Why the Apocryphal Books Rejected as Scripture.

[The Liturgist]

Oh, sorry.
I think they are missing the point; they have inflated the significance of a pastoral non-church activity that has been happening for some time in the USA anyway, and probably elsewhere.

But now that activity is officially sanctioned, which the pro-homosexual faction is considering a major victory.

 

[Hawkins]

This is about what legitimacy is.

If the US government chooses CNN to be its designated agency, it's the sole legit source of governamental announcements, though the US can switch to Fox News if CNN doesn't do its job.

Similarly, OT as a testimony belongs to the Jews as God's chosen people (well, God's designated CNN). They gather testimonies from the prophets who are God's chosen witnesses then convey them generattion by generation (i.e., a form of broadcasting). Canonization is more or less how the chief heads or editors determine what to be included as the legitimate news from the legitmate sources. OT canonization is a long process started with King Hezekiah. 17 out of the 24 books are said to be with the seal of King Hezekiah. Then the next chief editor is Ezra, possibly due to the fact that after the 70 years of Exile different groups of Jews may have deviated versions of books waiting to be "re-united". God designated Ezra to be the chief editor for the job anyway.

Then the legitimate books are strictly guarded by the Pharisees and with laws kept in both written and oral forms. Though the last two books (most likely the ones written in Armaic instead of Hebrew) are reckoned as legit till after the first coming of Jesus Christ, OT is still the Jews' testimony, it's the Jews' canonization.

Christianity is more or less like a switch from CNN to Fox News. When the Jews failed their job, God switches to Christianity instead. NT is thus a testimony of Christians (apostles as eyewitnesses are Jews though), it's naturally Christians' canonization.

So today's legitimacy is,
OT Canon is originated from the Jews
NT Canon is originated from Christians

However only the Protestants can have both a correct NT and a corrent OT Canon, legitimately that is.

That being said. The 24 books of Jewish Canon are strictly guarded by the Pharisees and only legit scribes and "publish" the legit copies of the Scripture. LXX as the Greek translation is never under control, any "publisher" can produce its own copies.

Even though the Christian version of OT Canon is not completely legit, it helps Christianity to advance back to the first several centuries, as a result of receiving no support from any authority of the Jews (Jewish authority was literally dead after the Siege of AD 70). At the same time, God ceased to authenticate any Jewish authority anyway. That's actually why the Jews had to turn the Oral laws to written form due to the lack of further enforcement from any legit Jewish authorities.

 

[The Liturgist]

OT Canon is originated from the Jews
NT Canon is originated from Christians

Not really. Judaism in its present form did not exist at or before the time of Christ, but resulted from the Pharisees converting their Oral Torah into a written one, the Mishnah, and the Talmud, and then the evolution of this over many centuries including the emergence of emanationist-Kabbalist mysticism.

There has at one time only ever been one religion of God, with various groups refusinf to accept portions of it, like the Samaritans who only accepted a slightly modified Pentateuch (with commandments making Mount Gerizim the Holy Place) as well as sects led by false prophets, particularly since Christianity (I suspect the Zoroastrians originated in this way, and we know for sure Mandaeism, Arianism, Islam, Mormonism, and the Bahai Faith did, although the latter at least has splendid gardens despite their eerie plans to become a one world government).

 

[Hawkins]

Judaism in its present form did not exist at or before the time of Christ

No, they have strict control of everything, from Pharisees to the Great Sanhedrin! Please read Josephus.

 

[The Liturgist]

No, they have strict control of everything, from Pharisees to the Great Sanhedrin! Please read Josephus.

Yes I have, and like the Great Sanhedrin, that religion has been gone for nearly two millenia, replaced by a very different trio of religions (Rabinnical Judaism, with the Talmud and the mystical Kabbalah and ecstatic Chassidim, Karaite Judaism with the Kalaam, and the Beta Israel, who basically infouenced but then later were influenced by Ethiopian Orthodox Christianity but substitute animal sacrifices for the Eucharist in a major step backwards).

