Josephus explicitly excluded them from his list.

[Hesychios]

to which:
The Council That Wasn’t
The Myth of Jabneh and the Old Testament Canon
By Steve Ray

catholic.com/thisrock/2004/0409fea4.asp

Essentially, its a myth Jabneh speciicaly ruled out the DT’s as scripture–that was not ruled on by general rabbinical consensus until 150+ years later

Steve Ray sets up a straw man by insisting that the Jews did not have an authoritative council.

The Jews just wouldn’t think of it that way. No they did not have authority to dictate to all the rest of Judaism, they were a collection of local Rabbis, essentially all that was left of the Jewish religion in the region, and they decided policy for themselves. Everything else was gone: the Temple, the Essenes, the Sadducees and probably a few more marginal varieties of Judaism.

I am not getting into a pissing contest over this, I doubt that Steve’s opinion or mine makes any difference after all. The Greek speaking Jews used the Septuagint well before Christ was born, Christ and the Apostles used it, and after Christ the Jews were not using it. Precisely when or how that happened is ultimately an unimportant detail, but we can see that it did happen.

Eventually, most of the Jewish synagogs had stopped reading the Deutero-Canonicals, they essentially reached a concensus. It may have taken hundreds of years for some synagogs to conform but they did, not because some “council” told them they must. A more likely explanation is that the schools turning out Rabbis had stopped reading and studying the Deutero-Canonicals: that more recent scriptural literature was problematic for them.

Steve Ray’s argument against the meeting of Rabbi’s at Jamna is quite meaningless (and unnecessary, and probably wrong). He burns up too much energy fighting a will-o-the-wisp because Jamna was decades after the death and resurrection of Christ, so it doesn’t matter. The only meaningful claim Protestants could make for their abbreviated canon would be if the Jews stopped using the Septuagint at some point before the time of Christ, and that dog won’t hunt, no scholar has attempted to make such a claim, as far as I know.

 

[Valke2]

I admit that I’ve had some trouble following this argument, so I apologize if the following comment is irrelevant.

the original Septuagint was a greek translation of the Torah only (First 5 books of Moses).

 

[colliric]

I admit that I’ve had some trouble following this argument, so I apologize if the following comment is irrelevant.

the original Septuagint was a greek translation of the Torah only (First 5 books of Moses).

It’s irrelevant because the Septuagint which existed at the time of Christ contained the deuterocanon so if they had that version of it, which they did, it contained the deuterocanon. I believe the only book possibly written and included after the time of Christ is 4 Maccabees.

 

[Valke2]

It’s irrelevant because the Septuagint which existed at the time of Christ contained the deuterocanon so if they had that version of it, which they did, it contained the deuterocanon. I believe the only book possibly written and included after the time of Christ is 4 Maccabees.

So the Septuagint went from the five books of Moses to the Tanakh prior to Jesus? Because it was originally only the TOrah.

 

[KarenNC]

So the Septuagint went from the five books of Moses to the Tanakh prior to Jesus? Because it was originally only the TOrah.

Information on the development of the Septuagint kalvesmaki.com/LXX/

 

[Seth]

Short, sweet and to the point.

str.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=5103

 

[Valke2]

Information on the development of the Septuagint kalvesmaki.com/LXX/

Thanks for the link.

 

[eliasaph99]

As to your “confusion” icon…there were no Christians prior to, at minimum, 0 CE. You accept (and the church accepts) the Jewish religion’s word that the writings of the Hebrew Scriptures were inspired, therefore you are accepting the word of a non-Christian in that respect.

There is no year zero in any calendar in use by common people today. The designation CE is a ridiculous modernism, but if you wish to use it, you should do so correctly.

You are quite wrong about why the Church (note the capital C) has defined its canon as it is. It is not dependent, as you imply, on prior use by Jewish peoples, although it does not exclude this entirely. The issue is more complex than that.

 

[KarenNC]

The issue is more complex than that.

There is nothing about any religion that is not “more complex” than can be stated in a single sentence. Certainly not the reason that the Jews chose the particular books for their canon, nor that the Christians did.

 

[eliasaph99]

There is nothing about any religion that is not “more complex” than can be stated in a single sentence. Certainly not the reason that the Jews chose the particular books for their canon, nor that the Christians did.

Then why imply that the only reason that the Church believes in the inspiration of Hebrew Scriptures is because the Hebrews did?

You are oversimplifying the issue in one argument, and now here, you are stating that oversimplifying is wrong.

 

[KarenNC]

Then why imply that the only reason that the Church believes in the inspiration of Hebrew Scriptures is because the Hebrews did?

