Deutero-canonical / Apocryphal Books

[Rightlydivide]

In both the Catholic Church and in Judaism somebody or somebodies decided which books were inspired and which weren’t.
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.

Who were the somebodies in Judaism?

 

[Byzman]

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?

According to your reasoning than, the Book of Enoch should be considered Scripture, for Jude quotes from this book specifically. Also many Catholics or Orthodox can find and point to many references to the Deuterocanonical Books in the NT. Again, according to what you just wrote, anytime when something in the NT refers to the OT, that book should be considered scripture. I asked my question earlier to point out that no book in the NT says that a certain book of the OT is indeed Scripture…if you can find one…please show me. I am, first, a Theology Major, so I am always up for academic correction. Second, I am a seeker of truth. I find truth in Jesus Christ and His Church(sorry, just a side note).

I think your last question here should be all the more reason for you to ask, and continue to ask yourself(indeed, everyone should continue to ask themselves) what indeed makes these certain books inspired scripture. Of course, the first simple answer is God did. But again, how do we really know?

 

[Byzman]

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, that 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.

Yes, this is indeed true that Justin Martry did point out that the Jews were messing around with the Scriptures.

What also is of interest to note is that St. Clement, who wrote his letter to the Corinthians before John the Apostle died, qoutes the book of Wisdom and mentions the blessed Judith.

 

[WFS5801]

Really? How do you know that?

Because the LXX Manuscripts that were passed down include these books.

 

[WFS5801]

Who were the somebodies in Judaism?

I would imagine the elders of the Jewish religion at some point. I’m really more interested in how Christians got their Canon of the Bible.

But a quick Google search produces the following:

Council of Jamnia

For a long time it was believed that the Hebrew Bible was closed at the end of the 1st century CE. It was believed that a group of Rabbis made an official binding decision at a gathering known as “the Council of Jamnia.”

Jacob Neusner published books in 1987 and 1988 that argued that the notion of a biblical canon was not prominent in 2nd-century Rabbinic Judaism or even later and instead that a notion of Torah was expanded to include the Mishnah, Tosefta, Jerusalem Talmud, Babylonian Talmud and midrashim.[17]

Michael Barber writes that “today, it is largely recognized that there is virtually no evidence that such a “council” ever occurred. While some Rabbis may have gathered in Jamnia at the end of the 1st century C. E. to discuss the status of some disputed books such as Ecclesiastes or Song of Songs, they most certainly did not make any binding decisions about the canon. This is apparent in the fact that rabbinic debate over the canon continued to rage on until 200 C. E.!”.[11]

Thus, there is no scholarly consensus as to when the Jewish canon was set. Nevertheless, the outcomes attributed to the Council of Jamnia did occur whether gradually or as the ruling of a definitive, authoritative council. Several concerns of the remaining Jewish communities in Israel would have been the loss of the national language, the growing problem of conversions to Christianity, based in part on Christian promises of life after death. What emerged from this era was twofold:

1. A rejection of the Septuagint or Koine Greek Old Testament widely then in use among the Hellenized diaspora along with its additional books not part of the Hebrew language Masoretic Text.

1. The inclusion of a curse on the “Minim” which probably included Jewish Christians.[18] According to the Jewish Encyclopedia article on Minim:[19] "In passages referring to the Christian period, “minim” usually indicates the Judæo-Christians,…

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_canon

I’ll take their word for it. To recap, they say 1) The Council of Jamnia (if it occurred) never fixed a Jewish Canon. 2) That the notion of an Old Testament Canon was unknown to the Rabbinic Judaism of the 2nd Century. 3) That instead of a Canon of all Hebrew books in the Bible, the Rabbis were intent on expanding the Torah to include Mishnah, Tosefta, Jerusalem Talmud, Babylonian Talmud and midrashim. 4) That if the Council took place it was to discuss Ecclesiastes and Song of Songs, but nothing was settled on this as the debate continued for at least another century. 5) There is no consensus of when a Jewish Canon was fixed (apparently no one knows). 6) What was settled at this time (near the end of the 1st century) was the rejection of the LXX and the additional books in it. and 7) A curse was written against Judeo-Christians and others.

So we see that, at this time – about 90 A.D. – the Jews rejected the LXX and its additional books. So, the conclusion (obviously) is that those were still included in the LXX at that time – they couldn’t have rejected what wasn’t there.

