The Old Testament Books, the deuterocanonical books not in the Jewish Bible, WHY NOT?

[jimmy]

Churchmouse:

Actually Jimmy, you’ll have to try a little harder. The council of Jamnia didn’t change or throw out anything. They questioned some canonical books (Ecclesiastes, maybe Song of Songs) to see if “it made the hands unclean”, but as to throwing out Deuterocanonicals and such, they did no such thing. This debate carried over until the 2nd century, but again nothing changed as evidenced by the fact that the Jews today still include these books in their canon. There were some discussions at various times regarding some Deuterocanonicals, such as Sirach and Baruch, but nothing changed and they kept their status. It is safe to say that the uncanonicals remained uncanonical and the canonicals remained canonical. Regarding Jamnia, Anglican scholar Roger Beckwith states:

You are wrong. Most Jews do not include the Duetero-canonicals. There maybe some small groups like in Ethiopia I think but the majority of them do not include the duetero-canon.

Your quote doesn’t say anything, so I did not include it.

This doesn’t mean anything really, Jimmy. There were some church fathers and other prominent Catholics who believed the Deuterocanonicals to be Scriptures and, thus, held to the LXX and others that didn’t. A cursory scan of the web page you submitted says nothing of what you claimed earlier, that Jesus taught from the LXX. Care to try again?

I gave you two examples of first century prominent Christians who held the LXX above the Hebrew canon. You have not given me any evidence that can prove otherwise. So really the ball is i your court. You have to give me some proof here.

Well, maybe Justin did, but that’s hardly evidence that the Deuterocanonicals were accepted canonically. The plain truth of the matter is that there were some who did and others who didn’t. It hardly makes a case for authority.

Again I offered you Irenaeus and Justin, two of the most prominent Christians of the first century. You have not offered anything other than your doubt.

The fact that the new testament quotes directly from the LXX is also another proof for it. In post number 9 I showed you a quote from Luke that quotes Isaah. I show you the Hebrew text and the LXX text. The fact that Luke is quoting the LXX here is proof that he held the LXX as the scriptures. Since he felt this it would probably be safe to assume that Paul felt the same since Paul was his teacher.

 

[jimmy]

Churchmouse:

Again, it proves that “Irenaeus” thought the Septuagint to be authoritative, but it doesn’t make the case for everyone else.

I give youu Irenaeus and Justin, you give me nothing, yet you continue to tell me that I have no proof. You need to offer some proof.

Again, you’re assuming they did, but I don’t know why you do. They didn’t change anything. None of the canonicals became uncanonical and none of the uncanonicals became canonical. How and when did they “change the canon” and how would you know for sure that they did?

As stated above, they did remove the duetero-canon, you just refuse to accept the evidence.

By the same token, did Jerome allow a blind man to drive him around considering he denied the Deuterocanonicals as well? I accept the OT as is considering these were the books accepted before and after the New Covenant. I haven’t seen or read anything that would make me believe otherwise.

Jerome was over 300 years after Christ. I gave you names of First century saints. The fact that the new testament quotes the LXX and not the Hebrew text should be enough proof for you.

Jimmy, in the above statement you attempt to throw the onus on me, but that isn’t relevant at the moment. You posted and I’m questioning what you stated in the post. Again, the Jews adhered to a set of books which, evidently, at no time included the Deuterocanonicals. I am expected to believe that when Jesus came, the Jews somehow lost their authority over the very “oracles” they were entrusted with (Rom.3:2) and miraculously the other books became a part of OT Scripture. Something doesn’t make sense here.

If you admitt that they came up with there canon in AD90 then you can say that it never included the Duetero-canon, but if you do not accept that then you are wrong because they were in the LXX. Which was the text taught by the writters of the bible and the other prominent Christians of the first century. They were always a part of the canon untill the Jews removed them. You have offered no proof otherwise, you just continue about your doubts. It is your job to prove that they should not be there.

How did they lose their authority and how does this translate to a change in OT Scripture? Do you have evidence that the Deuterocanonicals were accepted as “canonical” Scripture at any time by the Jews and that they were “thrown out” at Jamnia or elsewhere?

How did they lose there authority?

They lost it when they rejected the greatest gift God could give them, himself. God caame down to save them from themselves and from death but they did not accept the sacrifice. Not only did they not accept it, they persecuted it and killed all the Christians they could. So, I would say that is enough proof to say that they had no authority to make any further decisions on scripture.

