknowledge the Torah. However, about the other books, many disputes happen btween the Jews.

 

[UnityofTrinity]

If that’s your conclusion…then that’s your conclusion.

However, we have a canon of both the OT and NT, though we disagree somewhat on the OT canon. We at least we know that much as a starting place. After that there is a tremendous amount of evidence to establish the veracity of the manuscripts we do have. Even agnostic and not all that friendly to the faith Bart Ehrman admits that the textual variations we find in the various manuscripts change no vital Christian doctrine.

With the LXX we don’t know what books were in it or how many versions there may have been at the time of Christ and the apostles. As best I know that is a fact that is not disputed by Catholic, Protestant or any other scholar.

This fact does nothing to call into doubt the authenticity of any single book of the OT (Catholic or Protestant canons) so I have no idea how you leap from not knowing the contents of the LXX at the time of Christ to not trusting the bible.

My statement simply reflects on the simple notion that Scripture can authenticate itself as so widely believed by Sola Scripturists. Like you said, without the Septugint, how do we know? Being Catholics, we’re blessed to have a Church established by the same Christ, with both authority and traditions to show us how Scripture was compiled and how the Holy Spirit did it.

 

[Rightlydivide]

UnityofTrinity;7666466]We all know from various historical sources that Scripture was not solidated during the Jewish time. Saducees accepted only certain books while Pharisees accepted others. Geographically, Jews from various nations also have different views. For an example, Jews from Rome would definitely have different views and canon than Jews in Ethiopia(which still exists to this day). If we are to follow the Jews, are we to also accept the Talmud?

What sources? I know which ones people claim as support and obviously I disagree. It would help if you would list a few.

We also have the Dead Sea Scroll, while they can be inconclusive, however, they show us tha variety of Jewish traditions and beliefs. Beside the cannonical books(except for Esther), the Dead Sea Scrolls also composed of the Catholic deuterocanonical (Tobit, Habakkuk, Judith…) and even books that could not be found elsewhere (War Scroll, Pesher on Habakkuk …)

Good. Now we have some content to address. It is generally felt that using the term canonical as it relates to the DSS is wrought with difficulties. The DSS scrolls have three books that would eventually be included in the Catholic canon. Not Judith. And Habakkuk is not deuterocanonical.

Before 1st century CE, we do know though that the Jews do accept the Law of Moses, both venerated as a spiritual guideline and the communal laws. All Jews from Saducees to Pharisees to the other sects acknowledge the Torah. However, about the other books, many disputes happen btween the Jews.

And your primary sources from 150 BC to 100 AD to support this view are…
I know my content. So lets get started.

 

[SemperReformada]

My statement simply reflects on the simple notion that Scripture can authenticate itself as so widely believed by Sola Scripturists. Like you said, without the Septugint, how do we know? Being Catholics, we’re blessed to have a Church established by the same Christ, with both authority and traditions to show us how Scripture was compiled and how the Holy Spirit did it.

Not knowing how many versions of the LXX there were or what books were contained in the LXX at the time of Christ only means that we don’t know how many versions of the LXX there were or how many versions of the LXX there were…nothing else.

I’m not sure what you mean by scripture authenticating itself.

 

[UnityofTrinity]

What sources? I know which ones people claim as support and obviously I disagree. It would help if you would list a few.

Good. Now we have some content to address. It is generally felt that using the term canonical as it relates to the DSS is wrought with difficulties. The DSS scrolls have three books that would eventually be included in the Catholic canon. Not Judith. And Habakkuk is not deuterocanonical.

And your primary sources from 150 BC to 100 AD to support this view are…
I know my content. So lets get started.

Of course they do not have Habakkuk, nor Esther. My statements on the Dead Sea Scrolls is not to defend the Catholic canon, but rather to show how Judaism itself has different visions of Scripture before it was canonized in 1st century.

 

[UnityofTrinity]

Not knowing how many versions of the LXX there were or what books were contained in the LXX at the time of Christ only means that we don’t know how many versions of the LXX there were or how many versions of the LXX there were…nothing else.

I’m not sure what you mean by scripture authenticating itself.

My concern is not about the version, without the church, you are left burdened trying to know how the books got there knowing maybe the LXX is unknown.

However, there was the Church, so…

 

[Poco]

Interesting. Perhaps this is a good time to consider your existing presuppositions about the canon of the Jews? Perhaps… emphasis mine

And which canon would that be?

The “canon” of the Sadducees who only accepted the five books of Moses?

Or the “canon” of the Pharisees who not only accepted the five books of Moses but also those of the Prophets and the Writings?

In short, there was no Jewish canon.

 

[Poco]

And your primary sources from 150 BC to 100 AD to support this view are…
I know my content. So lets get started.