Do you know when the Jews fixed their Canon? And by whom?

 

[Poco]

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.

Your question has been answered many times. Perhaps you missed my post #158.

Again, I know I’m repeating myself, but…

From “The New Jerome Biblical Commentary” © 1990, 1968 Prentice-Hall, Inc.

page 1041

40 (V) The Ancient Christian Canon of the Old Testament. The conclusion that there was no rigidly closed canon in Judaism in the 1st and early 2nd cents. AD means that when the church was in its formative period and was using the sacred books of the Jews, there was no closed canon for the church to adopt.

41 After the NT period (i.e. 50-150), the Christian church continued to cite the Scriptures according to the LXX; and since the LXX itself reflected the lack of a rigidly fixed canon in Judaism, the early Christian writers had no sharp guidelines. The oft-repeated thesis that from the beginning all Christians agreed on the exact canon and that only later doubts arose about certain books has little to recommend it. Such a thesis is based on the assumption that the contents of the canon were revealed to the apostles – an unwarranted assumption, probably flowing from a misunderstanding that revelation was closed in the apostolic era. (-> 17 above).

In the late 4th cent., the Western church, as witnessed in the North African councils of Hippo and Carthage, accepted a fixed number of OT books including some deuterocanonicals found in the LXX mss.

• emphasis mine

 

[Humble_Pie]

Rightlydivide, I’ve been reading through these posts and I’m a little confused… In Post #11, you said this:

Rightlydivide:

The contents of the LXX at the time of Christ are unknown.

But in Post #138 you said this:

Rightlydivide:

The LXX of the time of Christ did not contain the Deuterocanonical books.

I’m going to give you the benefit of the doubt that there’s a reason for this inconsistency, but it might help everyone if you clearly identify whatever your point is (since it seems to be all over the place).

I will make this last point for everyone, though. I’m very new at these forums, but from what I’ve gathered so far, the following statements are not in refute:

1. The deuterocanonical texts were composed before the birth of Christ and were widely circulating in greek speaking Jewish communities by the time of Our Lord’s birth.
2. Jesus quotes from the LXX in the NT.
3. The codices of the LXX that we have today (dating back to around the 4th century) not only include the deuterocanonicals, they also do not isolate the deuterocanonical books as a group but mixes them in with the prophets and the writings.

What Rightlydivide seems to be suggesting is that because Jesus doesn’t quote from the deuteros, however he does quote from the LXX, that somehow these texts, which were in circulation before Christ, somehow were rejected by Christ and his early followers, disappeared for the first three centuries of Christianity before being inexplicably re-introduced to the LXX.

It just doesn’t seem plausable. Someone help me understand this.

 

[Salvatore123]

This is MY last shot at it - I will try another angle.

Rightly, I am pretty sure that you believe that Jesus Christ was God’s son, one person of three in the Holy Trinity, and that his coming and death was for the Redemption of mankind and to establish a new convenant between God and man so that man could know how to live the way that God wanted, through Christ’s teaching and Church.

Now, setting aside whether the Catholic Church is what we Catholics call it and believe it is, I am hoping you agree, also, that Christ was either one of two things:

(1) someone who told the truth about who he was and his purpose

or

(2) a liar or lunatic (assuming he suffered from some mental disease)

Let’s face it - if Christ was NOT who he claimed to be, then one would have to say he was the bigggest fraud or biggest lunatic who walked the earth, to have made such claims.

Now, please enlighten me why YOU believe that Christ was who he said he was. You keep asking for proof from us Catholics about the canonicity of the OT and NT. But I want YOU to please enlighten me about what YOU base your faith on.

I hope you see what I am getting at.

You have repeatedly said things such as “well scripture said it was scripture”, “the NT obviously talked about the OT”, “Christ and his Apostles knew what scripture was then they saw it”, but you have also repeatedly danced around the all important “IT”.

What, exactly, is “IT” for you, in terms of your beliefs? What happened to make YOU believe that was not present for ALL the Jews in Jesus’s time to believe? Not every Jew was someone crying out for Jesus’s blood. I am sure there were many elderly and young Jews who, in good faith, simply did not accept Christ as the Redeemer because they thought of their Redeemer as being someone meant to come overthrow the yoke of tyranny off their back instead of someone sent to help them with a way to conquer sin - which is WAY more important than having been subjected to Roman rule.

