Who had the final say on which books are inspired?

[Ignatius]

Not true at all. The OT Scripture of Christ’s time is the Jewish canon.

There was no official Hebrew Canon in the 1st century. Some groups, like the Sadducees, only ascribed to the Pentateuch, some held to a larger list to include the psalms. The broadest canon, which was ascribed to by most Jews in the Diaspora, was the Septuagint Canon. That is the OT Canon handed on to The Apostles and continually used from the time of Christ down to our very time by The Catholic Church.

As to the New Testament Canon

Canon of Scripture
The doctrine of inerrancy flows very naturally from the Church’s teaching that Scripture is the Word of God. The Holy Scripture of the New Testament was Authoritatively first declared inerrant by and as a result of the Decree of Pope St. Damasus I at the Council of Rome in 382 A.D.

The Decree of Pope St. Damasus I, Council of Rome. 382 A.D…

ST. DAMASUS 1, POPE, THE DECREE OF DAMASUS:
***It is decreed: Now, indeed, we must treat of the divine Scriptures: what the universal Catholic Church accepts and what she must shun. ***
***The list of the Scriptures of the New and Eternal Testament, which the holy and Catholic Church receives: of the Gospels, one book according to Matthew, one book according to Mark, one book according to Luke, one book according to John. The Epistles of the Apostle Paul, fourteen in number: one to the Romans, two to the Corinthians, one to the Ephesians, two to the Thessalonians, one to the Galatians, one to the Philippians, one to the Colossians, two to Timothy, one to Titus one to Philemon, one to the Hebrews. Likewise, one book of the Apocalypse of John. And the Acts of the Apostles, one book. Likewise, the canonical Epistles, seven in number: of the Apostle Peter, two Epistles; of the Apostle James, one Epistle; of the Apostle John, one Epistle; of the other John, a Presbyter, two Epistles; of the Apostle Jude the Zealot, one Epistle. Thus concludes the canon of the New Testament. ***
Likewise it is decreed: After the announcement of all of these prophetic and evangelic or as well as apostolic writings which we have listed above as Scriptures, on which, by the grace of God, the Catholic Church is founded, we have considered that it ought to be announced that although all the Catholic Churches spread abroad through the world comprise but one bridal chamber of Christ, nevertheless, the holy Roman Church has been placed at the forefront not by the conciliar decisions of other Churches, but has received the primacy by the evangelic voice of our Lord and Savior, who says: "You are Peter, and upon this rock I will build My Church, and the gates of hell will not prevail against it; and I will give to you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you shall have bound on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you shall have loosed on earth shall be loosed in heaven."

The Council of Hippo in 393 reaffirmed the canon put forth by Pope Damasus I…

AD 393:
Council of Hippo. "It has been decided that besides the canonical Scriptures nothing be read in church under the name of divine Scripture. (canon 36 A.D. 393).

The Third Council of Carthage reaffirmed anew, the Canon put forth by Pope Damasus I…

***AD 397: ***
Council of Carthage III. "It has been decided that nothing except the canonical Scriptures should be read in the Church under the name of the divine Scriptures. (canon 47 A.D. 397).

This Council of Carthage affirms the Decree of Damasus, sending its affirmation and the rest of the canons adopted at its proceedings to Rome for ratification.

**418: Pope Boniface I ratifies the canons of the Council of Carthage and sends copies to the sees of Antioch, Alexandria, and Jerusalem, resulting in informal acceptance of the canon world-wide.

419: The Fourth Council of Carthage re-affirms the actions of Pope Boniface. Canonical discussions remain mostly settled for the next three centuries.

787: The Second Council of Nicea formally ratifies the canon for the Eastern Churches.

1546: The Council of Trent again re-affirms the Scriptures traditionally recognized by the Church.**

 

[Achilles6129]

Not true. I can quote just as many scholars that argue that the Septuagint was the OT that was used in Jesus’ time. I can also give links to books sold by Amazon that argue differently than the link you gave me.

Of course the Septuagint translation was the main one used in the time of Christ and the Apostles, simply because Greek was the lingua franca of the day. But that doesn’t mean that the Apocrypha were regarded as divinely inspired by Christ or the Apostles.

The fact that those books are in the original Septuagint surely points to the fact that the Jews who were translating thought them to be inspired. If they didn’t, why include them?