This was in response to the arguments that the only real reason the Jews set up a canon was to make it less convenient for Christians and that since Josephus was a non-Christian, why should anyone listen to him on whether biblical texts were inspired by God.

Very well, let’s explore it further. What criteria other than their use and claim that they were inspired by God by the Jewish religion (and hence by Jesus, who was a Jew, and by early Christians, who were also Jews), does the Catholic Church give for accepting the Hebrew Scriptures as inspired by the Christian God?

You are oversimplifying the issue in one argument, and now here, you are stating that oversimplifying is wrong.

In case you missed it, I was agreeing with you that there are no simple issues in religion. Not that oversimplifying is wrong, but that it is not going to convey the entirety of the issue.

 

[Seth]

Quote:
Originally Posted by colliric
“It’s irrelevant because the Septuagint which existed at the time of Christ contained the deuterocanon so if they had that version of it, which they did, it contained the deuterocanon. I believe the only book possibly written and included after the time of Christ is 4 Maccabees.”

I wonder how you know that considering that the earliest manuscript copies we have of the Septuagint are from the 4th and 5th centuries (from the Codex Vaticanus and the Codex Sinaiticus, both dating from the 4th century AD, and the Codex Alexandrinus dating from the 5th century) and the only earlier texts are 1st adn 2nd century B.C. fragments of Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, and the Minor Prophets. None of the fragments contain a part of any apocryphal book. The 4th and 5th century manuscripts contain much of the Apocrypha but to say that the Septuagint that Jesus and Apostles might have used had them is pure guess work. Without any copies of the Septuagint earlier than the 4th or 5th century, how can we know they weren’t added? It would be silly to assume they were added without reason to believe they were so here’s my reason to doubt they were considered Scripture, or even included at the time:

Aside from Josephus’ testimony, the apocryphal books are never quoted directly by Jesus or the Apostles and only possibly alluded to in 2 Peter and Jude and Hebrews. The books of the standard canon are quoted directly by Jesus and the Apostles hundreds of times and all but a few (Ex. Ecclesiastes and Song of Songs) are quoted in the New Testament.

The supposed quotations of the deuterocanonical books in the New Testament are all vauge, and indirect. Whereas there are about 300 direct quotes from the regular canon of the Old Testament present in the New. For an example of the supposed apocryphal quotations, take Hebrews 11:35b which is compared with 2 Maccabees 7:1-29. Here in Hewbrews, the author alludes to an historical event that happens to be recorded in Maccabees, but by no means quotes it directly, let alone asserts that it is authoritative. In fact, Josephus himself wrote about these events and we have no idea what the author of Hewbrews’ source was. If we imply that simply because he quoted a piece of literature or historical fact that it makes it authoritative, then we would have to consider some of Josephus’ works as possible candidates for canonicity as well. On the same note, Paul quotes pagan poets and writers (1 Corinthians 15:33; Acts 17:28); and Jude quotes from the Jewish apocryphal books of Enoch and the Assumption of Moses. Obviously this does not mean that those works should be considered authoritative.

Furthermore, the apocryphal books contain historical and factual errors and promote the use of magic to ward off evil spirits, making it obvious that these books are not on par with traditional canon which I throroughly believe contain no historical error, factual error, or contradiction, excepting possible copyist and spelling errors. In the apocrypha, you’ll find magic in Tobias 6:5-7. You’ll find giving alms delivering salvation in Tobais 4:11 and 12:9. You’ll find money being given as an offering for the dead in 2 Macabees 12:43. And you’ll find historical innacuracies in Judith 1:5 (Nebuchadnezzer as king of the Assyrians (he was Babylonian) and in Baruch 6:2 (which says that the Jews spent 7 generations serving Babylon while Jeremiah 25:11 says they spent 70 years).

Based on the consistency of the Old Testament quotations in the New Testament, it would make more sense that either Jesus and the Apostles did not consider the apocryphal books to be scripture and therefore did not quote from them directly or authoritatively, or they were not included in the copy of the Septuagint that they used.

I must ask; why would the Jewish authorities who were responsible for having the Hewbrew Scriptures translated into Greek include books that they did not even consider to be canonical? It seems more likely to me that they were added later on, and were simply informative books that people either enjoyed or found useful, rather than the word of God.

To quote a friend in conclusion:
“In brief, the quotations and references to the Old Testament by Jesus and the NT writers provide strong evidence in favour of the Jewish canon (as in the Protestant Bible); whereas the absence of similar quotations to the apocrypha argues against the canonicity of these books.”

Bare with me, I’m only searching for the Truth.

 

[eliasaph99]

Then why imply that the only reason that the Church believes in the inspiration of Hebrew Scriptures is because the Hebrews did?

