I've never understood why there are more books in the Catholic Old Testament than the Protestant version.
__________________ "We are hard pressed on every side, but not crushed; perplexed, but not in despair; persecuted, but not abandoned; struck down, but not destroyed."
2 Corinthians 4:8-9 NIV
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
I think the issue for a lot of the apocrypha is whether or not they are authentic. It's not whether or not they are referred in a part of cannonical scripture.
Please define authentic. I've not heard anyone claim they do not accept the Apochrypha because they're anot authentic. They're ancient. They're of Jewish origin. Some of them probably originated in Hebrew rather than Greek. In what sense are you questioning their authenticity? That they're pseudepigraphic?
I've never understood why there are more books in the Catholic Old Testament than the Protestant version.
Its probably better to ask yourself why there were more books in the bible read by Jews in Egypt, than were in the bible read by Jews in Israel, since that is where the issue originated. (Though the term "bible" is admittedly an anachronism in that context). Its really NOT a protestant/catholic thing. After all, the apochrypha is in Orthodox Bibles and Anglican ones.
The problem with the premise in the OP (or one of many, but I'll stick with the big one) is that it assumes that by referencing something it is declared to be Godly-given scripture by said quoter. Yet Paul quoted pagan poets - was he claiming those poets' works to be Scriptural?
None of the references you refer to claim said books (Jasher and Enoch) to be Scripture. Non-scriptural books can contain some truth that we might want to mention (as the authors of Scripture do, for instance the book of Jasher, Enoch or the works of pagan Greek poets), but that does not mean that such works are scriptural. The OP made faulty assumptions.
...None of the references you refer to claim said books (Jasher and Enoch) to be Scripture...
Non-scriptural books can contain some truth that we might want to mention (as the authors of Scripture do, for instance the book of Jasher, Enoch or the works of pagan Greek poets), but that does not mean that such works are scriptural. The OP made faulty assumptions.
But scriptural books (that is, for those who believe there is 'Word' of God) that make mention of human works, effectively deify them in their own context. There is nothing faulty or assumptive about that, unless we assume such cases are not "of God."
And you may have missed my main point somehow, because I was pointing out that according to the very highest, ancient, human authority on inspired literature - bar none, (Moses) - two witnesses establish a matter. I described the two witnesses on both accounts, and that does not make them scriptural, but rather, "established as recognized in the eyes of such inspired men. There is no arguing that. What can be argued is whether or not, and when some generation of man later in time, finds it befitting in his own time to canonize such work and or related work because it serves the purpose of allowing God to speak to them about what they need to now in their own time.
When this happens, it is because man is allowing the Word of God to live in their own time, and not just according to what their fathers have told them to allow to live. And, of course, things like this happen only occur in or come out of times and situations of great political unrest, intellectual upheaval and brotherly betrayal.
__________________ First they ignore you. Then they laugh at you. Then they fight you. Then you win. - Mahatma Ghandi
Twice in the Old Testament, references are made to the book of Jasher, thereby making it an inherently sacred work. But it was left out of scripture. It also gives witness to much of what Moses wrote about in the Pentateuch. Without it, we only have one witness to such things - being Moses himself - making all of that, thereby, in his own words, unestablished.
It may be that some future revelations of divine intent may appear if we apply this basic premise of Moses insomuch as officially canonizing Jasher.
<snip>
If such scripture is truly sacred, it must be consistent in the very integrity it claims to purport. Should it not be, should it not live up to it's own integrity, we must question why? I believe there are good things to be discovered in the questions that a critical examination of scripture can present.
About Jasher, you have a problem demonstrating any of the books that claim to be that book are in fact the book referenced in Moses.
No copy of Jasher was found in the Dead Sea Scrolls. That could indicate it had fallen out of circulation by then and is now lost.
By the way, the following link shows a long list of books referred to in the Old Testament which we no longer have. L@@k Here.
<snip>None of the references you refer to claim said books (Jasher and Enoch) to be Scripture.<snip>
I agree with you about Jasher.
However, the Epistle of Jude is pretty unambiguous as he quotes 1 Enoch 1:9 and says, "It was also about these that Enoch, the seventh from Adam, prophesied, saying, 'Behold, the Lord comes with ten thousands of his holy ones, to execute judgment on all and to convict all the ungodly of all their deeds of ungodliness that they have committed in such an ungodly way, and of all the harsh things that ungodly sinners have spoken against him.'"
1. Jude quotes Enoch 1:9 and says these are the true words of the prophet Enoch.
2. Enoch 1:9 has been found in the Dead Sea Scrolls.
3. Modern scholarship has established the Book of Enoch was in wide use at the time of Christ and Jude.
4. Enoch chapter 10 precisely predicts the generation in which Christ would be born.
5. There has never been a time when the Book of Enoch was missing from all canonical lists of Biblical books. It is currently included in the Ethiopian Orthodox Bible, before that the Falasha Jews, before that Jude and Peter and Qumran. Before that...
__________________ An Unrepentant Chiliast. (and sometimes Spirit-filled Southern Baptist)
Paul referred to modern poets of his time, too, but we'd never consider them scripture. A book that has been quoted by scripture may be historically or spiritually accurate about a certain event or person such that a prophet or apostle quotes it. That doesn't mean that it was inspired.
Paul referred to modern poets of his time, too, but we'd never consider them scripture. A book that has been quoted by scripture may be historically or spiritually accurate about a certain event or person such that a prophet or apostle quotes it. That doesn't mean that it was inspired.
There is no way to get around the clear words of Jude, "It was also about these that Enoch, the seventh from Adam, prophesied, saying..."
In stating so, Jude was quoting The Book of Enoch but he did not say he was quoting the Book of Enoch; Jude says rather he is quoting Enoch the man, descended 7th from Adam. To quote the Book of Enoch, is to quote the man Enoch, per Jude.
Almost always, the memorized by rote response to this is, "there are other books quoted in the Bible but they're not viewed as scripture either". This argument never ceases to amaze me in its bad logic.
Jude's quote IS NOT at all equivalent to Paul quoting pagans. Its not even equivalent to the New Testament scripture quoting Old Testament scripture. Unlike the phrase, "it is written", what Jude wrote says in effect, "when I read the Book of Enoch I KNOW I'm reading the authentic words of God's prophet, Enoch". The term "it is written" is less global, and a less emphatic endorsement it seems to me. Jude really doesn't leave you this wiggle room.
__________________ An Unrepentant Chiliast. (and sometimes Spirit-filled Southern Baptist)
Linear Mode
