Deutero-Canonical books

  • Thread starter Thread starter lsburk
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
L

lsburk

Guest
In a recent discussion with a Lutheran friend of mine, he cited how the deutero-canonical books, or the apocrypha, were added later after the bible had already been assembled. He used this as a means of challenging the interpreting authority of the Church. I plan to buy a book or two to study this further but can you give me a reply to this challenge.

Scott
 
40.png
lsburk:
In a recent discussion with a Lutheran friend of mine, he cited how the deutero-canonical books, or the apocrypha, were added later after the bible had already been assembled. He used this as a means of challenging the interpreting authority of the Church. I plan to buy a book or two to study this further but can you give me a reply to this challenge.

Scott
Click to expand...
The deutero-canonical books and the apocrypha, are two different things. Protestants refer to the apocrypha as all fifteen extra books included in the Spetuagint not in the Hebrew canon.

What Catholics call Canonical, Protestants also call Canonical (except the seven books or parts of books they removed). And I say this because the Catholic Bible is the same as the Vulgate from the 4th century
What Catholics call deuterocanonical, Protestants call Apocrypha.
What Catholics call Apocrypha, Protestants call Pseudepigrapha.
 
40.png
lsburk:
In a recent discussion with a Lutheran friend of mine, he cited how the deutero-canonical books, or the apocrypha, were added later after the bible had already been assembled. He used this as a means of challenging the interpreting authority of the Church. I plan to buy a book or two to study this further but can you give me a reply to this challenge.

Scott
Click to expand...
Hmm. That is factually incorrect.

Here is one (of many) good sites about this:

ic.net/~erasmus/RAZ110.HTM
 
In the Catholic view, the Protestants deleted these books; in the Protestant view, the Catholics added them. Historically, they were part of the Greek Old Testament (the Septuagint), which was translated into Greek circa 250BC. The Jews, after the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD, repudiated the Septuagint at their council of Jamnia ~ 90AD, basically throwing out any of the later books. Writing with living memory of this council, St. Justin Martyr’s “Dialog With Trypho”, the earliest surviving apologetics tract addressing Jews specifically, records:

“But I am far from putting reliance in your teachers, who refuse to admit that the interpretation made by the seventy elders who were with Ptolemy[king] of the Egyptians is a correct one; and they attempt to frame another. And I wish you to observe, that they have altogether taken away many Scriptures from the translations effected by those seventy elders who were with Ptolemy, and by which this very man who was crucified is proved to have been set forth expressly as God, and man, and as being crucified, and as dying; but since I am aware that this is denied by all of your nation, I do not address myself to these points, but I proceed to carry on my discussions by means of those passages which are still admitted by you.” (chapter LXXI)
Read Wisdom 2 for a great example of why the Jews, after Christ, might want to delete this book from their canon.
 
The whole catholics-added-books argument hinges on one event that isn’t what they say it is:

-around 90 AD, some rabbis got permission to meet to talk about stuff. One of the things they talked about was the septuigint (the OT translated into greek by jews around 300 BC which had the seven “extra books”). Apparently, the christians were using it too successfully. So they cut it out. BOTTOM LINE: If jews rejected the “seven extra books”, then we should.

PROBLEM 1: They only discussed two of those books. Not all seven. they kept using one of the other seven books for a couple of hundred years later.
PROBLEM 2: In addition to banning whatever books they did ban, they also banned with it the New Testament. If you accept their decision about the seven extra books, then you have to accept their decision about the NT.
PROBLEM 3: There is no evidence of an “official” list of books (canon) to be in the bible.
PROBLEM 4: This was not a formal council. They did not come together thinking they had any serious authority. Remember, the temple was just distroyed about 20 years earlier.

There is an article in this months’ “This Rock” magazine (Sept 2004) about it.

Martin
 
40.png
lsburk:
In a recent discussion with a Lutheran friend of mine, he cited how the deutero-canonical books, or the apocry ? ?
?p gter after the bible had already been assembled. He used this as a means of challenging the interpreting authority of the Church. I plan to buy a book or two to study this further but can you give me a reply to this challenge. Scott
Click to expand...
Since Jesus taught from the “deutero-canonical” books, I doubt you could argue they weren’t original. If you read Tobit for example you’ll find the teachings of Jesus on marriage, being ever lasting, and the two becoming one, quite different from Deuteronomy. Read Sirach, and Wisdom the compare with the Sermon on the Mount and the Lord’s Prayer. Actually ask your friend to sit and read Wisdom and Sirach with a pad and pencil, and jot down the things, which seem familiar to the teachings of Jesus, he’ll soon get writers cramps. After reading the “deutro-canonical" books you’ll wonder if Jesus really used any other books in His teaching. Why would Christian reject writings used by Jesus Himself? Why would Christians reject writings used by His Church for over 1500 years? Why would Christians reject writings because they were rejected by the very nation which crucified Jesus? Read and reflect on the books yourself.
 