 

[Reasonably Sane]

The same cannot be said of early church fathers. They frequently paraphrased portions of the Apocrypha and even call the writer of 2 Esdras “another of the prophets” (Epistle of Barnabas 12:1). During Origen’s day, the Apocrypha became a normal part of the liturgy in church. But by the time Augustine and Jerome came on the scene, two opposing views emerged on these writings. Augustine argued for the canonicity of the Apocrypha, drawing from it frequently in his writings. Jerome, however, pushed back and distinguished between canonical and ecclesiastical texts. Canonical texts informed faith and practice, but ecclesiastical texts were to be read in the church solely for edification, not to construct doctrine. Ultimately, the Council of Carthage (AD 397) sided with Augustine, but the two views remained in the church until the Reformation.

In 2 Timothy 3:16 it says “All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting, and training in righteousness, so that the servant of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work” (ESV)

At that time, this meant, at the very least, the Septuagint (LXX). Often it is quoted word for word by NT authors. So that is my "old testament". If it is in the LXX, it is part of what is referred to in 2 Timothy as "all scripture".

Or am I missing something?

 

[Reasonably Sane]

Additionally, these books contain theological and historical errors. For example, the Book of Wisdom indicates that God created the world out of preexisting matter (11:17) which contradicts the rest of Scripture’s teaching that God created the world out of nothing.

I happen to have room for that interpretation in my personal theology. I think sometimes it is not scripture that is incorrect, but people's interpretation. e.g. Both ECT (eternal conscious torment) and CI (conditional immortality) adherents believe the bible is the word of God, but simply differ in their interpretation.

I also believe the world is billions of years old, though the age of man is ~6.000 years. And that it is possible that the great flood may have been a local event. I'm not really dogmatic on any of those things, and believe scripture has room for that.

I also believe there may be quintillions of planets inhabited by sentient beings, all created by God, of course. The bible is actually silent on that subject. It is an "earth centric" book. Everything it says about the cosmos can be interpreted with the suffix, "as far as mankind on earth is concerned". It does not reveal everything, just as it did not reveal 21st (or 28th, for that matter) century scientific knowledge to the readers or writers of the day. We have discovered much more than it revealed, and certainly will discover more as time marches on. Especially as our drones and robots get ever more sophisticated. We really have no need to ever send actual human beings off planet again.

 

[Always in His Presence]

At that time, this meant, at the very least, the Septuagint (LXX). Often it is quoted word for word by NT authors. So that is my "old testament". If it is in the LXX, it is part of what is referred to in 2 Timothy as "all scripture".

Or am I missing something?

You are missing the "If it is".

What parts of the Septuagint are quoted word for word in the New Testament?

 

[Reasonably Sane]

You are missing the "If it is".

What parts of the Septuagint are quoted word for word in the New Testament?

Parts that are quoted in Greek and match the Greek text of the LXX. My point really is that 2 Timothy sez "all scripture", not "scripture quoted by Jesus."

 

[Reasonably Sane]

"He that trusteth in his own heart is a fool: but whoso walketh wisely, he shall be delivered." [Proverbs 28:26]

“And let the counsel of thine own heart stand: for there is no man more faithful unto thee than it.” [Ecclesiasticus 37:13]




One book is lying; the other is not.

Do you think they are talking about the same thing, in context? The entire chapter is an interesting read. Seems kinda wise, like Proverbs. I'll need to study it more when I get my ESV version. The KJV is really hard to interpret.

 

[Always in His Presence]

Parts that are quoted in Greek and match the Greek text of the LXX. My point really is that 2 Timothy sez "all scripture", not "scripture quoted by Jesus."

We happen to disagree - sorry

 

[The Liturgist]

"He that trusteth in his own heart is a fool: but whoso walketh wisely, he shall be delivered." [Proverbs 28:26]

“And let the counsel of thine own heart stand: for there is no man more faithful unto thee than it.” [Ecclesiasticus 37:13]




One book is lying; the other is not.

Not neccessarily. In the context of hesychasm, the words of St. Jesus of Sirach are correct, whereas in the context of neophytes living in the world, the words of St. Solomon are likewise applicable.

Not all advice is universally applicable, which is why a book on mothering is no substitute for a book on nuclear energy regulation.

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

"He that trusteth in his own heart is a fool: but whoso walketh wisely, he shall be delivered." [Proverbs 28:26]

“And let the counsel of thine own heart stand: for there is no man more faithful unto thee than it.” [Ecclesiasticus 37:13]




One book is lying; the other is not.