Incidentally, they also translated books which even Catholics do not consider Scripture, such as the Letter of Jeremiah, for example. They were translated along with the books Jews took to be inspired for the same reason the gospel of Thomas survives even to this day: they were thought to preserve history and be good to read.

Jesus and the Apostles do quote (not verbatim) from those seven books as this link shows. catholiceducation.org/en/religion-and-philosophy/apologetics/5-myths-about-7-books.html . Interestingly enough if Jesus does NOT quote from a book, does that make it non-scriptural?

Alluding to something does not mean it is divinely inspired; the author would have to say that it’s “Scripture” in order for that to be the case! And it is questionable whether or not they are actually referring to those books or to common stories and modes of expression of the times. Certainly they make no reference to those books, as they do to other books of Scripture.

Why, then, would or should we trust an institution that put curses on Christians and repudiated the Messiah and his liberating teachings, in order to know what belongs in the Bible? It makes no sense. Furthermore, if we trust the Jews concerning the Scriptural canon, we must be consistent, and thus we should also throw out all the books of the New Testament, since the Jews believe the New Testament has not been written yet (contains zero books therefore). Yet no Protestant does that. Indeed, Protestants want it both ways. They want to have only 39 books in the Old Testament (relying on the Jews for that decision), but yet also wish to have their 27 New Testament books (NOT relying on the Jews this time). Why this inconsistency?

Simply because they’re Jews and not Christians. By definition they reject Christ and therefore have no say whatsoever in the books of the NT.

 

[Achilles6129]

There was no official Hebrew Canon in the 1st century. Some groups, like the Sadducees, only ascribed to the Pentateuch, some held to a larger list to include the psalms. The broadest canon, which was ascribed to by most Jews in the Diaspora, was the Septuagint Canon. That is the OT Canon handed on to The Apostles and continually used from the time of Christ down to our very time by The Catholic Church.

Of course there was no “official” Jewish canon at the time of Christ/the Apostles, but the 39 books of the OT may as well have been “official” in the sense that the Jews already accepted them (and had so for centuries) as Scripture. The council of Jamnia was a mere formality. Josephus records 22 books of the Hebrew canon, which (since he sometimes used two of our books as one, e.g., 1/2 Samuel) is identical with the Protestant canon today:

blueletterbible.org/faq/canon.cfm

We have but twenty-two [books] containing the history of all time, books that are justly believed in; and of these, five are the books of Moses, which comprise the law and earliest traditions from the creation of mankind down to his death. From the death of Moses to the reign of Artaxerxes, King of Persia, the successor of Xerxes, the prophets who succeeded Moses wrote the history of the events that occurred in their own time, in thirteen books. The remaining four documents comprise hymns to God and practical precepts to men (William Whiston, trans., Flavius Josephus against Apion, Vol. 1, in Josephus, Complete Works, Grand Rapids, Kregel, 1960, p. 8).

 

[pablope]

Of course there was no “official” Jewish canon at the time of Christ/the Apostles, but the 39 books of the OT may as well have been “official” in the sense that the Jews already accepted them (and had so for centuries) as Scripture. The council of Jamnia was a mere formality. Josephus records 22 books of the Hebrew canon, which (since he sometimes used two of our books as one, e.g., 1/2 Samuel) is identical with the Protestant canon today:

blueletterbible.org/faq/canon.cfm

Wrong again…there was no such council of Jamnia…it did not even exist:

catholicdefense.blogspot.com/2011/07/can-protestants-rely-upon-council-of.html

And what the Jews settled after AD 100 on their canon was a rejection of Christianity…in essence, you are agreeing with the Jewish rejection of Christ in using their canon.

The Jamnia School Was Very Anti-Christian: While we can’t say that the Jamnia rabbinical school ever produced a Biblical canon, we can point to a major contribution of the school. It produced an ugly prayer called the Birkat haMinim, which cursed the Christians as sectarians, and prayed to God that for these “sectarians,” “let there be no hope, and may all the evil in an instant be destroyed and all Thy enemies be cut down swiftly; and the evil ones uproot and break and destroy and humble soon in our days. Blessed art You, LORD, who breaks down enemies and humbles sinners.” This prayer was to be prayed every Sabbath, and it forced the Jewish Christians to stop worshiping with the non-Christian Jews in synagogue.

