Deutero-canonical / Apocryphal Books

[Byzman]

Interesting. I never thought I could win a debate with THREE people and yet…I am!
Lets look at what has been said about Josephus. The main crux appears to be that he does not cite who, where, and also would have rejected the NT canon. What Josephus does state is that there is a Jewish canon of 22 books. So it appears that Josephus will not convince anyone but instead is time the next bit of evidence presented. I should let people know that we will be looking at around 15 bits of evidence before we are done.
First, before I proceed, I need to clear up some statements others have made as there seems to be a belief stated by one of the people that Jamnia debated the Deuterocanonical books. I have provided a Catholic link refuting that.
If Jamnia existed in any form traditionally attributed to it…say 50 years ago…there is no evidence to support exactly what occured. Catholic apologists usually do not use it one way or another anymore. However, this is a public forum and people may not be up to speed.
Second, there is no evidence the LXX at the time of Christ contained the Deuterocanonical books. In this forum, not two years ago, the author of Why Catholic Bibles are Bigger stated he thought the Deuteros were in the LXX at the time of Christ. But he acknowledged that no one can prove it.
The oldest versions of the LXX, 300 years LATER than the era we are discussing, had some of the Deuteros. So we are to believe that they were in there 300 years earlier, and then some confusion and they were taken out?
These are just straightening out the facts presented.
So lets go to point number two.
If the NT calls books from the OT scripture, and they do, what made them scripture? Who did that? No one has answered this for an obvious reason.

You are right…no one can prove that the LXX had the Deuterocanonical books at the time of Christ. In fact, historians are saying that the Jewish scholars who went to Alexandria in the 3rd Century BC probably only translated the Torah into Greek. There is no evidence to show any other books were translated along with the Torah. The same scholars also say that the other books of the LXX, the wisdom books, the historical books, the prophets, were translated into Greek at a later time up to the 1st century BC. This actually is somewhat stated in the Prologue of Sirach(the mere fact that his grandson translated his work into Greek).

The fact shows, from what I stated in my previous post, is that the Jews had no closed canon but instead passed down separated books inherited by the Church and collected into a canon.

If I may ask a question, what books from the OT are called Scripture in the NT?

 

[Salvatore123]

Byzman,

All you have to do is go back 5 pages (at most) and you soon see that he will not answer a question even as simple as the one you pose.

The answer, of course, is “none” - but he doesn’t like that answer, so he skips it and moves along as though it is just “accepted” and “we all need to take Rightly’s word for it”

 

[Poco]

If I may ask a question, what books from the OT are called Scripture in the NT?

Interesting question. I couldn’t help but get out my “Strong’s Concordance” and search through the NT for scripture, scriptures, book and books.

A brief survey showed Salvatore is basically correct, “none”! The usual reference to the OT books is along the lines of “Scripture says…” or “according to Scripture…”. There are some references to the “book of Moses”, the “book of the law” and the “book of the prophets”. I also found a couple of references to the “book of Psalms” the “book of Isaiah” or the “book of the words of Isaiah the prophet”. But that is about it. You don’t ever see anything like, “According to Scripture, in the book of Exodus…”.

 

[Salvatore123]

Well Poco, why WOULD you "see anything like, “According to Scripture, in the book of Exodus…”.

According to Rightly, it is just so “obvious”

P.S. - continuing a thought I mentioned some time ago - just looking at the Hebrew OT canon and the fact that the protestants decided to follow it instead of the Catholic OT canon that was followed for 1500 years demonstrates how disingenuous they were about their removal process. Luther wanted James - James!!! taken out of the NT, and that book is FILLED with important teachings, but apparently Philemon needed to remain . . .

