Who had the final say on which books are inspired?

[pablope]

\

Quote:
Originally Posted by Duane1966 View Post
3.) You accept the NT that the authority of the Church at the Council of Nicea canonized. There is evidence in a quote from St. Jerome that held that same council calling the Deuterocanonicals as inspired. Why do you accept the authority of the Church on the NT, but reject that same authority on the Deuterocanonicals?

I accept the NT because of who wrote the NT. When I said something along the lines of “Christianity defines the NT” I meant that the reason why the books of the NT are considered Scripture is because of who wrote them.

Then, can you answer this question:

Can you cite the chapter and verse where Mark claims he authored or wrote the Gospel of Mark?

If you cannot find that, then how do you know Mark wrote the Gospel of Mark, and who is this Jew named Mark?

If you look at the authors then you’ll see that no other books really could be considered Scripture as there is no-one else in all of history (nor will there ever be) that could be considered to be a higher authority than the authors.

Other writings, not in the NT today, were considered Scriptural…like the Epistle of Clement of Rome to Corinth, the Letter of Barnabas, Shepherd of Hermas…so can you then explain why these are not in the NT today?

And likewise, Hebrews, and Revelations where not considered Scripture in the early days of Christianity…so can you explain why these are part of the NT today?

I think that the Jews chose their OT for the exact same reasons that the Christians chose the NT: because of who wrote the books.

As has been pointed out, the Jews after AD100, chose their books for the purpose of stopping Jews from becoming Christians, and it was to reject Christianity.

The Jews would never throw out any book of the OT because there’s no-one else of higher authority to replace them with. Also, the Jews would never throw out a book of the OT because they’ve been considered inspired by their tradition since time immemorial.

Can you point out who is the single Jewish Authority to determine what their canon should be?

I could very easily argue against them, since there is simply no-one of a higher authority than the Apostle John, who actually walked around with Christ in the flesh during his (approx.) 3.5 year ministry. If John’s gospel isn’t considered inspired, then what is?

Well…who decided John’s gospel is inspired?

How about the one who rejected Revelation as inspired?

 

[Ignatius]

So they rejected the Apocrypha but didn’t also reject the canonical OT

Actually, they did not. The most widely used list of Sacred Books was the Septuagint which includes was used from the 3rd Century BC on. As I am sure you are already aware, the Septuagint does contain all of the Sacred Texts including the 39 used by Protestants.

Other important points that you ignore are

In fact, This translation is quoted in the New Testament, The quotations from the Old Testament found in the New are in the main taken from the Septuagint; and even where the citation is indirect the influence of this version is clearly seen.
(Source "“Bible Translations – The Septuagint”. JewishEncyclopedia.com.

The Pauline quotations from OT Scripture, are all taken, directly or from memory, from the Greek version.

It is a well established fact that the Septuagint books were use by the preponderance of Jews in the diaspora from the 3rd Century until the 1st Century and by All Christians until the 16th Century,

Please see my response to Ignatius above.

Actually, you did not answer the questions or respond to the facts that The Pauline quotations from the OT and most of the other New Testament quotations of the OT are taken from the Septuagint.

1. Are you aware of the fact that the Sadducees and others held that only the Pentateuch was scripture?
2. Did you not know that the Pharisees accepted different groupings and had a canon of twenty-four books that form the Tanakh starting with Genesis and ending with Chronicles?

Were you unaware of these facts? Does this raise any questions now that you know?

 

[Achilles6129]

Guys, we’re running 'round and 'round in circles here. I’m only going to respond to the new points that have been raised as I have responded to the other points at least once (and sometimes on a couple of occasions) so there’s no need for me to continue answering the same question.

Of course the Council of Jamnia existed.

Yes, I know. Pablope is the one claiming that it never existed.

They found certain books to be inspired, like Isaiah, and others not to be inspired, like Mathew.

Of course they didn’t find Matthew to be inspired: because they were Jews, not Christians! At the council of Jamnia Jewish rabbis simply ratified a list of books that they all already accepted as Scripture and had been accepted as Scripture for hundreds of years. Isaiah had been Scripture a long time before the council of Jamnia! I’ve addressed this before.

 

[Achilles6129]

Yes…those who cling to a council of Jamnia are wrong, as recent scholarship show that such a council never existed. The Jews have no sort of magisterium…so they could not hold such a council.

This should point you to investigate further:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Council_of_Jamnia

I’m sorry, I don’t accept Wikipedia as a source.

Such council of Jamnia was first proposed in 1871, by Graetz. It has been discredited and questioned as early as the 1960s or so.