Besides…what do Jews have to do with anything binding on Christianity?

 

[pablope]

Of course there was no “official” Jewish canon at the time of Christ/the Apostles, but the 39 books of the OT may as well have been “official” in the sense that the Jews already accepted them (and had so for centuries) as Scripture. The council of Jamnia was a mere formality. Josephus records 22 books of the Hebrew canon, which (since he sometimes used two of our books as one, e.g., 1/2 Samuel) is identical with the Protestant canon today:

blueletterbible.org/faq/canon.cfm

What is the authority of Josephus to define the OT canon for Christianity?

And who decided on the protestant canon of the OT? Which protestant had authority to define the OT for protestant Christianity?

 

[Ignatius]

Ignatius;12556221:

Some Hebrew groups, like the Sadducees, only ascribed to the Pentateuch, some held to a larger list to include the psalms. The broadest canon, which was ascribed to by most Jews in the Diaspora, was the Septuagint Canon.
Canon of Scripture

The doctrine of inerrancy flows very naturally from the Church’s teaching that Scripture is the Word of God. The Holy Scripture of the New Testament was Authoritatively first declared inerrant by and as a result of the Decree of Pope St. Damasus I at the Council of Rome in 382 A.D.

The Decree of Pope St. Damasus I, Council of Rome. 382 A.D…
ST. DAMASUS 1, POPE, THE DECREE OF DAMASUS:
***It is decreed: Now, indeed, we must treat of the divine Scriptures: what the universal Catholic Church accepts and what she must shun. ***
***The list of the Scriptures of the New and Eternal Testament, which the holy and Catholic Church receives: of the Gospels, one book according to Matthew, one book according to Mark, one book according to Luke, one book according to John. The Epistles of the Apostle Paul, fourteen in number: one to the Romans, two to the Corinthians, one to the Ephesians, two to the Thessalonians, one to the Galatians, one to the Philippians, one to the Colossians, two to Timothy, one to Titus one to Philemon, one to the Hebrews. Likewise, one book of the Apocalypse of John. And the Acts of the Apostles, one book. Likewise, the canonical Epistles, seven in number: of the Apostle Peter, two Epistles; of the Apostle James, one Epistle; of the Apostle John, one Epistle; of the other John, a Presbyter, two Epistles; of the Apostle Jude the Zealot, one Epistle. Thus concludes the canon of the New Testament. ***
Likewise it is decreed: After the announcement of all of these prophetic and evangelic or as well as apostolic writings which we have listed above as Scriptures, on which, by the grace of God, the Catholic Church is founded, we have considered that it ought to be announced that although all the Catholic Churches spread abroad through the world comprise but one bridal chamber of Christ, nevertheless, the holy Roman Church has been placed at the forefront not by the conciliar decisions of other Churches, but has received the primacy by the evangelic voice of our Lord and Savior, who says: "You are Peter, and upon this rock I will build My Church, and the gates of hell will not prevail against it; and I will give to you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you shall have bound on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you shall have loosed on earth shall be loosed in heaven."

The Council of Hippo in 393 reaffirmed the canon put forth by Pope Damasus I
***AD 393: ***Council of Hippo. "It has been decided that besides the canonical Scriptures nothing be read in church under the name of divine Scripture. (canon 36 A.D. 393).

***The Third Council of Carthage reaffirmed anew, the Canon put forth by Pope Damasus I. ******AD 397: ***Council of Carthage III. "It has been decided that nothing except the canonical Scriptures should be read in the Church under the name of the divine Scriptures. (canon 47 A.D. 397).

This Council of Carthage affirms the Decree of Damasus, sending its affirmation and the rest of the canons adopted at its proceedings to Rome for ratification.

787: The Second Council of Nicea formally ratifies the canon for the Eastern Churches.
1546: The Council of Trent again re-affirms the Scriptures traditionally recognized by the Church.
Of course there was no “official” Jewish canon at the time of Christ/the Apostles

Incorrect, my friend. The LXX is the OT Canon handed on to The Apostles and continually used from the time of Christ down to our very time by The Catholic Church… The Pharisees, Sadducee, Essenes and other groups of Hebrews all used differing groups of OT Scripture. The Septuagint order for the Old Testament is evident in the earliest Christian Bibles (Jennifer M. Dines, The Septuagint, Michael A. Knibb, Ed., London: T&T Clark, 2004)

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.
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. Retrieved February 2012.)