As I started out above - this is my last shot at this. So I am trying a different approach with you. If you are game, and you answer my questions above, then this won’t take long.

You have laid out quite a bit of rope and I just want to make sure that YOU are aware of just how much “hanging rope” you set out there with your statements of how many things are just so “obvious” . . . which I promise to do quickly

 

[Humble_Pie]

Also, regarding Josephus’ 22 book canon, don’t forget that this doesn’t match the modern Hebrew Bible, so either Josephus was wrong about which books are in the Bible, or modern day Jews are.

Which one is it?

 

[Nicea325]

Also, regarding Josephus’ 22 book canon, don’t forget that this doesn’t match the modern Hebrew Bible, so either Josephus was wrong about which books are in the Bible, or modern day Jews are.

Which one is it?

Exactly!

 

[Nicea325]

This is MY last shot at it - I will try another angle.

Rightly, I am pretty sure that you believe that Jesus Christ was God’s son, one person of three in the Holy Trinity, and that his coming and death was for the Redemption of mankind and to establish a new convenant between God and man so that man could know how to live the way that God wanted, through Christ’s teaching and Church.

Now, setting aside whether the Catholic Church is what we Catholics call it and believe it is, I am hoping you agree, also, that Christ was either one of two things:

(1) someone who told the truth about who he was and his purpose

or

(2) a liar or lunatic (assuming he suffered from some mental disease)

Let’s face it - if Christ was NOT who he claimed to be, then one would have to say he was the bigggest fraud or biggest lunatic who walked the earth, to have made such claims.

Now, please enlighten me why YOU believe that Christ was who he said he was. You keep asking for proof from us Catholics about the canonicity of the OT and NT. But I want YOU to please enlighten me about what YOU base your faith on.

I hope you see what I am getting at.

You have repeatedly said things such as “well scripture said it was scripture”, “the NT obviously talked about the OT”, “Christ and his Apostles knew what scripture was then they saw it”, but you have also repeatedly danced around the all important “IT”.

What, exactly, is “IT” for you, in terms of your beliefs? What happened to make YOU believe that was not present for ALL the Jews in Jesus’s time to believe? Not every Jew was someone crying out for Jesus’s blood. I am sure there were many elderly and young Jews who, in good faith, simply did not accept Christ as the Redeemer because they thought of their Redeemer as being someone meant to come overthrow the yoke of tyranny off their back instead of someone sent to help them with a way to conquer sin - which is WAY more important than having been subjected to Roman rule.

As I started out above - this is my last shot at this. So I am trying a different approach with you. If you are game, and you answer my questions above, then this won’t take long.

You have laid out quite a bit of rope and I just want to make sure that YOU are aware of just how much “hanging rope” you set out there with your statements of how many things are just so “obvious” . . . which I promise to do quickly

As you can see,my questions also went unanswered? I guess that pretty sums it up. His refusal to answer our questions is confirmation he has no answers due to a lack of evidence. The fact he bases his argument one quote from Josephus is rather weak. He asked why I believe Josephus is weak and I guess my answer was still not enough? I have learned that revisionist never can get past their arguments,despite history being against them.

 

[Rightlydivide]

According to your reasoning than, the Book of Enoch should be considered Scripture, for Jude quotes from this book specifically. Also many Catholics or Orthodox can find and point to many references to the Deuterocanonical Books in the NT. Again, according to what you just wrote, anytime when something in the NT refers to the OT, that book should be considered scripture. I asked my question earlier to point out that no book in the NT says that a certain book of the OT is indeed Scripture…if you can find one…please show me. I am, first, a Theology Major, so I am always up for academic correction. Second, I am a seeker of truth. I find truth in Jesus Christ and His Church(sorry, just a side note).

I think your last question here should be all the more reason for you to ask, and continue to ask yourself(indeed, everyone should continue to ask themselves) what indeed makes these certain books inspired scripture. Of course, the first simple answer is God did. But again, how do we really know?

No we are not talking about references. I know better than that. Look at the language of the quotes I provided. They are different. I assume you did look at them…
But if that is not sufficient or to simplify, lets look at Matthew 22
Christ says “Ye do err, not knowing the scriptures”. He then refers directly to Exodus.
So the point I was making is that prior to any council, we have scripture in the OT being referred to as scripture. I was curious if the people debating me knew what made scripture scripture prior to Christ.