This was in response to the arguments that the only real reason the Jews set up a canon was to make it less convenient for Christians and that since Josephus was a non-Christian, why should anyone listen to him on whether biblical texts were inspired by God.

Very well, let’s explore it further. What criteria other than their use and claim that they were inspired by God by the Jewish religion (and hence by Jesus, who was a Jew, and by early Christians, who were also Jews), does the Catholic Church give for accepting the Hebrew Scriptures as inspired by the Christian God?

You are oversimplifying the issue in one argument, and now here, you are stating that oversimplifying is wrong.

In case you missed it, I was agreeing with you that there are no simple issues in religion. Not that oversimplifying is wrong, but that it is not going to convey the entirety of the issue.

To be quite honest, I did miss it. I was sitting here counting negatives in your sentence trying to decide whether you were agreeing with me or not.

So, thanks for agreeing.

As for other reasons, I would first cite the fact that Christ taught that they were inspired by God. As you’ve pointed out, some may claim that’s the same thing because Christ was Jewish. So, let’s move on…

Next, I would point to the Churches own councils. We claim that dogmatic pronouncements made by an Ecumenical Council held in union with the Successor of Peter are without error. Although Trent is commonly cited as the first time a dogmatic statement about the canon was made, I don’t believe this to be true. I don’t have any citations handy, but perhaps others could supply them. Anyways, my understanding is that the statement of Trent was a reaffirmation, and perhaps a more definitive statement than that made previously, but that this issue had been considered settled by the Church long before and was only raised again because of the Reformation.

Next, the Church would cite the miraculous fulfillment of prophecy from the books themselves. Many of the events of Christs life had been predicted in the Old Testament hundreds of years before Christ was born. In addition, the OT contains many examples of prophecies which were fulfilled hundreds of years later. i.e. a prophecy is made in one book which is known to be written around the year x. Then another book written around the year z claims fulfillment of that prophecy.

Sorry that I haven’t supported things rigorously, but I tend to do theological research as a side hobby only. I research something to my satisfaction and then tend to forget the specific cases and references, and so on…holding on only to the conclusion which I reached in my research.

Anyways, these are just two examples of reasons the Church would believe that the OT scriptures were inspired by God. Certainly, the fact that the Jewish people also held them to be inspired would be hugely relevant, but not definitive. It should be pointed out that different strains of Judaism hold different parts of the Scriptures to be inspired. Some believe only the Torah is inspired. Some accept more or less of the Prophets and Psalms, etc.

I know that people frequently like to say that the Jewish Canon was decided around the year such and such, but I wouldn’t put a lot of credibility in that. Perhaps some large, or somewhat authoritative council decided what books they would accept, but Judaism has not been unified since Israel and Judah split in the OT, thousands of years ago.

 

[eliasaph99]

Furthermore, the apocryphal books contain historical and factual errors and promote the use of magic to ward off evil spirits, making it obvious that these books are not on par with traditional canon which I throroughly believe contain no historical error, factual error, or contradiction, excepting possible copyist and spelling errors. In the apocrypha, you’ll find magic in Tobias 6:5-7. You’ll find giving alms delivering salvation in Tobais 4:11 and 12:9. You’ll find money being given as an offering for the dead in 2 Macabees 12:43. And you’ll find historical innacuracies in Judith 1:5 (Nebuchadnezzer as king of the Assyrians (he was Babylonian) and in Baruch 6:2 (which says that the Jews spent 7 generations serving Babylon while Jeremiah 25:11 says they spent 70 years).

Bare with me, I’m only searching for the Truth.

There are oddities in the smaller OT as well.

Although I could find more, the first one that comes to mind is the “Leviathan” in Job. What is it?

From its description, it sounds like a dragon. It has smoke coming from its nostrils!! So perhaps the Book of Job is not worthy of canonical status.

Personally I don’t think that’s likely. I think a better idea is not to get hung up on minutiae so much that you miss the forest for the trees.

Also, it’s kind of funny to me that you’re willing to give error in the Protestant Canon a pass by saying that it’s a copyist error, but not in the Catholic Canon. Maybe stating that Nebuchadnezzar was king of the Assyrians in Judith was a copyist error. It’s reasonable.

Or, maybe there’s an explanation you don’t know that would rectify the situation. This happens from time to time. Although I can’t remember the name of the person, there was a king mentioned in the OT whose rule was questioned by secular historians. There was no record and they thought that he had ruled some 500 years separate from when the Bible stated. An archaeological discovery rectified the situation when a tablet with a listing of kings revealed that two kings with the same name had ruled x years apart from each other.