I have offered the proof with the LXX. If the LXX was accepted, then the duetero-canonicals were also accepted. You have not offered any proof otherwise though.

Not trying to give you a hard time here, friend, but I don’t know how you came to these conclusions.

I came to these conclusions with history and the teachings of the church fathers.

 

[Churchmouse]

jimmy:

You are wrong. Most Jews do not include the Duetero-canonicals. There maybe some small groups like in Ethiopia I think but the majority of them do not include the duetero-canon.

Your quote doesn’t say anything, so I did not include it.

Jimmy, obviously you misunderstood. In your original post, you made it seem as if the Jews closed the canon and tossed out the Deuterocanonicals as a polemic against the Christians. I didn’t say that the Deuterocanonicals were or are adhered to by the Jews, they’re not. I was referring to the claims you made that the “Council” of Jamnia took out the Deuterocanonicals. That’s where you’re wrong. The Council of Jamnia wasn’t an authoritative council and met for the purpose of reviewing their “canonical” books and not the books, such as the Deuterocanonicals, which weren’t part of the canon to begin with. There were some questions about Ecclesiastes (a canonical book), and maybe Song of Songs (another canonical book), but none of the books Catholics call the Deuterocanonicals were considered in Jamnia. The aftermath of these meetings didn’t change anything. These books (Ecclesiastes and Song of Songs) continue to be in the Jewish canon today. As for the Deuterocanonicals being tossed out in Jamnia, again, you’re wrong. The meeting in Jamnia didn’t throw out anything and didn’t add anything.

The quote I submitted is from Anglican scholar Roger T. Beckwith and it comes from his work The Old Testament Canon of the New Testament Church. The reason I submitted it is to substantiate what I stated above. So, contrary to your statement about it not “saying anything”, I will resubmit it to further my statements above. That is why I asked you where did you hear or read about the “Council of Jamnia” closing the canon and discluding the Deuterocanonicals. Because I am under the impression that you’re simply repeating what you’ve heard without checking it for yourself:

The assumption that the canon was closed at Jamnia about AD 90 has been elaborated by different writers in various ways. Some have seen it as part of the reorganization of Judaism after the fall of Jerusalem; some, as part of the polemic against Christianity; and some, as of a piece with the standardization of the Massoretic text. If, however, the canon was not closed about AD 90 but a long time before, all these corollaries lose the premise on which they depend. Similarly, any inference that the canon was decided by councils must be abandoned. The session at Jamnia was not a council, and the decision it made was not regarded as authoritative: and, in so far as the earliest important Christian council to deal with the canon was the third Council of Carthage, as late as AD 397. The role of councils, therefore, was not so much to decide the canon as to confirm decisions about the canon already reached in other ways (Roger Beckwith, The Old Testament Canon of the New Testament Church, p.276-277).

I gave you two examples of first century prominent Christians who held the LXX above the Hebrew canon. You have not given me any evidence that can prove otherwise. So really the ball is i your court. You have to give me some proof here.

Again I offered you Irenaeus and Justin, two of the most prominent Christians of the first century. You have not offered anything other than your doubt.

…continued…

 

[Churchmouse]

If you admitt that they came up with there canon in AD90 then you can say that it never included the Duetero-canon, but if you do not accept that then you are wrong because they were in the LXX.

I really have no idea of what you’re saying here, but if you’re referring to Jamnia, than you’ve already been corrected. They didn’t meet to close the canon, add to the canon, or toss anything out of the canon. Obviously the Deuterocanonicals weren’t even considered, let alone “tossed out.”

Which was the text taught by the writters of the bible and the other prominent Christians of the first century. They were always a part of the canon untill the Jews removed them.

*Prove it! * Prove that they were “always” part of the canon. Prove that the Jews removed them from the “canon.” Your words don’t mean anything unless you prove them.

You have offered no proof otherwise, you just continue about your doubts. It is your job to prove that they should not be there.

I’m not doubting anything and don’t know why you keep using that word. Again, you are the one who made the assertion, thus the onus is on you to prove what you asserted. You’ve been corrected about Jamnia and you will not be able to prove that the Jews threw out books which weren’t part of their canon to begin with. You stated that the Deuterocanonicals were “always” a part of the canon, but this is just another assertion which you won’t be able to prove. Now, hopefully, you won’t skirt the issue and back up your assertions.