Well, F.F. Bruce’s book is from long after 1960 and it mentions the council of Jamnia as a reality:

amazon.com/Canon-Scripture-F-Bruce/dp/083081258X/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1418259819&sr=1-1&keywords=bruce+canon

The purpose of a Jewish canon (whenever it was after AD100 and was not at Jamnia) was to reject Christianity…so by adhering to what the Jews settled, you are unwittingly agreeing to their rejection of Christianity.

This is not true and I have answered this before. There’s no need to continue.

I am sorry, you did not understand my question…which I am reposting: Quote:
Originally Posted by pablope View Post
What is the authority of Josephus to define the OT canon for Christianity?

Your question misunderstands what I’m trying to say.

Incidentally, here are a few links for you about the Apocrypha:

carm.org/why-apocrypha-not-in-bible

carm.org/errors-apocrypha

bible.org/question/why-are-some-books-missing-kjv

From your own link:

Resurrection. The evidence is clear that the Sadducees denied the doctrine of the resurrection. Acts 23:6-8 records how this issue divided the Sanhedrin, for it was the Pharisees who believed in the resurrection of the dead and the immortality of the soul. Matthew 22:23 and Acts 4:1-2 also refer to the Sadducees in this way. It is probably because the resurrection was so critical for Christianity that the New Testament focuses on this point.

So you agree with the Sadducees also with their denial of the Resurrection?

How did you get from me saying that the Sadducees probably had the same canon as the other Jews to me agreeing with the Sadducees about there being no resurrection…?

 

[Achilles6129]

Not true at all. Every book in the NT claims authorship outside of Hebrews and the four gospels. We know who the authors of the four gospels are by process of elimination and through citations from the patristic fathers (some of whom actually physically knew the Apostles).

I’ve already studied enough about the NT canon to know that the Apocryphal book that came closest to making into the NT was the gospel of Thomas (and it didn’t even come remotely close to making it) - an obvious forgery. There’s no competition with the NT, as I said before.

Unfortunate. There’s really no need to debate who wrote them (outside of Hebrews).

I have no idea and am not Lutheran. The desire to throw out these books, however, does tell me to be wary of his theology.

 

[Achilles6129]

catholiceducation.org/en/religion-and-philosophy/apologetics/purgatory-holy-fire.html

Purgatory Holy Fire

Among the Scriptural books:

2nd Samuel, Ps 18, 86, 2 Maccabees, 1 Peter; Revelation 20; Romans 8; 1Cor 3; Malachi 3; Matthew 5, from v25/26…

Hi,

I found no evidence whatsoever of the mention of Purgatory in that link you posted. There is certainly no mention of it in the Bible (the Protestant version). The only way you can come up with Purgatory is to invent it yourself, as the author of your link admits:

“Thus he made atonement for the dead that they might be freed from this sin.” Now, simple logic tells us that there is a third realm. If they’re in hell, no expiatory sacrifice will help. If they’re in heaven, no expiatory sacrifice is needed. They must be some place else.

There you have it - he deduced this through ‘simple logic.’ You’ll note that there is no mention whatsoever of Purgatory in the passage (2 Macc. 12:39-45). So the entire concept of Purgatory is read into the passage.

Then, can you answer this question:

Can you cite the chapter and verse where Mark claims he authored or wrote the Gospel of Mark?

If you cannot find that, then how do you know Mark wrote the Gospel of Mark, and who is this Jew named Mark?

We know from patristic-era authors that Mark wrote the gospel of Mark and that he probably got it from the recollections of the Apostle Peter. We know that the authors of the gospels ultimately had to be Apostles because only an actual eyewitness could know the things that they knew.

Other writings, not in the NT today, were considered Scriptural…like the Epistle of Clement of Rome to Corinth, the Letter of Barnabas, Shepherd of Hermas…so can you then explain why these are not in the NT today?

The reason why nothing else is in the NT is because it’s either not Apostolic or it’s a forgery.

And likewise, Hebrews, and Revelations where not considered Scripture in the early days of Christianity…so can you explain why these are part of the NT today?

They were considered Scripture in the early days of Christianity, just not by everyone. They’re in the NT today because they’re Apostolic and they’re not forgeries.

 

[Achilles6129]

Actually, you did not answer the questions or respond to the facts that The Pauline quotations from the OT and most of the other New Testament quotations of the OT are taken from the Septuagint.

I did answer, but perhaps you didn’t see it. I am well aware that most of the NT quotations are from the Septuagint. That has absolutely no bearing on whether or not the Apocrypha are inspired. Your argument that:

1. The NT authors quoted from the LXX version of the OT
2. The LXX translators translated the Apocrypha
3. Everything the LXX translators translated must be inspired, therefore
4. The Apocrypha are inspired

is incorrect, as I have said before. Just because the LXX translators translated something has no bearing on its inspiration.