While not stating it explicitly, you also imply above that certain practices in the deuterocanonical books are un-Christian. Do I have to point out that this is a circular argument?

P.S. Baruch 6:2 and Maccabees 12:43 don’t say what you claim they say. Perhaps you’d like to clarify or correct what you’ve said.

 

[Seth]

Originally posted by eliasaph99:
"There are oddities in the smaller O.T. as well.

Although I could find more, the first one that comes to mind is the “Leviathan” in Job. What is it?

From its description, it sounds like a dragon. It has smoke coming from its nostrils!! So perhaps the Book of Job is not worthy of canonical status."

I will address your arguments one by one:

The problem with your argument against Job is that you are assuming that such an animal as Leviathan does not, or has never, existed. There is no reason to believe such an animal has not, and I think we can give the Word of God the benefit of the doubt on that one. The book of Job is clearly not metaphorical, and in it God himself is describing Leviathan and Behemoth. Job has been considered by many to be one of the earliest written books in the Old Testament, and I do not think it is unreasonable to believe that some animals that existed then might not any more. There is also a much stronger case for the existence of “dragons” than you might think. Dragons exist in the mythologies of dozens upon dozens of cultures and civilizations, most notably China. The 13th century explorer Marco Polo claimed to have examined dragons on his way to China and in his description of some of the duties of Chinese royal servants, he mentions royal dragon keepers. St. George is even reported to have slain a dragon! I’m not trying to argue for the existence and subsequent extinction of actual dragons, I’m simply trying to demonstrate that it is not unreasonable to assume that the Book of Job is accurately describing real animals.

It is not circular to imply that the practices I referenced are un-Christian. I understand your reasoning (saying that something is unbiblical and therefore shouldn’t be included in the Bible is very circular reasoning, however, what I’m saying is that these few separate verses contradict clear, consistent Biblical teaching. I’m implying that they are un-biblical and false (and quite frankly un-Hebrew from what I understand). The Catholic Church would not teach that the giving of alms is a source of salvation in and of itself as Tobias teaches, nor that it is proper to offer money for the sins of the dead in the manner of the Ancient Greeks. Rebuking Simon the Sorcerer for attempting to buy the Holy Spirit in Acts 8:20, Peter says “May your money perish with you, because you thought you could buy the gift of God with money!” Although it is in reference to the Spirit, I think it is relevant nonetheless, as salvation is a gift of God as well.

I fully agree that copy errors might be a part of the reason that the deuterocanonical books have inaccuracies. I do not deny the possibility and yes it is a reasonable possibility. However, my main problem is with specific teachings and actions that are inconsistent with the rest of the Bible and not the factual or historical inaccuracies.

Would you not agree that “maybe there’s an explanation you don’t know that would rectify the situation” is a fairly weak argument and that until such information is found, we should err on the side of caution and consider it inaccurate?

Nebuchadrezzar II is also a well known historical figure. He was a Babylonian King who conquered Jerusalem. A gros historical inaccuracy for a Jewish copyist. The situation you described with the other O.T. Testament king is much different.

Originally posted by eliasaph99
“P.S. Baruch 6:2 and Maccabees 12:43 don’t say what you claim they say. Perhaps you’d like to clarify or correct what you’ve said.”

Both the following verses come from the Catholic site New Advent which includes a full Catholic Bible and a Catholic Encyclopedia at newadvent.org/bible/

Baruch 6:2. “And when you are come into Babylon, you shall be there many years, and for a long time, even to seven generations: and after that I will bring you away from thence with peace.”

2 Maccabees 12:43. “And making a gathering, he sent twelve thousand drachms of silver to Jerusalem for sacrifice to be offered for the sins of the dead, thinking well and religiously concerning the resurrection.”

I’m not sure what you mean by saying that I misquoted these verses. They state exactly what I described. Seven generations, and an offering of money for the dead.

If you have the time, I would appreciate a rebuttle to my other arguments as well.

If you would like proper citations I can supply them. I’d better go to bed now though, Sunday meeting is early!

 

[JoeyWarren]

bump

 

[Lion_of_Narnia]

Steve Ray sets up a straw man by insisting that the Jews did not have an authoritative council. edited for length.

It"s not a straw man because,

Time and time again both Protestant and Jewish writers & speakers refer to Jabneh as authoritative in removing the DT’s–and I think we’ve all read all heard these claims spoken with connfidence by said people seeking to discredt the DT’s.

Ray showed Jabneh was the equivalent of a yeshiva–and even on that basis (disreguarding the issue of authority) it didn’t rule out the DT’s as many Protestant and Jewish apologists have claimed it did.