The Pauline quotations from OT Scripture, are all taken, directly or from memory, from the Greek version. (From “Paul, the Apostle of the Gentiles”. JewishEncyclopedia.com. February 2012.)

I hope this helps clear up your misunderstanding. The Septuagent books were use by the preponderance of Jews from the 3rd Century until the 1st Century and by All Christians until the 16th Century,.
In the 16th Century some men in Western Europe, following their own false, man made doctrines, decided to remove some books from the Bible.
Sadly, many have chosen to follow the teachings of those men.

I urge you to prayerfully consider these things and return to the Church founded by Jesus Christ, The Catholic Church.

Here is a site that might help you:
calledtocommunion.com/media/CPC1.mp3
calledtocommunion.com/
calledtocommunion.com/media/indexofmedia.html

 

[Achilles6129]

Wrong again…there was no such council of Jamnia…it did not even exist:

catholicdefense.blogspot.com/2011/07/can-protestants-rely-upon-council-of.html

I guess all those scholars who talk about the council of Jamnia, like F.F. Bruce, are wrong then? Is that what you’re saying?

And what the Jews settled after AD 100 on their canon was a rejection of Christianity…in essence, you are agreeing with the Jewish rejection of Christ in using their canon.

So you admit the 39 books the Protestants use today are identical with the Jewish canon (and what’s always been the Jewish canon)?

What is the authority of Josephus to define the OT canon for Christianity?

The Josephus citation proves my point: the 39 books of the OT were always considered Scripture by Jews. None of the Apocrypha (which Catholics consider Scripture) ever were.

And who decided on the protestant canon of the OT? Which protestant had authority to define the OT for protestant Christianity?

The Jews decided on the Protestant canon of the OT. We follow the books the Jews always believed were inspired for hundreds of years. The reason the Apocrypha were thrown out is because considering them divinely inspired makes no sense, for the following reasons:

1. The Jews never considered them divinely inspired
2. They are never shown anywhere in the New or Old Testaments to be divinely inspired nor quoted from as such

It’s as simple as that.

 

[Achilles6129]

Incorrect, my friend. The LXX is the OT Canon handed on to The Apostles and continually used from the time of Christ down to our very time by The Catholic Church…

Hi - did you read that portion of Josephus that I cited? What you’re saying just isn’t true. The Jews had a very well-defined canon for hundreds of years, and it’s equivalent to the 39 books of the Protestant OT.

 

[alexsonofmaciek]

The people of today who call themselves ‘‘Jews’’ are modern day Pharisees.
They have nothing to do with the so called ‘‘Judaism’’ of Jesus or the apostles.
Throughout history there have been many ‘‘different’’ types of Judaism and the Pharisees is the one that survived.

Pharisees killed Jesus and are totally Satanic.

The Protestants of the Church are choosing the Pharisees over Christ.

 

[alexsonofmaciek]

Jesus talking about Pharisees who are todays Jews.