1. Are you aware of the fact that the Sadducees and others held that only the Pentateuch was scripture?

I answered this before with a linked article to bible.org. It is unknown whether or not the Sadducees actually only accepted the Torah as Scripture.

1. Did you not know that the Pharisees accepted different groupings and had a canon of twenty-four books that form the Tanakh starting with Genesis and ending with Chronicles?

Please show a reputable source that says that the Pharisaical canon was different from the current OT canon of 39 books. Please note that the “24” or “22” books of the ancient OT canon are actually identical with the 39 we have today (the books were divided differently).

 

[Duane1966]

So the word Purgatory is not in the Bible. So what? It is the name the Church gives to a place where souls go that need final purification before entering Heaven. Luther and Calvin could easily see the CONCEPT of Purgatory in Maccabees, as do many Protestants.

The word Trinity is not in the Bible either. Should we not believe in the Trinity, since it is not mentioned? Or do we accept it because the CONCEPT is there?

 

[Duane1966]

Interesting point here. I see that the Jews of Ethiopia DO consider the Deuterocanonicals inspired.

 

[Duane1966]

Okay for the answer to the original question of who had the final say on the OT. For most Protestants it is the Jewish council at Jamnia. For Catholics the final say was, and still is, the Church.

A question for those who reject the Deuterocanonicals, why didn’t the writers of the NT when they were quoting from the Septuagint, say “by the way those seven books, don’t pay attention to them, they are not inspired”? Is it because the people they were writing to and for, already knew they weren’t inspired, or that the people they were writing to and for, already knew they were inspired?

 

[commenter]

We know from patristic-era authors that Mark wrote the gospel of Mark and that he probably got it from the recollections of the Apostle Peter. We know that the authors of the gospels ultimately had to be Apostles because only an actual eyewitness could know the things that they knew…The reason why nothing else is in the NT is because it’s either not Apostolic or it’s a forgery.

In your posts, you are unconsciously presupposing the (Catholic) template, one tradition of early Christianity. Then you say a certain 27 books are inspired, because they fit into that template, and other books are not apostolic, and or “forgeries”.
Keep in mind other scholars, ancient and modern, reject that Catholic traditional template that I and you share. Without that template, they regarded some of the familiar 27 books as forgeries, or culture bound, and thus not inspired; they identify other books as apostolic, and inspired, instead of, or in addition to, the familiar 27.

They were considered Scripture in the early days of Christianity, just not by everyone. They’re in the NT today because they’re Apostolic and they’re not forgeries.

If you start out with a different template (set of assumptions) in mind, you might throw out some of the 27 books, and bring in others, especially the Gospel of Thomas, and Gospel of Mary, and others. I am not endorsing this, just pointing out that this happened in the ancient Church, and happens today - read “A New New Testament”, and other current efforts to expand the NT canon. The criteria you refer to - this book is apostolic, so it’s in, that book is a forgery, so it’s out - are valid, but inadequate. Scholars who reject your, and my, 27 book NT canon, also use those criteria, but arrive at different canons.

Only a tiny percentage of Protestant churches are now using the “new” books (expanded NT canon) in worship services, but I think it will slowly expand - both in the number of congregations using the books, and in adding more books.

 

[pablope]

Guys

Yes, I know. Pablope is the one claiming that it never existed.

 

[pablope]

I’m sorry, I don’t accept Wikipedia as a source.

Well, F.F. Bruce’s book is from long after 1960 and it mentions the council of Jamnia as a reality:

 

[pablope]

I’

Your question misunderstands what I’m trying to say.

 

[pablope]

Hi,

I found no evidence whatsoever of the mention of Purgatory in that link you posted. There is certainly no mention of it in the Bible (the Protestant version). The only way you can come up with Purgatory is to invent it yourself, as the author of your link admits:

 

[pablope]

Hi,

The reason why nothing else is in the NT is because it’s either not Apostolic or it’s a forgery.

 

[MarkInOregon]

are there any official catholic links, answers that explain how we got our official canon?

I like the book “Where We Got the Bible…Our Debt to the Catholic Church” by RT. Rev. Henry G. Graham

 

[michaelhager]

They are never mentioned as Scripture in the NT or quoted from in such a way as to indicate that they are divinely inspired, as other books of the OT are

Ecclesiastes and Ezra are never mentioned in the New Testament. Should we throw them out as well?