 

[cubalibre]

I have found the following article to be useful in evaluating both Tobit and Judith and eliminating many apparent problems when the genre of literature is not taken into account:
**catholic.com/thisrock/2003/0307bt.asp **
Also in regards to the comment on 2Maccabes 12:43 it has been instructive to me to read the next couple of verses including:
12:45. And because he considered that they who had fallen asleep with godliness, had great grace laid up for them.

It appears that expiation could only be made in men that were still in a state of grace otherwise the alms would do no good. “Judas is showing that he believes in the resurrection of the just for certain sins of otherwise good men-soldiers that had given their lives for God’s cause. " Thus, they could share in the resurrection.”( NAB commentary)

 

[colliric]

Quote:
Originally Posted by colliric
“It’s irrelevant because the Septuagint which existed at the time of Christ contained the deuterocanon so if they had that version of it, which they did, it contained the deuterocanon. I believe the only book possibly written and included after the time of Christ is 4 Maccabees.”

I wonder how you know that considering that the earliest manuscript copies we have of the Septuagint are from the 4th and 5th centuries (from the Codex Vaticanus and the Codex Sinaiticus, both dating from the 4th century AD, and the Codex Alexandrinus dating from the 5th century) and the only earlier texts are 1st adn 2nd century B.C. fragments of Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, and the Minor Prophets. None of the fragments contain a part of any apocryphal book. The 4th and 5th century manuscripts contain much of the Apocrypha but to say that the Septuagint that Jesus and Apostles might have used had them is pure guess work. Without any copies of the Septuagint earlier than the 4th or 5th century, how can we know they weren’t added? It would be silly to assume they were added without reason to believe they were so here’s my reason to doubt they were considered Scripture, or even included at the time:

Aside from Josephus’ testimony, the apocryphal books are never quoted directly by Jesus or the Apostles and only possibly alluded to in 2 Peter and Jude and Hebrews. The books of the standard canon are quoted directly by Jesus and the Apostles hundreds of times and all but a few (Ex. Ecclesiastes and Song of Songs) are quoted in the New Testament.

The supposed quotations of the deuterocanonical books in the New Testament are all vauge, and indirect. Whereas there are about 300 direct quotes from the regular canon of the Old Testament present in the New. For an example of the supposed apocryphal quotations, take Hebrews 11:35b which is compared with 2 Maccabees 7:1-29. Here in Hewbrews, the author alludes to an historical event that happens to be recorded in Maccabees, but by no means quotes it directly, let alone asserts that it is authoritative. In fact, Josephus himself wrote about these events and we have no idea what the author of Hewbrews’ source was. If we imply that simply because he quoted a piece of literature or historical fact that it makes it authoritative, then we would have to consider some of Josephus’ works as possible candidates for canonicity as well. On the same note, Paul quotes pagan poets and writers (1 Corinthians 15:33; Acts 17:28); and Jude quotes from the Jewish apocryphal books of Enoch and the Assumption of Moses. Obviously this does not mean that those works should be considered authoritative.

Bare with me, I’m only searching for the Truth.

actually The Apostle John refers to Doctrine of the Deutrocanon in his book “the Apocalypse”(I prefer the Non- translated title as it makes sense in english too), the Last book of the New Testament.

He refers to Seven Angels standing before the throne of god and who present the prayers of the saints to god. This is a direct reference to the book of Tobit, which says this:

Tobit 12:15 I am Raphael, one of the seven holy angels who present the prayers of the saints and enter into the presence of the glory of the Holy One.

Sorry but unless you want to consider the book of Apocalypse(or Revelation) as “Apocrypha”, you’ll have to accept the book of Tobit is part of the bible.

Surely you know that Martin Luther, the man who crafted the Protestant bible, originally wanted to chuck out this book because it verifies the catholic canon.

That is the cold hard truth. If one of the books Must be accepted on the basis of the Apostle John having it in his bible, which he did, then we must also accept the other books too, and not the Hebrew canon, which incidentally was canonized as late as the Second century AD(It was definatly after 90AD)

John had the Septuagint, and his version contained at least the book of Tobit as well as all the Hebrew books. There is no reason to believe the other apostle didn’t have the same Deutrocanon including copy of the old testament, after all the so called “Vague references” are made far less vague in light of this Straightforward in your face reference.

 

[Yerusalyim]

What amazes me in this discussion is that no one has stated the obvious, the CHURCH has determined the canon of scripture. Those who refer to the authority of the Rabbinic Council in Jaffa or Jamnia or where ever it was…not they didn’t include ANY new testament books.

As a history major I prefer CE to AD because it’s simply more accurate. By the best accounts Christ was born between 8 and 6 BC. In most of my writing I use BCE and CE.