Matthew 23

23 Then Jesus spoke to the multitudes and to his disciples,
2 Saying: The scribes and the Pharisees have sitten on the chair of Moses.
3 All things therefore whatsoever they shall say to you, observe and do: but according to their works do ye not; for they say, and do not.
4 For they bind heavy and insupportable burdens, and lay them on men’s shoulders; but with a finger of their own they will not move them.
5 And all their works they do for to be seen of men. For they make their phylacteries broad, and enlarge their fringes.
6 And they love the first places at feasts, and the first chairs in the synagogues,
7 And salutations in the market place, and to be called by men, Rabbi.
8 But be not you called Rabbi. For one is your master; and all you are brethren.
9 And call none your father upon earth; for one is your father, who is in heaven.
10 Neither be ye called masters; for one is your master, Christ.
11 He that is the greatest among you shall be your servant.
12 And whosoever shall exalt himself shall be humbled: and he that shall humble himself shall be exalted.
13 But woe to you scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites; because you shut the kingdom of heaven against men, for you yourselves do not enter in; and those that are going in, you suffer not to enter.
14 Woe to you scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites: because you devour the houses of widows, praying long prayers. For this you shall receive the greater judgment.
15 Woe to you scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites; because you go round about the sea and the land to make one proselyte; and when he is made, you make him the child of hell twofold more than yourselves.
16 Woe to you blind guides, that say, Whosoever shall swear by the temple, it is nothing; but he that shall swear by the gold of the temple, is a debtor.
17 Ye foolish and blind; for whether is greater, the gold, or the temple that sanctifieth the gold?
18 And whosoever shall swear by the altar, it is nothing; but whosoever shall swear by the gift that is upon it, is a debtor.
19 Ye blind: for whether is greater, the gift, or the altar that sanctifieth the gift?
20 He therefore that sweareth by the altar, sweareth by it, and by all things that are upon it:
21 And whosoever shall swear by the temple, sweareth by it, and by him that dwelleth in it:
22 And he that sweareth by heaven, sweareth by the throne of God, and by him that sitteth thereon.
23 Woe to you scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites; because you tithe mint, and anise, and cummin, and have left the weightier things of the law; judgment, and mercy, and faith. These things you ought to have done, and not to leave those undone.
24 Blind guides, who strain out a gnat, and swallow a camel.
25 Woe to you scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites; because you make clean the outside of the cup and of the dish, but within you are full of rapine and uncleanness.
26 Thou blind Pharisee, first make clean the inside of the cup and of the dish, that the outside may become clean.
27 Woe to you scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites; because you are like to whited sepulchres, which outwardly appear to men beautiful, but within are full of dead men’s bones, and of all filthiness.
28 So you also outwardly indeed appear to men just; but inwardly you are full of hypocrisy and iniquity.
29 Woe to you scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites; that build the sepulchres of the prophets, and adorn the monuments of the just,
30 And say: If we had been in the days of our Fathers, we would not have been partakers with them in the blood of the prophets.
31 Wherefore you are witnesses against yourselves, that you are the sons of them that killed the prophets.
32 Fill ye up then the measure of your fathers.
33 You serpents, generation of vipers, how will you flee from the judgment of hell?
34 Therefore behold I send to you prophets, and wise men, and scribes: and some of them you will put to death and crucify, and some you will scourge in your synagogues, and persecute from city to city:
35 That upon you may come all the just blood that hath been shed upon the earth, from the blood of Abel the just, even unto the blood of Zacharias the son of Barachias, whom you killed between the temple and the altar.
36 Amen I say to you, all these things shall come upon this generation.
37 Jerusalem, Jerusalem, thou that killest the prophets, and stonest them that are sent unto thee, how often would I have gathered together thy children, as the hen doth gather her chickens under her wings, and thou wouldest not?
38 Behold, your house shall be left to you, desolate.
39 For I say to you, you shall not see me henceforth till you say: Blessed is he that cometh in the name of the Lord.

 

[Ignatius]

The Jews had a very well-defined canon for hundreds of years, and it’s equivalent to the 39 books of the Protestant OT.

I’m afraid that is incorrect. Different groups had different books that they considered to be Scripture.

Surely you are aware that the Sadducees and others held that only the Pentateuch was scripture. Were you unaware of this fact?

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 this fact?

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.

As to Joseph, I cited the following well established Jewish sources in response.
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. Retrieved February 2012.)

The Pauline quotations from OT Scripture, are all taken, directly or from memory, from the Greek version. (From “Paul, the Apostle of the Gentiles”. JewishEncyclopedia.com. February 2012.)

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,

If you are unaware of these well established facts, then you can easily verify them.

Here are some folks who can point you to as much corroborative evidence as you want:
calledtocommunion.com/

Or you can listen to this podcast if that’s more to your liking:
calledtocommunion.com/media/CPC1.mp3

---

 

[Duane1966]

I guess all those scholars who talk about the council of Jamnia, like F.F. Bruce, are wrong then? Is that what you’re saying?

So you admit the 39 books the Protestants use today are identical with the Jewish canon (and what’s always been the Jewish canon)?

The Josephus citation proves my point: the 39 books of the OT were always considered Scripture by Jews. None of the Apocrypha (which Catholics consider Scripture) ever were.