How did they lose there authority?

They lost it when they rejected the greatest gift God could give them, himself. God caame down to save them from themselves and from death but they did not accept the sacrifice. Not only did they not accept it, they persecuted it and killed all the Christians they could. So, I would say that is enough proof to say that they had no authority to make any further decisions on scripture.

Jimmy, you claimed that the Jewish canon “always” included the Deuterocanonicals until the Jews at Jamnia took them out. So, even if they lost their authority over the canon, there would be evidence showing these books were “always” in the canon. So, give me that evidence.

I have offered the proof with the LXX. If the LXX was accepted, then the duetero-canonicals were also accepted. You have not offered any proof otherwise though.

Again, the LXX wasn’t the only text accepted. The burden is on you to prove that the Deuterocanonicals were accepted as canon prior to Jamnia.

I came to these conclusions with history and the teachings of the church fathers.

Then don’t ignore the fact that Jamnia didn’t throw out or add books. Don’t ignore the fact that usage doesn’t mean “authority.” Don’t ignore the fact that the MT was also used. Don’t ignore the fact that not all church fathers were in unison. You betray an ignorance of patristics and history if you didn’t know this already.

Peace,
CM

 

[Ghosty]

I’m confused as to the debate here. There wasn’t a Jewish canon in the sense that we have a Church canon today, merely many different writings, including works that today aren’t held by anyone as canon. The Septuagint was the most widely used, cited, and spread of all the collections, and was considered “profitable for teaching and correction”. The Council of Jamnia didn’t remove anything, it simply rejected the Septuagint collection as the source of authoritative teaching. This had no weight with Christians, however, as they had already set themselves up as seperate from the Pharisiac tradition at that point. They continued to use the collection of work that had been commonly used at the time of Christ, and for 200 years prior, and the collection that had been used in the writing of the New Testament.

The fact that Jews after the death of Christ chose a different collection to hold up should have no relevance to Christians; the fact is that at the time of Christ and the writing of NT Scripture, there wasn’t an official “boundary” to what was and wasn’t inspired writing, as can be seen by the differences between the Sadducees and the Pharisees.

 

[jimmy]

Churchmouse:

I really have no idea of what you’re saying here, but if you’re referring to Jamnia, than you’ve already been corrected. They didn’t meet to close the canon, add to the canon, or toss anything out of the canon. Obviously the Deuterocanonicals weren’t even considered, let alone “tossed out.”
*Prove it! *Prove that they were “always” part of the canon. Prove that the Jews removed them from the “canon.” Your words don’t mean anything unless you prove them.
I’m not doubting anything and don’t know why you keep using that word. Again, you are the one who made the assertion, thus the onus is on you to prove what you asserted. You’ve been corrected about Jamnia and you will not be able to prove that the Jews threw out books which weren’t part of their canon to begin with. You stated that the Deuterocanonicals were “always” a part of the canon, but this is just another assertion which you won’t be able to prove. Now, hopefully, you won’t skirt the issue and back up your assertions.
Jimmy, you claimed that the Jewish canon “always” included the Deuterocanonicals until the Jews at Jamnia took them out. So, even if they lost their authority over the canon, there would be evidence showing these books were “always” in the canon. So, give me that evidence.
Again, the LXX wasn’t the only text accepted. The burden is on you to prove that the Deuterocanonicals were accepted as canon prior to Jamnia.
Then don’t ignore the fact that Jamnia didn’t throw out or add books. Don’t ignore the fact that usage doesn’t mean “authority.” Don’t ignore the fact that the MT was also used. Don’t ignore the fact that not all church fathers were in unison. You betray an ignorance of patristics and history if you didn’t know this already.

I have given you proof. I gave you first century Christians to back up my point. All you have given me is an 18th or 19th century Anglican which does not give any proof. I have not been proved wrong on anything. If you want to prove me wrong then show me first century writings that tell me the duetero-canon was not part of the canon before Christ. I don’t want an 18th century account that could be just someones speculation.

The fact that the new testament quotes directly from the septuagint is good proof to say that the LXX is the canon that was held to have authority by the first century Christians. You protestants always toss around this word sola scriptura. Yet when the new testament specifically quotes a text you reject it. That does not sound like sola scriptura.