Proverbs 26:5 Answer a fool according to his folly, lest he be wise in his own conceit.

Proverbs 26:4 Answer not a fool according to his folly, lest thou also be like unto him.

should I apply your stated rule? "One book is lying; the other is not." Just substitute "proverb" for "book".

 

[ozso]

Proverbs 26:5 Answer a fool according to his folly, lest he be wise in his own conceit.

Proverbs 26:4 Answer not a fool according to his folly, lest thou also be like unto him.

should I apply your stated rule? "One book is lying; the other is not." Just substitute "proverb" for "book".

That's why Proverbs 26:5 isn't in the Protestant Bible.

 

[ozso]

Ha ha made you look.

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

That's why Proverbs 26:5 isn't in the Protestant Bible.

The quotes are from the KJV.
But if you prefer the ESV (protestant bible)
(Proverbs 26:4 ESV) Answer not a fool according to his folly, lest you be like him yourself.

(Proverbs 26:5 ESV) Answer a fool according to his folly, lest he be wise in his own eyes.

 

[ozso]

The quotes are from the KJV.
But if you prefer the ESV (protestant bible)
(Proverbs 26:4 ESV) Answer not a fool according to his folly, lest you be like him yourself.

(Proverbs 26:5 ESV) Answer a fool according to his folly, lest he be wise in his own eyes.

Please refer to post #316

 

[Reasonably Sane]

We happen to disagree - sorry

This might help clarify my position on the whole thing: 1 Enoch being quoted in the new testament. And this one specifically: Does Jude quote Enoch?

Now, I know Enoch is not in the LXX, but it does address the issue of "non-canonical" works being quoted in scripture. I think one could even argue that is what Jesus was doing in the parable of Lazarus and the rich man, regarding the view of "heaven and hell" in that parable. That is, it matched a common myth of the day.

 

[Always in His Presence]

This might help clarify my position on the whole thing: 1 Enoch being quoted in the new testament. And this one specifically: Does Jude quote Enoch?

That was actually part of the debate on the canonicity of Jude. There were those who argued against it because of just that. But canonicity was based on five elements not just one. It is the ONLY reference in 27 books that reference the Apocryphal writings. Not one of the others is ever mentioned in the New Testament and the Scripture they had at the time of the writing of Timothy (90ad) included the Hebrew Old Testament, which did NOT have the Apocryphal books either.

Now, I know Enoch is not in the LXX, but it does address the issue of "non-canonical" works being quoted in scripture. I think one could even argue that is what Jesus was doing in the parable of Lazarus and the rich man, regarding the view of "heaven and hell" in that parable. That is, it matched a common myth of the day.

one quote in 27 books is not proof of anything my friend. You cannot intelligently assign canonization to multiple books based off a single quotation in the entirety of the New Testament.

To accept the Apocryphal as canonized scripture (assign Divinity), you would then have the determine the errors found in the books as errors in scripture and that the Holy Spirit is not perfect.

I am not willing to do that.

 

[Always in His Presence]

The quotes are from the KJV.
But if you prefer the ESV (protestant bible)
(Proverbs 26:4 ESV) Answer not a fool according to his folly, lest you be like him yourself.

(Proverbs 26:5 ESV) Answer a fool according to his folly, lest he be wise in his own eyes.

Pssst..... the King James Bible is the "Protestant Bible" one of the oldest ones.

Know how one can know that? It does not contain the Apocryphal books

New King James:
Answer a fool according to his folly,
Lest he be wise in his own eyes.

Amplified:
Answer [and correct the erroneous concepts of] a fool according to his folly,
Otherwise he will be wise in his own eyes [if he thinks you agree with him].

1599 Genevieve
5 Answer a fool according to his foolishness, lest he be wise in his own conceit.

Holman Christian Standard:
Answer a fool according to his foolishness
or he’ll become wise in his own eyes.

Authorized King James
Answer a fool according to his folly,
lest he be wise in his own conceit.

Modern English
Answer a fool according to his folly,
lest he be wise in his own conceit.

I could go on, but they are all "Protestant" Bibles and all read pretty much the same