 

[Nicea325]

Interesting. I never thought I could win a debate with THREE people and yet…I am!
Lets look at what has been said about Josephus. The main crux appears to be that he does not cite who, where, and also would have rejected the NT canon. What Josephus does state is that there is a Jewish canon of 22 books. So it appears that Josephus will not convince anyone but instead is time the next bit of evidence presented. I should let people know that we will be looking at around 15 bits of evidence before we are done.
First, before I proceed, I need to clear up some statements others have made as there seems to be a belief stated by one of the people that Jamnia debated the Deuterocanonical books. I have provided a Catholic link refuting that.
If Jamnia existed in any form traditionally attributed to it…say 50 years ago…there is no evidence to support exactly what occured. Catholic apologists usually do not use it one way or another anymore. However, this is a public forum and people may not be up to speed.
Second, there is no evidence the LXX at the time of Christ contained the Deuterocanonical books. In this forum, not two years ago, the author of Why Catholic Bibles are Bigger stated he thought the Deuteros were in the LXX at the time of Christ. But he acknowledged that no one can prove it.
The oldest versions of the LXX, 300 years LATER than the era we are discussing, had some of the Deuteros. So we are to believe that they were in there 300 years earlier, and then some confusion and they were taken out?
These are just straightening out the facts presented.
So lets go to point number two.
If the NT calls books from the OT scripture, and they do, what made them scripture? Who did that? No one has answered this for an obvious reason.

LOL! A sure sign of DENIAL. Failure to answer is living proof you have NO evidence to back up your novelty. So I’ll ask you more time:

WHO is Josephus? Was he one of the leading figures? Was he involved in the process? What role did he play? Where are his statements clearly declaring or a mentioning the ratification of the OT canon? His opponents? The number of men involved in the process. By whose authority? The place and location? What group of Jews canonized it? Where are those references Rightlydivide? Nothing you quoted from him proves your argument because as I stated he never mentions a fixed and accepted canon set BEFORE him or during his lifetime.

Likewise, as I said in an earlier post:

What is my basis? Think about it,if you are stating Josephus is confirming a fixed canon,which means it was already fixed either **before **Josephus or during his life time.Hence,then it is obvious there must EXIST sources, other than Josephus, confirming it as a fact of ancient history. Thus these sources should confirm:

The specific Jews who fixed it (Sadducees,Pharisees,Essenes,etc)
The authority which they justified a fixed canon
The place and location
And more or less the year.

Where these writings by OTHERS tellings us all of these factors?

 

[Nicea325]

Rightly - the answer to your last question is simple:

You have refused - absolutely refused - to state WHO decided what books are OT scripture, WHEN it was decided that books are OT scripture, and WHAT AUTHORITY was given to those you claim decided that books are OT scripture.

You just cannot say, “well the NT says the books of the OT are scripture” (which no one disagrees with), and yet draw a conclusion from that “given” that the books RIGHTLY claims are OT scripture, are, in fact, OT scripture.

YOU adhere to sola scriptura. Where, in the NT, does it say which books should be in the OT?

Please quit patting yourself on the back and answer the questions put to you. Everyone has responded to everything you have asked and yet you have repeatedly refused to answer the primary questions put to you: WHO, WHAT, WHEN, BY WHAT AUTHORITY was the OT (and NT, for that matter) scripture determined?

Until you answer those, this so-called “debate-winning by Rightly” is a joke . . . and a bad one at that . . .

P.S. - I, too, can give obvious answers to questions that aren’t even in dispute. You say that “we won’t answer who made the NT canon”. Of course we will, and we have. The same person who made the OT canon: The Holy Spirit.

But that is not the point. NOT ONE PERSON IN THIS THREAD HAS CLAIMED THE HOLY SPIRIT IS NOT THE AUTHOR OF SCRIPTURE.

BUT YOU HAVE REFUSED TO TELL US HOW THE HOLY SPIRIT COMMUNICATED THAT DETERMINATION TO MAN. UNLESS YOU CAN POINT TO A DELIVERY MECHANISM LIKE GOD DID TO MOSES WITH THE TEN COMMANDMENTS, THEN YOU ARE OUT OF LUCK.

And look at the corner into which you painted yourself with your last question: You said the NT said the books of the OT were scripture, so the OT was scripture. But where do you look to tell you THAT THE BOOKS OF THE NT WERE SCRIPTURE?

Good grief, man. Can’t you see the illogic of your position? Are you that afraid of acknowledging that you cannot answer the questions put to you by us repeatedly, because YOU HAVE NO ANSWERS. ANY person who is truly as sure of himself as you are would have gladly answered the questions put to you long ago. Now you appear running away, and it is becoming quite sad to see this . . .