I can’t prove that they removed them from the canon but I have certainly proved that they were always part of the canon. I never said that they were in unison, but many of them felt that the duetero-canonicals were just as scriptural as Genesis or any other OT writings. If this was not the case then they would not have put them in the canon. You mention people like Jerome who are against the Duetero-canonicals but I could also quote Augustine or any number of others who supported them. They weren’t all in unison but there was a majority that supported them.

It may be as Ghosty has just said. There were many different canons at the time and the Jews chose one the Christians chose another.

If this is the case as Ghosty has said then it comes down to the point that you are not a Jew. You are a Christian, and the Christian canon is the one that should be important to you.

 

[Churchmouse]

Ghosty:

I’m confused as to the debate here.

I prefer the word “dialogue”

There wasn’t a Jewish canon in the sense that we have a Church canon today, merely many different writings, including works that today aren’t held by anyone as canon.

Well, there were recognized writings held to be Scripture.

The Septuagint was the most widely used, cited, and spread of all the collections, and was considered “profitable for teaching and correction”.

Well, technically, the verse states “***all * ** Scripture” and doesn’t allude to any particular translation. Remember the Masoretic text was in use as well, albeit not as predominantly as the LXX.

The Council of Jamnia didn’t remove anything, it simply rejected the Septuagint collection as the source of authoritative teaching.

Well, that’s a different take. Normally, we hear that they simply threw out the Deuterocanonicals, but you say they simply rejected the Septuagint collection. What’s your source on this?

This had no weight with Christians, however, as they had already set themselves up as seperate from the Pharisiac tradition at that point.

I never heard that there was a controversy between the two in regards to canon was proven. Again, what are your sources?

They continued to use the collection of work that had been commonly used at the time of Christ, and for 200 years prior, and the collection that had been used in the writing of the New Testament.

Using the work is understandable considering it was a better translation overall, but considering that it contained the Deuterocanonical books, did they view the them as Holy Scripture? Religious books? History? Cultural documents? Or did they see it a la Jerome—for moral purposes or to edify?

The fact that Jews after the death of Christ chose a different collection to hold up should have no relevance to Christians; the fact is that at the time of Christ and the writing of NT Scripture, there wasn’t an official “boundary” to what was and wasn’t inspired writing, as can be seen by the differences between the Sadducees and the Pharisees.

Your statement would only make sense if the Jews literally “chose” a different collection, but where is the evidence of this? When and where did it happen? You’re correct regarding the differences between the Pharisees and the Sadducees, who only accepted the Pentateuch, denied the resurrection, and the existence of angels. Yet, Jesus said that the Pharisees and scribes sit on Moses’ seat. Therefore, it can be assumed that the Pharisees taught from the rightful books.

Peace,
CM

 

[Churchmouse]

jimmy:

I have given you proof. I gave you first century Christians to back up my point. All you have given me is an 18th or 19th century Anglican which does not give any proof. I have not been proved wrong on anything. If you want to prove me wrong then show me first century writings that tell me the duetero-canon was not part of the canon before Christ. I don’t want an 18th century account that could be just someones speculation.

What was the “point” you backed up? I didn’t use the Catholic scholar to back up the LXX, but to correct you in your claim that the “Council” of Jamnia took out the Deuterocanonicals. I really wish you would get this right. Jimmy, what you should be addressing is why you stated that Jamnia took out these books when that is a false statement.

The fact that the new testament quotes directly from the septuagint is good proof to say that the LXX is the canon that was held to have authority by the first century Christians.

Sorry, but it isn’t as cut and dry as you make it seem here. These books were in the Septuagint, but being there doesn’t mean that they were held to as inspired Scripture. Unless you can provide evidence that they were regarded as Scripture you really have no argument, but mere speculation.

You protestants always toss around this word sola scriptura. Yet when the new testament specifically quotes a text you reject it. That does not sound like sola scriptura.

Yes, it quotes the Septuagint predominantly over the Masoretic, because it is a better translation, however, quoting known OT passages from the Septuagint doesn’t prove that the Deuterocanonicals were considered divine Scripture as well. You obviously misunderstand what Sola Scriptura is as well, but I won’t allow this to confuse this thread.