Well, you could start with this link.

And then you could take a look here.

Again, there was no accepted single Jewish canon that can even begin to be considered as a basis for the Christian OT. That is why Church councils met, guided by the Holy Spirit, to decide which books belong in the Bible. And the Church selected 46 OT books and 27 NT books.

 

[Salvatore123]

You know, the more I engage with the fundamentalist protestants about the canon of the bible - whether OT or NT - the more I really wonder if these people THINK about what they are saying. Can they be that possibly clueless as to the illogic of their arguments?

1. I hear one saying: “I believe you will find the Catholic and the Protestant rely on the same things but phrased differently and with slightly disagreeing areas of emphasis.”

Yet I never hear the BASIS for which they say they agree with Catholics on anything. If what we Catholics say happens to be what a particular protestant says he or she believes, then we Catholics must be correct. But it is never the other way around.

1. Can either Rightly or Semper PLEASE tell me:

A. When you claim the OT canon that YOU follow was “finalized”?
B. WHO finalized the OT canon that you follow?
C. How do you KNOW that the OT canon you follow is truly God’s word as far as the OT?
D. If you refer to some council or group of people meeting and agreeing over time - that doesn’t cut it, because you then have to answer or describe WHO gave that council or these groups of people the AUTHORITY to finalize and determine what was in that OT canon.

1. Can either Rightlly or Semper PLEASE tell me:

A. When do you claim (I mean an EXACT DATE) the NT canon was closed and formalized as the authentic word of God as preached in the NT?
B. WHO made the decision to close and formalize the NT canon? As with 2(D) above, don’t cite me some “council” or “councils” or “groups of people” who decided over time, and that some magical “unity over time” must have meant they were correct. God does not work that way and if he does, I would love to hear you tell me exactly how he does and when.
C. How do YOU know that the NT part of YOUR bible you read every week is actually correct in terms of books, chapters, verses, etc.? You do realize, I hope, that the original manuscripts/books/codices of the books of the bible had NO chapter numbers, NO book numbers, and NO verse numbers. So how, pray tell, do you explain “God’s hand” deciding which numbers are correct in terms of numbering and referencing certain books of the bible - OT or NT?

You see - you people cannot answer the question above legitimately. It cannot be done because logical ALWAYS slaps you in the face and you then resort to heretics such as Martin Luther who “suddenly saw the light” and decided that he not only wanted to remove OT books - Hell, he wanted to remove NT BOOKS!!! But I guess you guys overlook those inconvenient facts.

As soon as you abdicate authority of one source determining things for you such as authenticity of documents, canon of the bible, etc., you submit to the epidemic that has swept “protestantism” since the 1500’s. You guys couldn’t agree back then and you agree on even less today. That is why you have over 10,000 different “churches” with no firm allegience to one another on anything doctrinal or binding on the other.

I saw this happen with my wife’s church in Mississippi - a Southern Baptist Church in the backwoods where the parishoners topped 200 at most. In less than 10 years of MY knowing her, they church splintered into three groups because they disagreed over the interpretation of several verses of the bible (their bibles).

Now do you REALLY think that God intended to give man his word for us to study and follow and guide us to lead an upright life, and yet NOT make provision that man could be certain that what he was reading and studying and following was actually HIS WORD?

I really pity people who open their bibles and all they can do is hope and pray that what they are reading is God’s word.

I KNOW what I am reading is God’s word because God promised it to St. Peter, and St. Peter promised it down to those who followed him and his fellow Apostles. To think otherwise would mean that God left man in the “wilderness” for more than 1000 years until people such as Tynedale and Luther suddenly were struck with God’s knowledge and decided THEY, and ONLY THEY knew what God wanted.

“A book that authenticates itself.” That is truly so laughable that it is sad . . .

I would REALLY love to hear the answer to the question I posed earlier, or at least the questions I posed above.

Instead, I fully expect a retort along the lines of: “well you are just being obnoxious or don’t want to listen so I choose to not debate you”, or words to that effect.

As I said earlier: Logic can really be a slap in the face, huh?

P.S.

Semper said in relevant part: " does nothing to call into doubt the authenticity of any single book of the OT (Catholic or Protestant canons)"

Semper: WHAT AUTHENTICITY? WHO DECIDED THAT AUTHENTICITY? I can care less whose canoncity came first. I simply want to know who do YOU claim made a particular canon AUTHENTIC?

Please, please, please answer that for me . . . and as I said above, please don’t refer to some “council” or “group of people” because THAT is exactly what the Catholic Church consists of: Councils and “groups of people” (which we call the Magisterium). Just please tell me what convinces YOU that YOUR bible you have in YOUR hand is “truly sacred scripture” and how did that scripture come into being?