Trust me…he will dance around it again. Fact is that he never answered me in the past and why? Because he does not have iota of evidence to answer our questions…NONE! So in essence,we win…again…:dancing::tiphat:

 

[UnityofTrinity]

It somehow seem to me that Rightly would rather accept the authority of a long dead anti-Christian Jewish historian rather than accepting the authority of the Church Fathers and the Church itself. However, what authority does Josephus have? I think Rightly swung from one pole to the other many times. First he stated we can’t know what’s in the LXX, next he stated that the LXX does not contain the Deuteros(which I still don’t understand why, he probably should look into also the Orthodox traditions), then he swings to the claim of Josephus.

However, let’s us get done with the OT, provided maybe Jews can decide the Old Testament, who had the authority to compile and recognize the NT texts(under the Holy Spirit of course)? Who? At this point most Sola Scripturists will either flee or give you the silence treatement, either because they do not know or because they simply does not want to acknowledge it, for acknowledging history would compel them to accept the authority of the Catholic Church. This probably the reason why most Protestant colleges only teach church history post-reformation.

 

[WFS5801]

Interesting. I never thought I could win a debate with THREE people and yet…I am!

If you can interpret “winning” by completely ignoring your opponent’s points. Personally I call that stonewalling – which is a defensive position.

But just one question… From whom, exactly, do you think the Protestants got “their” New Testament Canon?

 

[Rightlydivide]

You are right…no one can prove that the LXX had the Deuterocanonical books at the time of Christ. In fact, historians are saying that the Jewish scholars who went to Alexandria in the 3rd Century BC probably only translated the Torah into Greek. There is no evidence to show any other books were translated along with the Torah. The same scholars also say that the other books of the LXX, the wisdom books, the historical books, the prophets, were translated into Greek at a later time up to the 1st century BC. This actually is somewhat stated in the Prologue of Sirach(the mere fact that his grandson translated his work into Greek).

The fact shows, from what I stated in my previous post, is that the Jews had no closed canon but instead passed down separated books inherited by the Church and collected into a canon.

If I may ask a question, what books from the OT are called Scripture in the NT?

Its a good question. I do not have a comprehensive list but I could find a couple in my Bible that is marked. I am on vacation and water slides and so forth are keeping me busy.
There are several passages in the Bible that come to mind. There is different phrasing used by different authors. But here are some
1st Peter 1:16 refers to a passage in Leviticus 11. It states “it is written”
Hebrews 5:6 is referring to Psalms (this actually occurs a number of places in Hebrews)
Galatians 4:27 is from Isaiah
I wonder based upon your question if I phrased my previous statements precisely enough.
Let me try again in case I messed up. We are, as you are aware, discussing whether or not the canon was closed. I am outnumbered obviously but winning. Bluster keeps me motivated…I grew up watching professional wrestling with my family…its in my blood.
But I digress…
I have tried to move onto my next point. In numerous places, the New Testament quotes the Old Testament in a manner that I believe clearly shows that the quote is considered scriptural. I do not think I am being overaly anachronistic when I state it as such.
Well, obviously no one else thinks the canon was closed.
However clearly something had occured that made these writings considered scripture by the early Christians and of course the Jews. So, what was that? What made the scripture accepted by the Jews scripture?
While I believe we disagree, I do like that you seem to not just parrot internet sites but have looked into this matter.
Have I answered your question?

 

[Rightlydivide]

If you can interpret “winning” by completely ignoring your opponent’s points. Personally I call that stonewalling – which is a defensive position.

But just one question… From whom, exactly, do you think the Protestants got “their” New Testament Canon?

Why should I answer yours when you have not answered mine? It will just cause you to ignore my question again. Its the route you do not want to take.
But its any easy one. The New Testament canon came from God. The earliest Christians recognized it as such in differeing degrees over the course of the next 600 years until all groups recognize the same New Testament. Local regional synods were part of the process but not the process. They held close to half a dozen and none were authoratative for the whole church. If they were, only one would have been needed. The Catholic Church settled their canon officially, OT is seems to me, at Trent based upon the Reformers challenging the incorrect canon of the Catholics. None of the other branches of Christianity did anything as official as Trent. Although I could be wrong because for some reason I think the Anglicans might have done something similiar to this.
I have not studied them that extensively.