I can’t prove that they removed them from the canon…

Good. Then you are admitting that your statement about Jamnia wasn’t correct.

…continue…

 

[Churchmouse]

…but I have certainly proved that they were always part of the canon.

No, you did no such thing. You haven’t proven that they are part of the “canon.” The fact that these books are included in the LXX isn’t evidence that the books themselves were regarded as “canon.” They could have been there for a number of reasons.

I never said that they were in unison, but many of them felt that the duetero-canonicals were just as scriptural as Genesis or any other OT writings.

Good. Then you understand that not all church fathers agreed that the Deuterocanonicals were Scripture. Yes, some did believe that they were canonical.

If this was not the case then they would not have put them in the canon.

You lost me here. The early church fathers can be used as a “criterion” in determining what comprised the canon, but they aren’t the “end-all” in determining it.

You mention people like Jerome who are against the Duetero-canonicals but I could also quote Augustine or any number of others who supported them. They weren’t all in unison but there was a majority that supported them.

Jerome was a Biblical scholar, Augustine wasn’t. Augustine communicated by letter with Jerome and gave an emotional appeal for translating the Septuagint, but Jerome didn’t budge. Eventually, Jerome gave in to some friends and translated the books, but prefaced them stating that they were to be used, but not canonically. He used the words "not to support the doctrines of the Church.

It may be as Ghosty has just said. There were many different canons at the time and the Jews chose one the Christians chose another.

It isn’t as cut and dry as that.

If this is the case as Ghosty has said then it comes down to the point that you are not a Jew. You are a Christian, and the Christian canon is the one that should be important to you.

Yes, but we disagree as to what comprises the Christian canon and canon issues aren’t as simple as “the Septuagint carried them therefore they are Scripture.”

Peace,
CM

 

[jimmy]

Churchmouse:

No, you did no such thing. You haven’t proven that they are part of the “canon.” The fact that these books are included in the LXX isn’t evidence that the books themselves were regarded as “canon.” They could have been there for a number of reasons.
Good. Then you understand that not all church fathers agreed that the Deuterocanonicals were Scripture. Yes, some did believe that they were canonical.
You lost me here. The early church fathers can be used as a “criterion” in determining what comprised the canon, but they aren’t the “end-all” in determining it.
Jerome was a Biblical scholar, Augustine wasn’t. Augustine communicated by letter with Jerome and gave an emotional appeal for translating the Septuagint, but Jerome didn’t budge. Eventually, Jerome gave in to some friends and translated the books, but prefaced them stating that they were to be used, but not canonically. He used the words "not to support the doctrines of the Church.
It isn’t as cut and dry as that.
Yes, but we disagree as to what comprises the Christian canon and canon issues aren’t as simple as “the Septuagint carried them therefore they are Scripture.”
Peace,
CM

I gues we are going to have to agree to disagree because you haven’t given me anything and you don’t like what I have given you.

 

[Churchmouse]

jimmy:

I gues we are going to have to agree to disagree because you haven’t given me anything and you don’t like what I have given you.

Probably because what you’ve given doesn’t prove anything, but I guess there is nothing to give anyway.

Peace,
CM

 

[nucatholic]

Churchmouse, Babtists like to think that they go solely on what the Bible says. I think that is quite laughable considering the fact that no where in the Bible does it state that it is the only authority nor does it have a list of which books are considered scripture. The only reason we know which Old and New Testament books are to be included in the canon of scripture is because SACRED TRADITION told us which books should be included. How can a Babtist assume that the Bible is the only authority when the Bible itself shows no proof? Sola Scriptura is a tradition of the reformation. But wait I thought the Protestants were against traditions… Good luck with that one. God bless! By the way I am an ex-Protestant.

 

[Churchmouse]

nucatholic:

Churchmouse, Babtists like to think that they go solely on what the Bible says. I think that is quite laughable considering the fact that no where in the Bible does it state that it is the only authority nor does it have a list of which books are considered scripture. The only reason we know which Old and New Testament books are to be included in the canon of scripture is because SACRED TRADITION told us which books should be included. Good luck with that one. God bless!