The Jews decided on the Protestant canon of the OT. We follow the books the Jews always believed were inspired for hundreds of years. The reason the Apocrypha were thrown out is because considering them divinely inspired makes no sense, for the following reasons:

1. The Jews never considered them divinely inspired
2. They are never shown anywhere in the New or Old Testaments to be divinely inspired nor quoted from as such

It’s as simple as that.

Most Jews did consider them inspired until someone came along. Who you might ask? Jesus. Those Jews that did believe them inspired became Christians. Those that rejected Jesus, then rejected those books. They had to. There is a clear passage in the book of Wisdom that points to Jesus, as shown by this link here.

matt1618.freeyellow.com/wisdom2.html

And another link refuting Protestant claims.

matt1618.freeyellow.com/cloud.html

Three things for you to consider.

1.) The Sadduccees only accepted the first five books of the OT, so your saying that the 39 books were the accepted canon fails there on that point. We also know that there was no official OT canon at this time.

2.) Do you think the Reformers, or for that matter yourself would reject the Deuterocanonical Books if they did not point to Purgatory? Do you think that the Jews of today would reject them if in some parts they did not foretell the coming of Jesus?

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? Since you have given the Jews carte blanche on the OT, what if they decide to remove one of those 39 books? You have rejected the authority of the Church on the OT, because it doesn’t fit what YOU think should be considered inspired. If someone were to say to you that they reject the Gospel of St. John as inspired, how can you in good conscience argue against them? All they would have to say to you is that they reject the authority that said that Gospel is inspired, just as they reject that same authority on the Deuterocanonical books. Can you argue with anyone who changes and adds or removes words from scripture to suit their ideology? All they have to say is the Reformers did this why can’t I?

 

[Ignatius]

The Church came before the Bible.

That is a very important point!

 

[Achilles6129]

I’m afraid that is incorrect. Different groups had different books that they considered to be Scripture.

I suppose Josephus was wrong then.

Surely you are aware that the Sadducees and others held that only the Pentateuch was scripture. Were you unaware of this fact?

If so, they were not very numerous. But it is quite possible that they did hold to the original Jewish canon:

bible.org/seriespage/sadducees

The Sadducees like all Jews believed that the Torah, the Law of Moses, was on a much higher plane than the rest of the Scriptures.20 So there is no clear evidence from their arguments that they held less of the canon than the Pharisees. Apocalyptic material, or any Greek syncretism, they rejected outright. It may be that the Sadducees believed that only the Torah was canonical, or that the Torah was vastly more important than other Scripture, but there is simply no evidence for this. However, their major complaint that the Pharisees extended the “canon” with their interpretations can be demonstrated. The Sadducees rightly rejected the oral law of the Pharisees, but perhaps because they wanted the freedom to follow their own.

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 this fact?

Can you start citing reputable sources for your claims? As far as I am aware the Pharisees’ canon was the same as that of any other Jew.

As to Joseph, I cited the following well established Jewish sources in response.
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. Retrieved February 2012.)

I’m not sure how those sources/quotes undermine what Josephus was saying. Just because something gets translated by the LXX translators does not mean that it’s divinely inspired or even that the Jews thought that it was divinely inspired. I think you’re making the connection that “because it was translated by the LXX, it must be divinely inspired” - a connection that I think is suspect.

Here are some folks who can point you to as much corroborative evidence as you want:
calledtocommunion.com/

I went to that website, but didn’t see anything about the canon. Can you give a specific link?

Or you can listen to this podcast if that’s more to your liking:
calledtocommunion.com/media/CPC1.mp3

I can’t listen to podcasts right now.

 

[Achilles6129]

Most Jews did consider them inspired until someone came along. Who you might ask? Jesus. Those Jews that did believe them inspired became Christians. Those that rejected Jesus, then rejected those books. They had to. There is a clear passage in the book of Wisdom that points to Jesus, as shown by this link here.

So they rejected the Apocrypha but didn’t also reject the canonical OT…which also points to Christ?

matt1618.freeyellow.com/wisdom2.html

I think it’s more likely that Matthew was simply alluding to Wisdom 2:12-20, rather than that being an actual prophecy. But even if it were an actual prophecy, it wouldn’t necessarily mean that Wisdom is Scripture, just like Enoch gave an actual prophecy in the epistle of Jude, yet Enoch is not considered Scripture.

