Why Protestants have seven less books in their old testament?

  • Thread starter Thread starter alitaptap
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
NotWorthy said:
Yes, Jerome questioned their canonicity. One of the main reasons he rejected it was because there were no Hebrew versions of these. This was wrong, as evidenced by the Dead Sea Scrolls.
Click to expand...
One piece of circumstantial evidence is that if the Septuagint was translated by Jewish scholars, they must have existed in Hebrew (unless I guess they were introduced later to the Septuagint in Greek form). This is certainly a very interesting and very misunderstood topic. I would be very interested in hearing about Hebrew fragments among the Dead Sea scrolls because I thought they were all in Greek except for one.

Also, I always favored Jimmy Akin’s argument:
“Hebrews 11 encourages us to emulate the heroes of the Old Testament and in the Old Testament “Women received their dead by resurrection. Some were tortured, refusing to accept release, that they might rise again to a better life” (Heb. 11:35).

There are a couple of examples of women receiving back their dead by resurrection in the Protestant Old Testament. You can find Elijah raising the son of the widow of Zarepheth in 1 Kings 17, and you can find his successor Elisha raising the son of the Shunammite woman in 2 Kings 4, but one thing you can never find – anywhere in the Protestant Old Testament, from front to back, from Genesis to Malachi – is someone being tortured and refusing to accept release for the sake of a better resurrection. If you want to find that, you have to look in the Catholic Old Testament – in the deuterocanonical books Martin Luther cut out of his Bible.

The story is found in 2 Maccabees 7, where we read that during the Maccabean persecution, “It happened also that seven brothers and their mother were arrested and were being compelled by the king, under torture with whips and cords, to partake of unlawful swine’s flesh. . . . **ut the brothers and their mother encouraged one another to die nobly, saying, 'The Lord God is watching over us and in truth has compassion on us . . . ’ After the first brother had died . . . they brought forward the second for their sport. . . . he in turn underwent tortures as the first brother had done. And when he was at his last breath, he said, ‘You accursed wretch, you dismiss us from this present life, but the King of the universe will raise us up to an everlasting renewal of life’” (2 Macc. 7:1, 5-9).”

Quoted from “Defending the Deuterocanonicals” by James Akin**
 
NotWorthy said:
  1. Wrong.
  2. The Council in Jamnia rejected the New Testament writings, but they did not close their Canon.
  3. There are still disputes among Jews as to the OT Canon. For instance, the Ethiopian Jews hold to the OT Canon of the Catholic Church… and they may include a few others, but I don’t recall.
Click to expand...
  1. So you say.
  2. That is a preposterous anachronism. The New Testamant did not exist until decades later. Some of the books later incorporated into the NT existed in AD90 and others did not.
Also, as another poster pointed out, there is considerable ambiguity about what occurred at that place and time (Jamnia, AD90). Still, the Jewish canon was closed at about that time, and the criterion for inclusion appears to have been antiquity rather than content. The books excluded were considered too recent to be used in liturgy, though the stories contained therein (the tales of the Maccabees, of Judith and Holofernes, etc.), remain well known to Jews today.
  1. If that be true, and I’ll take your word for it unless I discover otherwise, that would have been due to their presence in the LXX, not to any influence of the Catholic Church.
 
beeliner said:
  1. So you say.
Click to expand...
Yes, the Council did not make any official canons. All they did was reject some books that those bloody Christians were holding in high favor.