 

[Little_Mary]

Why should I answer yours when you have not answered mine? It will just cause you to ignore my question again. Its the route you do not want to take.
But its any easy one. The New Testament canon came from God. The earliest Christians recognized it as such in differeing degrees over the course of the next 600 years until all groups recognize the same New Testament. Local regional synods were part of the process but not the process. They held close to half a dozen and none were authoratative for the whole church. If they were, only one would have been needed. The Catholic Church settled their canon officially, OT is seems to me, at Trent based upon the Reformers challenging the incorrect canon of the Catholics. None of the other branches of Christianity did anything as official as Trent. Although I could be wrong because for some reason I think the Anglicans might have done something similiar to this.
I have not studied them that extensively.

Master dodger…

 

[Rightlydivide]

It somehow seem to me that Rightly would rather accept the authority of a long dead anti-Christian Jewish historian rather than accepting the authority of the Church Fathers and the Church itself. However, what authority does Josephus have? I think Rightly swung from one pole to the other many times. First he stated we can’t know what’s in the LXX, next he stated that the LXX does not contain the Deuteros(which I still don’t understand why, he probably should look into also the Orthodox traditions), then he swings to the claim of Josephus.

However, let’s us get done with the OT, provided maybe Jews can decide the Old Testament, who had the authority to compile and recognize the NT texts(under the Holy Spirit of course)? Who? At this point most Sola Scripturists will either flee or give you the silence treatement, either because they do not know or because they simply does not want to acknowledge it, for acknowledging history would compel them to accept the authority of the Catholic Church. This probably the reason why most Protestant colleges only teach church history post-reformation.

Of course I do not accept the authority of the Catholic Church. Only the Catholic Church accepts its authority…no one else would. But then the same could be said of any group.
As far as your statement about colleges, that would have taken some serious research to establish. Are we referring to regionally accredited, ATS, DETC, or TRACS schools?

 

[Rightlydivide]

Master dodger…

I think my answer is concise. In the meantime, since no one wants to answer my question, you could. I do not mind. I am not particular. Any Catholic, regardless of rite, adherence to Catholic teaching, or gender is welcome to answer.

 

[Rightlydivide]

It somehow seem to me that Rightly would rather accept the authority of a long dead anti-Christian Jewish historian rather than accepting the authority of the Church Fathers and the Church itself. However, what authority does Josephus have? I think Rightly swung from one pole to the other many times. First he stated we can’t know what’s in the LXX, next he stated that the LXX does not contain the Deuteros(which I still don’t understand why, he probably should look into also the Orthodox traditions), then he swings to the claim of Josephus.

However, let’s us get done with the OT, provided maybe Jews can decide the Old Testament, who had the authority to compile and recognize the NT texts(under the Holy Spirit of course)? Who? At this point most Sola Scripturists will either flee or give you the silence treatement, either because they do not know or because they simply does not want to acknowledge it, for acknowledging history would compel them to accept the authority of the Catholic Church. This probably the reason why most Protestant colleges only teach church history post-reformation.

There is no proof that the LXX at the time of Christ contained the Deuteros. There just isn’t.

 

[Rightlydivide]

You are right…no one can prove that the LXX had the Deuterocanonical books at the time of Christ. ?

Thank you. While we obviously disagree about my conclusions, thankfully we have someone who has studied this enough to know.

 

[WFS5801]

Why should I answer yours when you have not answered mine? It will just cause you to ignore my question again. Its the route you do not want to take.

What question, specifically, haven’t I answered? I’ll be more than happy to answer it if you would be kind enough to tell me what it is.

But its any easy one. The New Testament canon came from God. The earliest Christians recognized it as such in differeing degrees over the course of the next 600 years until all groups recognize the same New Testament. Local regional synods were part of the process but not the process. They held close to half a dozen and none were authoratative for the whole church. If they were, only one would have been needed. The Catholic Church settled their canon officially, OT is seems to me, at Trent based upon the Reformers challenging the incorrect canon of the Catholics. None of the other branches of Christianity did anything as official as Trent. Although I could be wrong because for some reason I think the Anglicans might have done something similiar to this.
I have not studied them that extensively.

So it just happened that all the Councils (from about 387 A.D.) agreed on the New Testament and Old Testament Canons, but it wasn’t “official” until the Council of Trent? Uh… huh. The point is, those other Councils had already decided what was Canon, whether you want to “strain at a gnat and swallow a camel” or not. Yes, the Council of Trent dealt with the subject – once again – because the Protestants challenged a Canon that was in constant use for over a thousand years. But the Council of Trent dealt with many other doctrinal issues that had only become “controversial” because of the Reformation. That’s the whole point of Councils.