 

[SemperReformada]

You know, the more I engage with the fundamentalist protestants about the canon of the bible - whether OT or NT - the more I really wonder if these people THINK about what they are saying. Can they be that possibly clueless as to the illogic of their arguments?

You call me clueless and illogical and now expect me to dialogue with you…

 

[Poco]

You know, the more I engage with the fundamentalist protestants about the canon of the bible…

…Just please tell me what convinces YOU that YOUR bible you have in YOUR hand is “truly sacred scripture” and how did that scripture come into being?

I know I’m repeating myself, but…

Council of Rome 382 A.D.
Council of Carthage 397
Council of Carthage 419
Council of Nicea II 787
Council of Florence 1442
Council of Trent 1546 (canon closed)

Same 73 books every time.

 

[Rightlydivide]

Well, you could start with this link.

And then you could take a look here.

Again, there was no accepted single Jewish canon that can even begin to be considered as a basis for the Christian OT. That is why Church councils met, guided by the Holy Spirit, to decide which books belong in the Bible. And the Church selected 46 OT books and 27 NT books.

Nothing in those links disproves what I have said. Since we are linking, here is my link which addresses your statement
blueletterbible.org/faq/don_stewart/stewart.cfm?ID=396

So…tell me again why you believe this to be the case?

 

[UnityofTrinity]

Nothing in those links disproves what I have said. Since we are linking, here is my link which addresses your statement
blueletterbible.org/faq/don_stewart/stewart.cfm?ID=396

So…tell me again why you believe this to be the case?

Well, it would be interesting to understand how Scripture got to place, how the Jews cannonized Scripture when and where. The same for the NT. I just want to hear it from ur perspective.

 

[WFS5801]

I’m a Catholic convert who went to Protestant Bible College. I’ll make three quick points on this subject.

1. It is the LXX most commonly quoted in the New Testament. Before I became Catholic I often found myself scratching my head when I followed the New Testament Scriptural quotes to the Old Testament. They often only vaguely matched. When I first read out of my Catholic Bible I found the Old Testament matched the old Testament references. It was quite an eye-opener when I fully understood why they matched. Because that was the version the New Testament writers used when quoting Scripture.
2. Because the New Testament writers quoted Scripture from the LXX, we have a way to look into the actual wording of the LXX that then existed.

And…

1. The Book of Wisdom was written about 2 centuries before Christ. How then could it have had the following passage if not inspired?

“[12] Let us therefore lie in wait for the just, because he is not for our turn, and he is contrary to our doings, and upbraideth us with transgressions of the law, and divulgeth against us the sins of our way of life. [13] He boasteth that he hath the knowledge of God, and calleth himself the son of God. [14] He is become a censurer of our thoughts. [15] He is grievous unto us, even to behold: for his life is not like other men’s, and his ways are very different. [16] We are esteemed by him as triflers, and he abstaineth from our ways as from filthiness, and he preferreth the latter end of the just, and glorieth that he hath God for his father. [17] Let us see then if his words be true, and let us prove what shall happen to him, and we shall know what his end shall be. [18] For if he be the true son of God, he will defend him, and will deliver him from the hands of his enemies. [19] Let us examine him by outrages and tortures, that we may know his meekness and try his patience. [20] Let us condemn him to a most shameful death: for there shall be respect had unto him by his words.” (Wisdom 2:12-20)

Quite bluntly, this was the end of the debate for me.

There’s a good write-up on this passage at:

matt1618.freeyellow.com/wisdom2.html

 

[Salvatore123]

Poco,

You said:

"I know I’m repeating myself, but…

Council of Rome 382 A.D.
Council of Carthage 397
Council of Carthage 419
Council of Nicea II 787
Council of Florence 1442
Council of Trent 1546 (canon closed)

Same 73 books every time."

I don’t disagree with you . . . on the contrary, I DO agree with you. But because of one reason: although all of the councils you mention are not considered "ecumenical councils’ by the Catholic Church (we recognize 21), the first four you list are nevertheless considered “official” synods at which important matters were discussed - the primary of which were the canons of the bible.

As you list yourself as an Episcopalian I find it a bit “odd” (thought happily refreshing ) that you list the Council of Trent, which was a direct response, in part, to the founding of your own church - the Church of England.

The problem that you WILL encounter with those such as Rightly and Semper is that they will NEVER acknowledge the legitimacy of any of these councils as being “divinely inspired” or “guided” by the Holy Spirit, yet at the same time, they will never give you ANY particular date or event at which, for them, the OT canon or the NT canon became definitive.

To them, it just “happened” . . .

 

[Salvatore123]

WFS5801,

As Rightly and Semper will not answer any of the questions I posed in an earlier post (they are very few in number), would you mind revealing what YOU were taught as far as the answer to the questions I posed?