BTW, if you look at BrianH’s post, you’ll find some support for my statement.
beeliner said:
  1. That is a preposterous anachronism. The New Testamant did not exist until decades later. Some of the books later incorporated into the NT existed in AD90 and others did not.
Click to expand...
The BOOKS of the NT existed, just not as a Canon. The Jamnian Rabbi’s rejected those books. And most of the books did exist. I think that only Revelation and John’s Gospel are the only two absent.
beeliner said:
Also, as another poster pointed out, there is considerable ambiguity about what occurred at that place and time (Jamnia, AD90). Still, the Jewish canon was closed at about that time, and the criterion for inclusion appears to have been antiquity rather than content. The books excluded were considered too recent to be used in liturgy, though the stories contained therein (the tales of the Maccabees, of Judith and Holofernes, etc.), remain well known to Jews today.
Click to expand...
No, the Canon was not closed at Jamnia. The Jews met in the 14th century and finally closed their Canon.
beeliner said:
  1. If that be true, and I’ll take your word for it unless I discover otherwise, that would have been due to their presence in the LXX, not to any influence of the Catholic Church.
Click to expand...
Yes, the Catholic Church DID NOT influence which books of the Jewish Scriptures were included. But there were varying canons. The Sadducees varied from the Pharisees. And the Jews of Ethiopia varied from both and more closely resembled the Catholic OT.
 
NotWorthy said:
  1. Yes, the Council did not make any official canons. All they did was reject some books that those bloody Christians were holding in high favor.
BTW, if you look at BrianH’s post, you’ll find some support for my statement.

The BOOKS of the NT existed, just not as a Canon. The Jamnian Rabbi’s rejected those books. And most of the books did exist. I think that only Revelation and John’s Gospel are the only two absent.
  1. No, the Canon was not closed at Jamnia. The Jews met in the 14th century and finally closed their Canon.
  2. Yes, the Catholic Church DID NOT influence which books of the Jewish Scriptures were included.
  3. But there were varying canons. The Sadducees varied from the Pharisees.
  4. And the Jews of Ethiopia varied from both and more closely resembled the Catholic OT.
Click to expand...
NW, you have gone from anachronism to absurdity.
  1. You seem to be attempting to create the impression that the various writings that eventually became part of the NT were somehow considered by Jewish authorities for inclusion in their canon and rejected.
It’s debatable whether Jamnia was even aware of such writings. But even if they were, having rejected books like Sirach, Wisdom, and the other deuteros, some of them more than two centuries old, as being of too recent origin, by what stretch of the imagination would they consider writings of what was considered at best a splinter group within Judaism and at worst an heretical cult, writings on which the ink was barely dry?

Now, if I am mischaracterizing your assertions, please restate them in a way that makes sense.
  1. Source, please.
  2. Glad we could agree on that.
  3. I do not believe that that is correct. Source, please.
  4. See 3. Been there.
 
beeliner said:
NW, you have gone from anachronism to absurdity.
  1. You seem to be attempting to create the impression that the various writings that eventually became part of the NT were somehow considered by Jewish authorities for inclusion in their canon and rejected.
It’s debatable whether Jamnia was even aware of such writings. But even if they were, having rejected books like Sirach, Wisdom, and the other deuteros, some of them more than two centuries old, as being of too recent origin, by what stretch of the imagination would they consider writings of what was considered at best a splinter group within Judaism and at worst an heretical cult, writings on which the ink was barely dry?

Now, if I am mischaracterizing your assertions, please restate them in a way that makes sense.
  1. Source, please.
  2. Glad we could agree on that.
  3. I do not believe that that is correct. Source, please.
  4. See 3. Been there.
Click to expand...
Beeliner, you’re going to have to be patient with me. I’m putting on a seminar in front of a group of people. While they are doing their labs, they think I’m up here doing some work.

Wait til I get home this evening and I’ll see what I can find.

I’m curious, you are saying that the Council of Jamnia closed the OT Canon in 90 AD. Where is your proof of that?
 