I found from reading the Deuterocanonicals, that they are full of Christian Teachings. This is the primary reason why the jews rejected these books. Read these books then read the Gospels. I have found that Jesus preached many things similar to these books. These books are the prequil to the Gospels. They are full of teachings about love, charity, perserverance, and persecution for beliefs. Some even had messianic prophecies. I think fundlementalists are afraid to read these books, because sola scriptura is questioned then. I remember one of the fundies at my college never knew these books existed and she was shocked to find my Bible had more books in it then hers. I could tell she was worried after that, because her enite life she was taught that the Bible was the sole authority, but she never questioned where it came from.
 
I think generally and especially around the 1st century the idea of a cannon was not as fixed as it is today. In my ultra-spong-crossan inspired Bible as Literature class the main premise behind the fixing of the O.T. was the rise of christianity and the influx of non-jews into the new sect. I didn’t want to start a new thread, but does any one actually know if the rabbis at Jamnia had copies of christian documents? Like in Catholic councils when they had to decide the cannon, there were lots of books they didn’t even consider. So it has been said the Rabbis “rejected” the New Testament. Did they formally “reject” any christian documents or was there just an underlying anti-nazerene atmosphere? I wouldn’t know where to begin searching on the net with so much junk. Does this need a new thread? Also, It has been speculated that some books in the Jewish Bible might in fact be written later than some of the Deuteros. I don’t want to play the guessing game. I’ll be back with notes. Debo is curious and demanding and needs to vaccum.
 
40.png
whowantsumadebo:
I think generally and especially around the 1st century the idea of a cannon was not as fixed as it is today. In my ultra-spong-crossan inspired Bible as Literature class the main premise behind the fixing of the O.T. was the rise of christianity and the influx of non-jews into the new sect. I didn’t want to start a new thread, but does any one actually know if the rabbis at Jamnia had copies of christian documents? Like in Catholic councils when they had to decide the cannon, there were lots of books they didn’t even consider. So it has been said the Rabbis “rejected” the New Testament. Did they formally “reject” any christian documents or was there just an underlying anti-nazerene atmosphere? I wouldn’t know where to begin searching on the net with so much junk. Does this need a new thread? Also, It has been speculated that some books in the Jewish Bible might in fact be written later than some of the Deuteros. I don’t want to play the guessing game. I’ll be back with notes. Debo is curious and demanding and needs to vaccum.
Click to expand...
There definitely wasn’t a formal canon before or at the time of Christ. When the council of Jamneh came around in 90 AD, they didn’t see themselves has having formal authority. There was an anti-nazarean attitude from the Rabbis. This is all assuming they actually had authority to define books for christians. 90 AD is 60 years too late. If “the jews” came out on CNN and announced they were pulling the book of Genesis from the OT, Christians would not be bound by that decision because it’s too late.

If you want, I can photocopy that article from “This Rock” and send it to you. Also, there is a book called “The Formation of the Christian Biblical Canon” by Lee McDonald. Dr Mcdonald got his PhD at Univ of Edinburgh and is the senior minister at the First Baptist Church of Alhambra. He is also the adjunct professor at Fuller Theological seminary. The same seminary where Rev Billy Graham is the board of trustees. In Appendix I, there is page after page of NT allusions and quotes of the Deuteros. It gives the NT citation (starting from Mat) and the Deut Citation. It’s pretty amazing.

Martin
 
Hey my name’s Martin too!

You wanna send me a copy ok. That would be helpful. I just wanted to know if there were Jews that brought christian documents to be reviewed. Actually, that sounds kind of absurd that they would do such a thing. I guess also that the Talmud and what not have become sub-cannonical to alot of them. Debo has nothing to say.
 
email gmichuta@avemarialaw.edu

He recently debated James White (strong anti-Catholic) on the subject of the deutrocanon. Good stuff and available on DVD, VHS, and CD. Get the DVD if you can to “see” the two discuss what is, admitedly, not one of the most stimulating discussions.

MrS
 
As an interesting aside, even the first printings of the King James Version included the so-called Apocrypha.

– Mark L. Chance.
 
40.png
mlchance:
As an interesting aside, even the first printings of the King James Version included the so-called Apocrypha.

– Mark L. Chance.
Click to expand...
This is true! The KJV had those “extra” books for about a hundred years before the king at the time (not James), had them pulled out. If you look at the kings decree of the KJV when it was first printed, it talks about how normal people should not be pulling books out.

Check out this article from Envoy Magazine:

envoymagazine.com/backissues/1.2/marapril_story2.html

Also, whowantsumadebo, send me a private msg with your address so that I can send you the “This rock” article.

Martin
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top