 

[Rightlydivide]

I would imagine the elders of the Jewish religion at some point. I’m really more interested in how Christians got their Canon of the Bible.

But a quick Google search produces the following:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_canon

I’ll take their word for it. To recap, they say 1) The Council of Jamnia (if it occurred) never fixed a Jewish Canon. 2) That the notion of an Old Testament Canon was unknown to the Rabbinic Judaism of the 2nd Century. 3) That instead of a Canon of all Hebrew books in the Bible, the Rabbis were intent on expanding the Torah to include Mishnah, Tosefta, Jerusalem Talmud, Babylonian Talmud and midrashim. 4) That if the Council took place it was to discuss Ecclesiastes and Song of Songs, but nothing was settled on this as the debate continued for at least another century. 5) There is no consensus of when a Jewish Canon was fixed (apparently no one knows). 6) What was settled at this time (near the end of the 1st century) was the rejection of the LXX and the additional books in it. and 7) A curse was written against Judeo-Christians and others.

So we see that, at this time – about 90 A.D. – the Jews rejected the LXX and its additional books. So, the conclusion (obviously) is that those were still included in the LXX at that time – they couldn’t have rejected what wasn’t there.

Do you know when the Jews fixed their Canon? And by whom?

You have succinctly described some common assumptions and beliefs. But you are wrong about the LXX. The earliest versions contain different books. Those versions are 300 years after the fact. There is no evidence. Now should we move onto point three?

 

[Rightlydivide]

Also, regarding Josephus’ 22 book canon, don’t forget that this doesn’t match the modern Hebrew Bible, so either Josephus was wrong about which books are in the Bible, or modern day Jews are.

Which one is it?

askelm.com/restoring/res005.htm

 

[Nicea325]

You have succinctly described some common assumptions and beliefs. But you are wrong about the LXX. The earliest versions contain different books. Those versions are 300 years after the fact. There is no evidence. Now should we move onto point three?

And you are DEAD WRONG about the OT canon. The fact you never answered my questions is ample proof you have no sound evidence to rebuke my questions. None! You have zlich evidence the Jews canonized the OT before Jesus…ZILCH! Josephus? Please! No where does Josephus declare the Jews finalized the canon…NO WHERE!

Stop assuming what really happened and accept the facts at face value. Revising history is being disingenious.

 

[WFS5801]

You have succinctly described some common assumptions and beliefs. But you are wrong about the LXX. The earliest versions contain different books. Those versions are 300 years after the fact. There is no evidence. Now should we move onto point three?

I’m supposedly “wrong” about the LXX? And, apparently, so is everyone else but you? At this point, in a normal debate, you would provide evidence to counter the evidence cited by me. I’m not citing evidence from the Catholic Church here. I’m citing evidence from Jewish scholars about their own Canon. You completely ignore the evidence and dismiss it by simply saying it’s “wrong.” Which means of course, almost everyone who has studied the subject must also,* in your opinion,* be “wrong.” I’m sorry, but in a debate you’re not just allowed to make a blanket statement, you must support it with evidence.

But I’ll leave it at this and we can go on. According to the scholars who actually can cite evidence, you are wrong about the Deuterocanonicals in the LXX. They were indeed there and were later removed by the Jews, along with the rest of the LXX.

But let’s go on to your point three. Before we do that, however, may I ask – exactly – what were points one and two?

 

[Rightlydivide]

Now, please enlighten me why YOU believe that Christ was who he said he was. You keep asking for proof from us Catholics about the canonicity of the OT and NT. But I want YOU to please enlighten me about what YOU base your faith on.
What, exactly, is “IT” for you, in terms of your beliefs? What happened to make YOU believe that was not present for ALL the Jews in Jesus’s time to believe?

