- Aug 6, 2017
- 5,118
- 1,649
- 46
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Non-Denom
- Marital Status
- Married
yes, Jesus affirmed the Jewish TaNaKh ordering of Scripture• They divided their sacred writings into three parts: the law, the prophets, and the writings (which were canonized in that order).
Which tripartite canon is what we see being referred to in the Lord's instruction to His disciples in Luke 24:
And he said unto them, These are the words which I spake unto you, while I was yet with you, that all things must be fulfilled, which were written in the law of Moses, and in the prophets, and in the psalms, concerning me. (Luke 24:44)
Josephus was a Jesus-denying Jew. From a purely Christian perspective, doesn't that warrant a grain of salt or two?the ancient 1st century Jewish historian Josephus numbered as 22 books... Answering the charges of an anti-Semite named Apion at the end of the first century A.D., Josephus says:
what?"...the pseudepigraphical work 4 Ezra (probably written about A.D. 1208)...admits that only twenty-four Scriptures have circulated publicly since Ezra's time." — Robert C. Newman, "THE COUNCIL OF JAMNIA AND THE OLD TESTAMENT CANON," Westminster Theological Journal 38.4 (Spr. 1976) 319-348
how can you base anything on 13th century pseudepigraphical fiction?
if PSEUDEPIGRAPHICAL works are so authoritative... Why not accept the DEUTEROCANONICAL APOCRYPHA, too?
exactly NONE of whom accepted Jesus as ChristAnd which means that the 39 book Protestant canon is more ancient than that of Rome's, as it corresponds to a ancient canon held by Palestinian Jews from before the third century
you're basing your Christian doctrine on pseudepigraphical works, non Christian Jewish authorities...
basically everybody BUT Christians and the Church
when will non Christian Jewish authorities start basing their doctrines off of gentile and or Christian sources?
as opposed to Josephus, pseudepigraphical 4 Ezra, and non Christian Palestinian Jews who are more trustworthyThe earliest existing Greek manuscripts which contain some of them date from the 4th Century and are understood to have been placed therein by Christians.
sources of authority for Christians?
please provide a source? You're saying, that Philo of ALEXANDRIA said only the Torah of Moses was translated into Greek in the 3rd century BC?Philo of Alexandria (1st c A.D.) states that only the Torah (the first 5 books of the O.T.) was commissioned to be translated, leaving the rest of the O.T. following in later centuries, and in an order that is not altogether clear, nor do all LXX manuscripts have the same apocryphal books and names.
the rest of the TaNaKh was translated later, evidently in the 2nd-1st centuries BC... Because every diaspora Jew had everything by the time of Christ
again, Philo was an extremely knowledgeable and well educated man, surely one of the most so in the Roman empire.Philo of Alexandria's writings show it to have been the same as the Palestinian. He refers to the three familiar sections, and he ascribes inspiration to many books in all three, but never to any of the Apocrypha....The Apocrypha were known in the church from the start, but the further back one goes, the more rarely are they treated as inspired. (Roger T. Beckwith, "The Canon of the Old Testament" in Phillip Comfort, The Origin of the Bible [Wheaton: Tyndale House, 2003] pp. 57-64).
for all his worldly knowledge, he still missed (or at least denied) that Jesus was Christ.
i accept, on the strength of your words, that "proto Rabbinical" Judaism, from Josephus and Philo, through 3rd century Palestinian Jews, to modern Rabbinical Judaism ...
has long rejected the Apocrypha as being inspired
so?
what are you trying to get me to accept?
they also reject the NT as being inspired!
are they 2 for 2?
but, if you now backpedal, and acknowledge that they are only 1 for 2...
then you admit that they are not infallible judges of scriptural inspiration? they can claim something is not inspired, but be wrong?
and that is a problem because...in the second century AD the Jews seem largely to have discarded the Septuagint…there can be no real doubt that the comprehensive codices of the Septuagint, which start appearing in the fourth century AD, are all of Christian origin.
oh no??This underlines the fact that the LXX, although, itself consisting of a collection of Jewish documents, wishes to be a Christian book.” (Martin Hengel, The Septuagint as Christian Scripture [Baker 2004], pp. 57-59)
for shame for shame??
fine I accept that non Christian Jews may never have accepted the ApocryphaThe Targums did not include these books, nor the earliest versions of the Peshitta, and the apocryphal books are seen to have been later additions,
they don't accept the NT either, guess they're right about that too, being, as they are, such infallible authorities on inspiration of scripture?
fine I accept that non Christian Jews, from Palestine, may never have accepted the Apocrypha, from the Hasmoneans until today...• When the Christians claimed that they had written new scriptures, Jews from a rabbinical school in Javneh met around year 80 and, among other things, discussed the canon. They did not include the New Testament nor the seven Old Testament works and portions of Daniel and Esther. This still did not settle the Pharisee canon, since not all Jews agreed with or even knew about the decision at Javneh.
This also indicates ignorance. As WP documents, The theory that Jamnia finalised the canon, first proposed by Heinrich Graetz in 1871,[2] was popular for much of the 20th century. However, it was increasingly questioned from the 1960s onward, and the theory has been largely discredited.[3] (Council of Jamnia - Wikipedia) Sid Z. Leiman made an independent challenge for his University of Pennsylvania thesis published later as a book in 1976, in which he wrote that none of the sources used to support the theory actually mentioned books that had been withdrawn from a canon, and questioned the whole premise that the discussions were about canonicity at all, stating that they were actually dealing with other concerns entirely. Other scholars have since joined in and today the theory is largely discredited.[28]
Some scholars argue that the Jewish canon was fixed earlier by the Hasmonean dynasty.[5]
(Development of the Hebrew Bible canon - Wikipedia)
Next, Part 2
just to clarify, though... Are there any better books about the Maccabees and their dynasty, other than the biblical books of the Maccabees ?
you have seemingly shown that there were many flavors of LXX circulating during the early Church era, some with or without this or that book
but, you have to admit, yes, that all 73 books were in circulation, during that time?
Christians didn't write or invent or make up or concoct or fabricate ANY of the Apocrypha, yes?
they just took from what was available at the time?
you appear to be denying, that the Christian community can define it's own canon... Without Rabbinical Jewish oversight... On the grounds that Christians (including you?) aren't good judges of which writings are or are not inspired
Upvote
0