Admit it, you have nothing. There was no process by which the Protestants “made their Canon” or decided what was “God-breathed.” It’s true that some Reformers attempted to make these decisions by removing some of the New Testament books from the Bible – or at least relegating them to an inferior position (“epistle of straw” come to mind?). In the end they accepted the New Testament Canon that was handed down to them by the Church. A Church that Protestants contend was corrupt – and yet they somehow preserved the true New Testament for them. Odd, that. And they could have inherited the true Old Testament from the Catholics as well, but passages in some of the books in it disagreed with their new, made-up doctrines.

I think I’ll just declare myself the “winner” now. That’s the way it works, isn’t it?

 

[Rightlydivide]

What question, specifically, haven’t I answered? I’ll be more than happy to answer it if you would be kind enough to tell me what it is.

So it just happened that all the Councils (from about 387 A.D.) agreed on the New Testament and Old Testament Canons, but it wasn’t “official” until the Council of Trent? Uh… huh. The point is, those other Councils had already decided what was Canon, whether you want to “strain at a gnat and swallow a camel” or not. Yes, the Council of Trent dealt with the subject – once again – because the Protestants challenged a Canon that was in constant use for over a thousand years. But the Council of Trent dealt with many other doctrinal issues that had only become “controversial” because of the Reformation. That’s the whole point of Councils.

Admit it, you have nothing. There was no process by which the Protestants “made their Canon” or decided what was “God-breathed.” It’s true that some Reformers attempted to make these decisions by removing some of the New Testament books from the Bible – or at least relegating them to an inferior position (“epistle of straw” come to mind?). In the end they accepted the New Testament Canon that was handed down to them by the Church. A Church that Protestants contend was corrupt – and yet the somehow the true New Testament from them. Odd, that. And they could have inherited the true Old Testament from the Catholics as well, but passages in some the books in it disagreed with their new, made-up doctrines.

I think I’ll just declare myself the “winner” now. That’s the way it works, isn’t it?

Seriously? Come on…okay I am willing to go out on a limb again.
What made the OT books scripture? Based upon the NT, the writers are referring to them as such. This is a long time before any council.
Thanks. You have my hopes up. I have been trying to go onto point two but no one will cooperate. Heck, I might even be able to move onto point three!

 

[WFS5801]

There is no proof that the LXX at the time of Christ contained the Deuteros. There just isn’t.

No, you’re making that up out of whole cloth. The Canon of the LXX was completed by at least 100 BC. All the Deuteros were in it.

 

[Rightlydivide]

No, you’re making that up out of whole cloth. The Canon of the LXX was completed by at least 100 BC. All the Deuteros were in it.

Really? How do you know that?

 

[WFS5801]

Seriously? Come on…okay I am willing to go out on a limb again.
What made the OT books scripture? Based upon the NT, the writers are referring to them as such. This is a long time before any council.
Thanks. You have my hopes up. I have been trying to go onto point two but no one will cooperate. Heck, I might even be able to move onto point three!

The same thing that made the New Testament books Scriptural – they were God-breathed. But there was controversy about which books were God-breathed and which weren’t. Moses did not come down from the mountain and hand us a complete Bible. In both the Catholic Church and in Judaism somebody or somebodies decided which books were inspired and which weren’t. It so happened that Jews rejected books that had been treated as Scripture by other Jews for centuries – Scripture that happened to point more clearly to the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ. The Catholics, on the other hand, accepted them. You can take the side of the Jews, if you wish, but you can’t say (as you have) that the Christians accepted the Jewish Canon for 350 years. That statement is flatly false. I’ve shown that, right from the beginning, St. Justin Martyr (and other Fathers of the Church) pointed out the differences between the Jewish and Christian Canon. You chose to ignore that evidence. You’ve also been shown that the Jews did not set their Canon until after Christ’s death. You’ve also been told that not only was the LXX used in the Church, but passages from the Deuteros were also used in New Testament writings. You chose to ignore that also. You refuse to engage on any point that you find inconvenient.

Now, if I’m good enough to answer your leading questions, in the way you want them to be answered, “we can make progress.” Right?

But, go ahead, ask the questions – I’ll answer them.