Well, that’s nice to know. I didn’t know you were so knowledgeable on “Babtists.” I guess when Jerome discluded the Deuterocanonical books from canonicity, he wasn’t following “Sacred Tradition” either. And what about the others, including Pope Gregory the Great, I guess they weren’t following “Sacred Tradition” as well. Maybe you can point me to the “Sacred Tradition” which specifically names the books that belong in the canon and also to the sources which state how this “Sacred Tradition” came about.

Peace,
CM

 

[Ghosty]

Sorry, but it isn’t as cut and dry as you make it seem here. These books were in the Septuagint, but being there doesn’t mean that they were held to as inspired Scripture. Unless you can provide evidence that they were regarded as Scripture you really have no argument, but mere speculation.

And unless you can provide evidence that they were considered something other than Scripture, your case is also mere speculation. The fact remains that the writers of the NT quoted from a version of Scripture that was known to contain the Deuterocanonicals, and this can’t be argued. The Apostles passed on the teachings of the Septuagint specifically, but were do they state to be wary of parts of the Septuagint as non-Scriptural? In fact, in Hebrews, Pauls refers directly to 2 Maccabees in the same breath as other “truly Scriptural” events as explicit truths. Nowhere is there any indication by the Apostles that these things are somehow to be regarded differently, and they even taught using this collection.

You apparently accept the Council of Rome, which is where the NT was first affirmed in its entirety, yet you reject the fact that in the same council the Deuterocanonicals were affirmed. Why do you accept the authority of the Council for one part, but reject the other?

Whether or not the Council of Jamnia produced an authoritative Jewish Canon or not is irrelevant to the fact that the Apostles taught from the Septuagint, and taught specifically from Deuterocanonicals. It’s also irrelevant to the fact that the first total affirmation of the NT also affirmed the Deuterocanonicals as Scripture.

 

[jimmy]

Churchmouse:

Well, that’s nice to know. I didn’t know you were so knowledgeable on “Babtists.” I guess when Jerome discluded the Deuterocanonical books from canonicity, he wasn’t following “Sacred Tradition” either. And what about the others, including Pope Gregory the Great, I guess they weren’t following “Sacred Tradition” as well. Maybe you can point me to the “Sacred Tradition” which specifically names the books that belong in the canon and also to the sources which state how this “Sacred Tradition” came about.

Peace,
CM

Unfortunately, Jerome was not the only one who counted when deciding the canon. Just like anything else the canon had to pass a vote. It was not Jeromes decision what would be canon. I could name many church fathers who are just as credible as Jerome or Gregory.

Why do you accept the view of Jerome or Gregory on this subject but reject it on the other subjects?

By the way, I was curious what denomination you are.

 

[nucatholic]

You didn’t answer my question Churchmouse, where in the Bible does it state what the canon of scripture is to be and where does it say we should rely on it alone as the authority for Chrisitian truth? No more beating around the bush, lets get to the point. If you can’t answer my question don’t answer at all.

 

[Churchmouse]

Ghosty:

And unless you can provide evidence that they were considered something other than Scripture, your case is also mere speculation.

Sorry, not my burden to bear. I am quite comfortable knowing that these books were never recognized as Scripture by the Jews or the early Christian church. There is no reason to think so and just because the books were included in the LXX “text” doesn’t mean that ALL the books in the text were accepted as canon. I am also quite comfortable knowing they could just as well be used for moral teaching, religious instruction, historical and cultural sources, commentary, etc.

The fact remains that the writers of the NT quoted from a version of Scripture that was known to contain the Deuterocanonicals, and this can’t be argued.

But that doesn’t mean that these books were used as Scripture. Inclusion into the “text” of the LXX doesn’t quite translate into inclusion into the canon. It would take a lot more than this to prove that they were. If Jerome included the books as an addendum to the “text” of the Vulgate, yet was very clear concerning its non-canonicity, why is it so “impossible” to accept that the Alexandrian Jews may have included these books as something other than Scripture? Something relevant, but not canonical. The LXX was a better translation and the Jews were becoming acquainted with the Greek language. The Gospel message was being spread amongst the Gentiles, particularly Greeks, and a translation was already available to meet the needs of this community. So, it seems a given that the NT writers took a preference to it and this transferred to the early church as a result. It makes perfect sense!

The Apostles passed on the teachings of the Septuagint specifically, but were do they state to be wary of parts of the Septuagint as non-Scriptural?