NotWorthy said:
  1. Beeliner, you’re going to have to be patient with me. I’m putting on a seminar in front of a group of people. While they are doing their labs, they think I’m up here doing some work.
  2. Wait til I get home this evening and I’ll see what I can find.
  3. I’m curious, you are saying that the Council of Jamnia closed the OT Canon in 90 AD. Where is your proof of that?
Click to expand...
  1. I hope it’s not a seminar on Bible history!
  2. Fair enough. Take your time.
  3. My primary source for things Jewish is the Encyclopedia Judaica, but I don’t think that there is much serious dispute here, I think that most mainstream Christian sources, Catholic and Protestant alike, would accept that approximate date.
The key word here is ‘mainstream’. Revisionism and conspiracy theories are a different kettle of fish.
 
beeliner said:
  1. I hope it’s not a seminar on Bible history!
  2. Fair enough. Take your time.
  3. My primary source for things Jewish is the Encyclopedia Judaica, but I don’t think that there is much serious dispute here, I think that most mainstream Christian sources, Catholic and Protestant alike, would accept that approximate date.
The key word here is ‘mainstream’. Revisionism and conspiracy theories are a different kettle of fish.
Click to expand...
My brother, I’m not questioning the date. I’m questioning what you claimed happened in 90 AD at the Jamnian Council. They DID NOT close the canon. All they did, Scripturally, is determine that various books were not scriptural.

It was not until the 14th century that the Jews finally determined (and closed) their Canon.
 
NotWorthy said:
  1. My brother, I’m not questioning the date. I’m questioning what you claimed happened in 90 AD at the Jamnian Council. They DID NOT close the canon.
  2. All they did, Scripturally, is determine that various books were not scriptural.
It was not until the 14th century that the Jews finally determined (and closed) their Canon.
Click to expand...
  1. Fine, then all you have to do is provide reliable substantiation for your 14th century date.
I certainly can’t find any. All of my sources give these dates for closure:

Law (Torah) ca. 400 BC
Prophets ca. 200 BC
Writings ca. AD90, thereby closing the whole shootin’ match.

How many HUNDREDS of such sources would you like me to name?

How about ONE of yours, from, as I said, a CREDIBLE source?

And what was added to the Jewish OT between my date and yours?
  1. Doubletalk.
 
beeliner said:
  1. Fine, then all you have to do is provide reliable substantiation for your 14th century date.
I certainly can’t find any. All of my sources give these dates for closure:

Law (Torah) ca. 400 BC
Prophets ca. 200 BC
Writings ca. AD90, thereby closing the whole shootin’ match.

How many HUNDREDS of such sources would you like me to name?
Click to expand...
How about if you give me one.

First of all, how can you claim the Law and the Prophets were canonized and finalized when the Sadducees and Pharisees couldn’t even agree?
 
beeliner said:
  1. Fine, then all you have to do is provide reliable substantiation for your 14th century date.
I certainly can’t find any. All of my sources give these dates for closure:
Click to expand...
Here’s a start:
It has been argued that the Jewish scholars at Jamnia set the Jewish canon of the Old Testament but Dr. Frank M. Cross disagrees: *Until recently there has been a scholarly consensus that the acts of inclusion and exclusion that fixed the canon were completed only at the “Council of Jamnia (Yabneh)” meeting about the end of the first century of the Common Era. However, recent sifting of the rabbinic evidence makes clear that in the proceedings of the academy of Yabneh the Rabbis did not fix the canon, but at most discussed marginal books… Moreover, it must be insisted that the proceedings at Yabneh were not a “council,” certainly not in the late ecclesiastical sense. Whatever decisions were taken at Yabneh, they were based on earlier opinions, and they failed to halt continued disputes concerning marginal books: Song of Songs, Ecclesiastes, and Esther of the “included”: books, Ben Sira among the “excluded” or apocryphal. **Understanding the Dead Sea Scrolls, “The Text Behind the Text of the Hebrew Bible,” *page 152-53].
Click to expand...
This is from AgapeBibleStudy.com
 
beeliner said:
Firstly, that is one man’s opinion, and clearly presented as such.

Secondly, I see nothing about the 14th century there.
Click to expand...
That’s why I preceded it with “This is a Start”. First, I wanted to show that the commonly accepted thought that “Jamnian Council” closed the Canon is false.
 