I have given my testimony on here before at length. I wish I had saved it.
For most of my life, I was indifferent to religion. About twenty years ago, I become actively antagonistic towards Christianity in particular. I was becoming increasingly dependent on alcohol and barbiturates. Two events triggered my anger; the molestation of my younger cousin by a Christian minister and my adoption of Ayn Rand’s philosophy as what made sense of the world. I wrote a few tracts and placed them on windowshields and began formal debates on college campuses with Christian ministers.
In the meantime my personal addictions were causing a myraid of physical problems. I do not talk specifically about that time but I live, for now, still physically damaged from my choices. After my diagnosis, I went further into my addictions.
A friend from grad school ran into me and shared the gospel about ten years ago. I listened. For no particular reason accept I can only imagine the Holy Spirit I said the prayer and became a Christian. If you are familiar with the Roman Road, you would know the essential process.
I sat down and certainly didn’t feel any different. That night for the first time in perhaps 15 years I did not get into my car and go to places I always went to. I did not feel like it. Maybe the prayer had worked I thought.
I went ahead and went to the Bible study the man who led me to Christ was conducting. I started to feel a real change in every aspect of my life.
So I did something that I had never done before, I read the whole Bible. In a week. Somewhere in Numbers I believe, I put it down and said a prayer about believing. And I did. I have since believed everything it says. I had a brief period with higher scholarship and Spong and Crossan that caused a little doubt but not for too long.
My relationship to Christ is based upon Him changing my entire life.

 

[Rightlydivide]

I’m supposedly “wrong” about the LXX? And, apparently, so is everyone else but you? At this point, in a normal debate, you would provide evidence to counter the evidence cited by me. I’m not citing evidence from the Catholic Church here. I’m citing evidence from Jewish scholars about their own Canon. You completely ignore the evidence and dismiss it by simply saying it’s “wrong.” Which means of course, almost everyone who has studied the subject must also,* in your opinion,* be “wrong.” I’m sorry, but in a debate you’re not just allowed to make a blanket statement, you must support it with evidence.

But I’ll leave it at this and we can go on. According to the scholars who actually can cite evidence, you are wrong about the Deuterocanonicals in the LXX. They were indeed there and were later removed by the Jews, along with the rest of the LXX.

But let’s go on to your point three. Before we do that, however, may I ask – exactly – what were points one and two?

Josephus.
NT calls OT scripture (this is developed later). I have had this debate before.

 

[Rightlydivide]

And you are DEAD WRONG about the OT canon. The fact you never answered my questions is ample proof you have no sound evidence to rebuke my questions. None! You have zlich evidence the Jews canonized the OT before Jesus…ZILCH! Josephus? Please! No where does Josephus declare the Jews finalized the canon…NO WHERE!

Stop assuming what really happened and accept the facts at face value. Revising history is being disingenious.

I am developing my case point by point. I am right about the OT canon. I will prove it over the course of the next 100 posts! It takes time.

 

[Salvatore123]

Rightly,

I am truly thankful that you turned your life around that you “conquered your demons”. I wish you the best.

At the same time, I am exiting this “debate” because you told me what I was afraid I would hear: that you suddenly said a prayer one day, “felt” the Lord, read the Bible, and now you know more than the best minds in the history of the world (St. Thomas Aquinas, St. Augustine, St. Thomas More, Venerable Cardinal Henry Newman, G.K. Chesterton, et al.).

NO ONE can win a debate when one side uses “feelings” and the other side calls for but gets no facts. I cannot convince you that your “feelings” are wrong - I would never presume to do so. I simply thought that you (based on what you said) were an educated person and that based on a higher education, you understood the basic principles of logic and rhetoric (which have been around since the days of Aristotle).

I will point out WHY you would lose a formal debate. You have not been losing what I thought was going to be a debate on the OT/NT canon - you have simply refused to participate. Debates require evidence. Evidence consists of facts or documents. You have presented neither.

If you REALLY wanted to have an honest discussion about the OT canon, you have LONG since answered the following that I asked you long ago:

1. WHO determined what the OT canon would be? If you say “God” or “the Holy Spirit”, then tell me WHAT PEOPLE - NAMES - that God or the Holy spirit communicated that canon to.
2. For the people that you list in response to No. 1 above, tell me BY WHAT AUTHORITY did these people have to tell/teach/determine for the rest of the world that the OT canon was X or Y or Z.
3. WHEN did the people you listed in response to No. 1 above make the canon-determination known to everyone else? A year is fine - you don’t have to give a month or a day.

So, without answering the above questions - which calls for evidence, Rightly - evidence you so painfully lack - there can be no further debate (at least for me).

Good luck.