Why would they have to? What if it was known that these books were added for reasons other than Scripture? Considering the lack of evidence proving these books to be recognized canon by the Jews, I don’t see any reason to believe otherwise. Also, what do you mean by the “teachings of the Septuagint?” How would that be different from the teachings of the Hebrew text? Again, the fact that the LXX was a Greek translation made it convenient to pass along to a Greek community being evangelized. If it made the rounds by default it wasn’t because it carried the imprimatur of the Apostles, but due to the community it served.

In fact, in Hebrews, Pauls refers directly to 2 Maccabees , but were do they state to be wary of parts of the in the same breath as other “truly Scriptural” events as explicit truths.

It would be nice to know which passages you are speaking of, but if you are speaking about 2 Maccabees 12:44 (I’ve heard the argument before), I don’t see how Paul is quoting this passage, explicitly or implicitly. There is no way the two can be tied together. For the record, Jude cites two pseudipigraphical books, the *Assumption of Moses * and *1 Enoch * in his epistle. If the criterion for canonicity is “direct reference” than why hasn’t Rome canonized these two books?

…continued…

 

[MrS]

Your “history” of the canon of Scripture is horrible. Even in 135AD the Jews were still discussing what was in “their” canon. And if you choose to accept what their council decided on (they seriously opposed Christianity, you know) as opposed to the body of authority begun by Christ Himself, well… the burden of proof is all on you… and you only have to go back about 500 years. Before that your opposition/arguments were non-existant.

Jame White debated the Canon of Scripture recently with a Catholic Apologist, Gary Michuta. (email Gary at gmichuta@avemarialaw.edu for purchase info) I suggest you purchase the debate and listen closely, then do some re-research. Do not detract from the Word of God.

MrS

 

[Churchmouse]

Nowhere is there any indication by the Apostles that these things are somehow to be regarded differently, and they even taught using this collection.

But what books did they teach from? The canonical or deutero-canonical? And in what context? When referring to historical events they may have used examples of incidents recorded within the Deuterocanonicals, but they never quoted them as if they were inspired Scripture. There is evidence showing that Paul was familiar with some Deuterocanonical books, like Wisdom, and may allude to them, but Paul was familiar with many writings. Paul quotes pagan writers such as Aratus of Soli, Menander, and Epiminedes. Should we consider their writings canon because these pagans stated a truth?

You apparently accept the Council of Rome, which is where the NT was first affirmed in its entirety, yet you reject the fact that in the same council the Deuterocanonicals were affirmed. Why do you accept the authority of the Council for one part, but reject the other?

I don’t accept the findings of this Council per se. In much the same way that Rome concluded these books to be divine Scripture, the Reformers researched and found these books to be so. This should be evident to you considering all the hoopla over Luther and his “epistle of straw", Jude, Revelation, etc. Remember?

Whether or not the Council of Jamnia produced an authoritative Jewish Canon or not is irrelevant to the fact that the Apostles taught from the Septuagint, and taught specifically from Deuterocanonicals.

Again, you’re being vague, I really have no idea of what you’re referring to. I know that the Apostles quoted from the LXX more than they did the Masoretic, but as to teaching “from the Deuterocanonicals” you’ll have to clue me in.

It’s also irrelevant to the fact that the first total affirmation of the NT also affirmed the Deuterocanonicals as Scripture.

Carthage in 347 A.D.? Who cares what they affirmed! There were canon issues leading all the way up to Trent regardless of these “affirmations.” Trent used their “infallible” powers to close the canon, but “infallibility” didn’t go too far in those days. Considering they were just words uttered that really had no authority, especially over those who disagreed that this was a valid concept.

Peace,
CM

 

[MrS]

Churchmouse:

Sorry, not my burden to bear. I am quite comfortable knowing that these books were never recognized as Scripture by the Jews or the early Christian church.

. So, it seems a given that the NT writers took a preference to it and this transferred to the early church as a result. It makes perfect sense!

…continued…

Which Jews… the ones who only recognized the Torah, or the ones who recognised the prophets???

The given, is that all the NTwriters were in the one and only Church established by Christ, and commissioned by Him to teach. That they chose to write was a necessary expansion of the spreading the Gospel.

Next I expect to see the worn out arguments about the “oracles”, and OT errors, and “7 books are in just to support Catholic docrine” etc.

Do some serious study, please.

Mrs