I want the answers - NOT to mock them - I simply really want to know what do protestants rely on in saying that the bible they have in their hand is inspired, when was it inspired, and how do they know it is inspired.

My questions are very pointed and don’t leave any “wiggle room”, so again, I would appreciate if you would answer.

 

[WFS5801]

WFS5801,

As Rightly and Semper will not answer any of the questions I posed in an earlier post (they are very few in number), would you mind revealing what YOU were taught as far as the answer to the questions I posed?

I want the answers - NOT to mock them - I simply really want to know what do protestants rely on in saying that the bible they have in their hand is inspired, when was it inspired, and how do they know it is inspired.

My questions are very pointed and don’t leave any “wiggle room”, so again, I would appreciate if you would answer.

I’ll try to answer – but really, it’s basically going to come down to this… Somehow God miraculously preserved the Bible until the Reformers could finally get it out to the people.

1. Can either Rightlly or Semper PLEASE tell me:

A. When you claim the OT canon that YOU follow was “finalized”?
B. WHO finalized the OT canon that you follow?
C. How do you KNOW that the OT canon you follow is truly God’s word as far as the OT?
D. If you refer to some council or group of people meeting and agreeing over time - that doesn’t cut it, because you then have to answer or describe WHO gave that council or these groups of people the AUTHORITY to finalize and determine what was in that OT canon.

A. Don’t know.
B. Don’t know.
C. Because God “somehow” preserved it through the centuries until the Reformers could reveal it to the people. (Never mind that Gutenburg was Catholic and the first book ever published was the Catholic Bible.)
D. (Not a question.)

1. Can either Rightlly or Semper PLEASE tell me:

A. When do you claim (I mean an EXACT DATE) the NT canon was closed and formalized as the authentic word of God as preached in the NT?
B. WHO made the decision to close and formalize the NT canon? As with 2(D) above, don’t cite me some “council” or “councils” or “groups of people” who decided over time, and that some magical “unity over time” must have meant they were correct. God does not work that way and if he does, I would love to hear you tell me exactly how he does and when.
C. How do YOU know that the NT part of YOUR bible you read every week is actually correct in terms of books, chapters, verses, etc.? You do realize, I hope, that the original manuscripts/books/codices of the books of the bible had NO chapter numbers, NO book numbers, and NO verse numbers. So how, pray tell, do you explain “God’s hand” deciding which numbers are correct in terms of numbering and referencing certain books of the bible - OT or NT?

A. Don’t know.
B. Don’t know.
C. Because God “somehow” preserved the Bible until the Reformers could give it to the people.

Honestly, in my church (Christian Church, the middle ground between the Churches of Christ (the ones who don’t allow musical instruments in church) and the Disciples of Christ – liberals who have women pastors) we didn’t study much Bible history before Wycliffe and Luther. It was kind of the vague, “there were always those who held to the true faith” – and the Widenesses were one of those groups (ridiculous, I know). Of course, none of them got it completely right until Alexander Campbell came along and really set out to “restore” the Church. Then someone mentioned how the gates of hell would not prevail against the Church and therefore it couldn’t be restored, so “restore” became kind of an “iffy” word for a while – even though the Campbell’s had used it all the time. Among some of the more traditional members of the church there was almost “King James only” doctrine (but not like some I’ve seen). Quite bluntly we almost treated the Bible like it came down from Heaven “as is.” And that’s about the sum of it. We honestly had faith that God “somehow” preserved the Bible until the time of the Reformers, who didn’t quite break away from Catholicism, but they made a “good start.”

The Campbellites (Christian Churches, Disciples of Christ, Churches of Christ) actually gleaned form the Bible the true purpose of baptism (remission of sins and reception of the Holy Spirit) and did not believe in “eternal security.” It was a common saying when I was a member, that we could “whip any Baptist with two axes and a .38.” (Acts 2:38) We actually spent quite a lot of time debating Baptists on “once saved – always saved” and immersion baptism for the remission of sins.

Sorry I can’t give you any more details, but Bible history basically just went back to the Reformation – and we were big on the Greek New Testament, the Hebrew Old Testament and Strong’s Concordance. And it was a big deal to get a Thompson Chain-Reference Study Bible. It’s been over 30 years since I left the Campbellites.

I should add something I just remembered. We did speak of the LXX and the various early manuscripts – we were aware of them. Then I think we jumped to the Greek and Hebrew at the time of the Reformation. One big leap. Our Church history basically went into a lot of detail about Acts, a very little bit about the Fathers (though I don’t think we used the term “Fathers”) and then almost a single jump to the Reformation, right over the “Dark Ages.”