Three things for you to consider.

1.) The Sadduccees only accepted the first five books of the OT, so your saying that the 39 books were the accepted canon fails there on that point. We also know that there was no official OT canon at this time.

Please see my response to Ignatius above (where I quote from the bible.org essay).

2.) Do you think the Reformers, or for that matter yourself would reject the Deuterocanonical Books if they did not point to Purgatory? Do you think that the Jews of today would reject them if in some parts they did not foretell the coming of Jesus?

I asked earlier where these books point to Purgatory and have received no response. Perhaps you’d care to show where exactly these books talk about Purgatory? Also, as I said before, if the Jews rejected them because they point to Christ (something I dispute), then they should have rejected many other books in the OT as well. I would also like proof that these books were always considered Scripture by the Jews until Christ came around (which you claimed), because from everything I have read these books were never considered Scripture by the Jews.

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. 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.

Since you have given the Jews carte blanche on the OT, what if they decide to remove one of those 39 books?

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. 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.

If someone were to say to you that they reject the Gospel of St. John as inspired, how can you in good conscience argue against them? All they would have to say to you is that they reject the authority that said that Gospel is inspired, just as they reject that same authority on the Deuterocanonical books.

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?

 

[commenter]

I guess all those scholars who talk about the council of Jamnia, like F.F. Bruce, are wrong then? Is that what you’re saying?

Of course the Council of Jamnia existed. They found certain books to be inspired, like Isaiah, and others not to be inspired, like Mathew. Other councils, held by Gnostics and other Christian groups apart from the Magisterium, also met, and ratified their own canons. Each Christian canon claimed to be apostolic. Catholics, and Protestants, today follow only one of these Christian canons for the NT; the Magisterium’s canon. We both reject the canons of the other Christian groups.

So you admit the 39 books the Protestants use today are identical with the Jewish canon (and what’s always been the Jewish canon)?

Protestants use more than 39 books - at least 27 more. Protestants reject the Council of Jamnia canon, because Jamni rejected the gospels. Protestants also reject the Gnostic Christians’ councils, and the Gnostic Christians’ canons. Protestants follow the Magisterium on which 27 books make up the NT. In terms of the overall total canon of Scripture, Protestants are heavily in agreement with the Magisterium; much closer to the Magisterium than they are to Jamnia, or the other Christian canons that existed in the first few centuries.

Jamnia, and for that matter Jews today, did not refer to any kind of “Old Testament”. They do, indeed, have a position regarding the gospels; they believe them to be non inspired.

There have been some posts attacking the Jews in the thread. These posts do NOT reflect the position of either the Catholic or Protestant churches.

 

[pablope]

I guess all those scholars who talk about the council of Jamnia, like F.F. Bruce, are wrong then? Is that what you’re saying?

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

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

So you admit the 39 books the Protestants use today are identical with the Jewish canon (and what’s always been the Jewish canon)?

 

[pablope]

I suppose Josephus was wrong then.

If so, they were not very numerous. But it is quite possible that they did hold to the original Jewish canon:

 

[Duane1966]

So they rejected the Apocrypha but didn’t also reject the canonical OT…which also points to Christ?

I think it’s more likely that Matthew was simply alluding to Wisdom 2:12-20, rather than that being an actual prophecy. But even if it were an actual prophecy, it wouldn’t necessarily mean that Wisdom is Scripture, just like Enoch gave an actual prophecy in the epistle of Jude, yet Enoch is not considered Scripture.

Please see my response to Ignatius above (where I quote from the bible.org essay).

I asked earlier where these books point to Purgatory and have received no response. Perhaps you’d care to show where exactly these books talk about Purgatory? Also, as I said before, if the Jews rejected them because they point to Christ (something I dispute), then they should have rejected many other books in the OT as well. I would also like proof that these books were always considered Scripture by the Jews until Christ came around (which you claimed), because from everything I have read these books were never considered Scripture by the Jews.

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. 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.

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. 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.

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?

Obviously you did not see my post #20. There is a link at the bottom of it detailing Luther’s problem with Maccabees pointing to Purgatory.

 

[pablope]

I asked earlier where these books point to Purgatory and have received no response. Perhaps you’d care to show where exactly these books talk about Purgatory?

?

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…