1 Maccabees 4:56-59 The Feast of the Dedication is proclaimed.
56 For eight days they celebrated the dedication of the altar and joyfully offered burnt offerings and sacrifices of deliverance and praise. 57 They ornamented the facade of the temple with gold crowns and shields; they repaired the gates and the priests’ chambers and furnished them with doors. 58 There was great joy among the people now that the disgrace brought by the Gentiles was removed. 59 Then Judas and his brothers and the entire assembly of Israel decreed that every year for eight days, from the twenty-fifth day of the month Kislev,n the days of the dedication* of the altar should be observed with joy and gladness on the anniversary.

John 10:22-23 Jesus observes the feast of the Dedication
22 The feast of the Dedication was then taking place in Jerusalem. It was winter. 23 And Jesus walked about in the temple area on the Portico of Solomon.

Days of the dedication: The feast of Hanukkah, also called the Feast of Dedication is instituted in honor of the re-dedication of the Temple after its desecration by the Gentiles. Josephus calls it the Feast of Lights. The significance is that Jesus is clearly shown observing tradition not found in the Protestant Bible but in 1 Maccabees, one of the seven books eliminated from the Protestant Bible by Martin Luther.

Hebrews 11:35 is a direct reference by Paul to 2 Maccabees 7 in which mothers were tortured and killed for their faith along with their children. So your assertion that they are not mentioned in the New Testament is in error.

SOME Jews believed these books were not divinely inspired. many did:

These 7 books were accepted by the Diaspora Jews (the Alexandrian Canon) who were not in Palestine. They are called the “deuterocanon”, or second canon, by Catholics, and the “apocrypha”, or hidden/obscure, by Protestants and there are portions of them found in the Dead Sea Scrolls which clearly substantiates their acceptance by Jews of the time.

 

[commenter]

There are 3 positions on the NT canon:

1. Those who accept the spiritual authority of the Magisterium, and its NT canon.
2. Those who reject the authority of the Magisterium, and its canon. This small but growing movement says they can, better than the Magisterium apply the ancient techniques to determine what NT books are inspired; and use new techniques the Magisterium never thought of. They are adding and subtracting books from the “traditional” 27 book NT; multiple NT canons will develop, to suit various preferences.
3. Those who reject the authority of the Magisterium, but choose the same 27 books the Magisterium identifies as inspired. This is a shaky position to defend, because without an authoritative Magisterium, how do you know these 27 books are the “right” NT canon? There are several possible ways to evaluate a book; some books in the traditional NT 27 don’t meet all the criteria, some books outside the 27 do meet some criteria; but how do you know what criteria to use, anyway, without a Magisterium?

I predict in the near future #3 (the Evangelical position) will shrink. Some people will give up Sola Scriptura (i. e. go to #1); some others will take Sola to the logical conclusion, (#2). If you try to hold to #3, you may witness to someone, but they will respond “that book isn’t in my New Testament”. They will quote from some book in their own New Testament, that’s not in your NT.

 

[Achilles6129]

So the word Purgatory is not in the Bible. So what? It is the name the Church gives to a place where souls go that need final purification before entering Heaven. Luther and Calvin could easily see the CONCEPT of Purgatory in Maccabees, as do many Protestants.

It is my contention that the concept of Purgatory is being read into the text (of the Apocrypha).

The word Trinity is not in the Bible either. Should we not believe in the Trinity, since it is not mentioned? Or do we accept it because the CONCEPT is there?

The Trinity is not being read into the text but is there right from the beginning:

“26 Then God said, “Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness; and let them rule over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the [ak]sky and over the cattle and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth.”” Gen. 1:26 (NASB)

Interesting point here. I see that the Jews of Ethiopia DO consider the Deuterocanonicals inspired.

I didn’t see any source that said that.

Okay for the answer to the original question of who had the final say on the OT. For most Protestants it is the Jewish council at Jamnia. For Catholics the final say was, and still is, the Church.

Well, actually, it was God. The Jews were entrusted with the oracles of God:

“Then what [a]advantage has the Jew? Or what is the benefit of circumcision? 2 Great in every respect. First of all, that they were entrusted with the oracles of God.” Rom. 3:1-2 (NASB)

Now if the Jews were entrusted with the oracles of God then clearly the Jewish OT canon is what we should be going by.

A question for those who reject the Deuterocanonicals, why didn’t the writers of the NT when they were quoting from the Septuagint, say “by the way those seven books, don’t pay attention to them, they are not inspired”? Is it because the people they were writing to and for, already knew they weren’t inspired, or that the people they were writing to and for, already knew they were inspired?

Because they already assumed the same Jewish canon that had been around for centuries and established by tradition - the Jewish canon Protestants hold to today. Have you ever wondered why you accept only those 7 books of the Apocrypha, and not the others that the LXX translators translated?