NotWorthy said:
That’s why I preceded it with “This is a Start”. First, I wanted to show that the commonly accepted thought that “Jamnian Council” closed the Canon is false.
Click to expand...
I think we have reached the infamous ‘going around in circles’ point here. One man’s dissenting opinion does not make it false.

The consensus is in the dates I posted. Just google the three words Jewish canon closed (without quotes) and take your pick.
 
beeliner said:
I think we have reached the infamous ‘going around in circles’ point here. One man’s dissenting opinion does not make it false.

The consensus is in the dates I posted. Just google the three words Jewish canon closed (without quotes) and take your pick.
Click to expand...
Brother, I have. And the trusted Catholic sites that I’ve used have all claimed that it wasn’t at Jamnia. None of them claim that Jamnia even had the authority to close the canon. Jamnia looked at, and condemned the Christian texts, and it examined such texts as Ecclesiastes and Song of Songs (and I don’t think it even came to agreement on that).

Now, admittedly, I’m having trouble finding the 14th century official closing of the Jewish canon, but I’m sure I will find it. When a fact comes to me that gives me that “wow” moment, I usually remember it for a long time.

All I ask of you is patience.
 
NotWorthy said:
Brother, I have. And the trusted Catholic sites that I’ve used have all claimed that it wasn’t at Jamnia. None of them claim that Jamnia even had the authority to close the canon. Jamnia looked at, and condemned the Christian texts, and it examined such texts as Ecclesiastes and Song of Songs (and I don’t think it even came to agreement on that).
Click to expand...
Fine, just name the sites you’re referring to so that I can check them out too.

If you’re unwilling to do that you have no credibility.
 
beeliner said:
Fine, just name the sites you’re referring to so that I can check them out too.

If you’re unwilling to do that you have no credibility.
Click to expand...
Beeliner, you kill me. you haven’t produced a single document on what Canon the Jews came up with at Jamnia, and you accuse me of having no credibility. Not to mention that I’m anachronistic (yet ANOTHER word that I have to look up, thank you! ;)) and totally absurd!
 
NotWorthy said:
Beeliner, you kill me. you haven’t produced a single document on what Canon the Jews came up with at Jamnia, and you accuse me of having no credibility. Not to mention that I’m anachronistic (yet ANOTHER word that I have to look up, thank you! ;)) and totally absurd!
Click to expand...
Well, that was not my claim, rather that the canon was closed in about AD90. There is considerable ambiguity about exactly what took place at Jamnia, I’ve already noted that.

One thing is certain, whatever machinations were used to establish the canon, there certainly weren’t any Christian texts involved as you continue to claim.

You are the revisionist here. You need to either provide evidence or cut bait. If you refuse to do so you have no credibility.

Every credible reference work sets the date at about AD90. Anyone doubting that can look in any good encyclopedia, including those online.

I’m not going to take the time to give links, they’re easy to find.

Yours seem to exist only in your imagination. One senses, in fact, that you’re not even serious here. That is, I believe, known as ‘trolling’.
 
beeliner said:
Well, that was not my claim, rather that the canon was closed in about AD90. There is considerable ambiguity about exactly what took place at Jamnia, I’ve already noted that.

One thing is certain, whatever machinations were used to establish the canon, there certainly weren’t any Christian texts involved as you continue to claim.

You are the revisionist here. You need to either provide evidence or cut bait. If you refuse to do so you have no credibility.

Every credible reference work sets the date at about AD90. Anyone doubting that can look in any good encyclopedia, including those online.

I’m not going to take the time to give links, they’re easy to find.

Yours seem to exist only in your imagination. One senses, in fact, that you’re not even serious here. That is, I believe, known as ‘trolling’.
Click to expand...
Trolling? Are you serious? :rotfl:

I said it before, and I’ll say it again. You kill me! :knight2:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top