Question about Deuterocanonical Books

  • Thread starter Thread starter Tous_Logous
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
One fact glaringly overlooked here is that at least some of the deuterocanonical writings were found in caves at Qumran, the Dead Sea Scrolls. This shows us that these Jews kept them with thier other holy writings, and this predates christianity.

This points out one other thing: different communities held different writings as sacred, just like today. The Ethiopian Orthodox Church, for instance, has a larget New Testament canon than the rest of christianity.

Subrosa
 
Subrosa said:
One fact glaringly overlooked here is that at least some of the deuterocanonical writings were found in caves at Qumran, the Dead Sea Scrolls. This shows us that these Jews kept them with thier other holy writings, and this predates christianity.
Subrosa
Click to expand...
Many non-scriptural works were also found at Qumran: War Scroll, Community Rule, various Pesherim etc.), so this really doesn’t turn out to be a very good argument for canonicity, IMO. If only biblical books, including some deuterocanonical works had been found there, I think you could make a better case. In other words, just because something was found at Qumran doesn’t necessarily mean that the community considered the work part of canonical scripture.
 
Dave_Noonan said:
Many non-scriptural works were also found at Qumran: War Scroll, Community Rule, various Pesherim etc.), so this really doesn’t turn out to be a very good argument for canonicity, IMO. If only biblical books, including some deuterocanonical works had been found there, I think you could make a better case. In other words, just because something was found at Qumran doesn’t necessarily mean that the community considered the work part of canonical scripture.
Click to expand...
Although you disagree, the sole reason for canonicity is that the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church, with the power of binding and loosing, and of infallibility, has tested the writings and judged them to be in the canon. Outside of that authority, one may never be certain. It was Christ Himself Who did not leave us orphans in this regard.
 
po18guy said:
Although you disagree, the sole reason for canonicity is that the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church, with the power of binding and loosing, and of infallibility, has tested the writings and judged them to be in the canon. Outside of that authority, one may never be certain. It was Christ Himself Who did not leave us orphans in this regard.
Click to expand...
I don’t think we disagree necessarily; I’m not trying to advocate for one particular canon or the other. I think every religious group picks their own canon anyway, regardless of what some other group asserts, or least of all, what I happen to think about the topic.

The only thing I’m objecting to in the thread is the invention of history out of whole cloth in an attempt to score apologetic points. I’m not saying you’ve done this at all, but other apologists who should know better have done so or are guilty via their own negligence. In the Council of Jamnia example, both Protestants and Catholics have used and are still using a totally made up event that was discredited 25 years ago to advance their views. That’s wrong, IMO, regardless of what one thinks about church authority. That’s all I’m trying to counter here.
 
Subrosa said:
This points out one other thing: different communities held different writings as sacred, just like today. The Ethiopian Orthodox Church, for instance, has a larget New Testament canon than the rest of christianity.

Subrosa
Click to expand...
Let me add one thing…the Orthodox and the CC canons, are not a cause of conflict…as the Bible was never intended to replace the authority of bishops…as protestants have done.

Church authority remains with the bishops…to this day, both east and west.
 
Dave_Noonan said:
I don’t think we disagree necessarily; I’m not trying to advocate for one particular canon or the other. I think every religious group picks their own canon anyway, regardless of what some other group asserts, or least of all, what I happen to think about the topic.

The only thing I’m objecting to in the thread is the invention of history out of whole cloth in an attempt to score apologetic points. I’m not saying you’ve done this at all, but other apologists who should know better have done so or are guilty via their own negligence. In the Council of Jamnia example, both Protestants and Catholics have used and are still using a totally made up event that was discredited 25 years ago to advance their views. That’s wrong, IMO, regardless of what one thinks about church authority. That’s all I’m trying to counter here.
Click to expand...
There are theological urban legends, and no one is immune to them. I am glad to be corrected, as it makes me do my homework.

But, as to that canon, if one seeks the entirety of God’s revelation to man, having the full and complete canon is crucial, would you not agree?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top