Old Testament Canon

Hoonbaba · Apr 22, 2002

The following was taken from Catholic.com from this page:

http://www.catholic.com/library/old_testament_canon.asp

"During the Reformation, primarly for doctrinal reasons, Protestants removed seven books from the Old Testament: 1 and 2 Maccabees, Sirach, Wisdom, Baruch, Tobit, and Judith, and parts of two others, Daniel and Esther. They did so even though these books had been regarded as canonical since the beginning of Church history. "

When were was 'apocrypha' included in the Old Testament canon?

Was it included during the Council of Trent?

Or was it included at a later time? If it wasn't included when scripture was canonized, then isn't that adding to scripture which was strictly forbidden (Rev 22:18)? Or am I taking that out of context?

God bless!

-Jason

jukesk9 · Apr 22, 2002

The Apocrypha was included in the OT somewhere around 300 BC. It differs from the rest of the OT because it was written by Hellenistic Jews, ie they wrote in Greek. The rest of the OT was written in Hebrew. Now, the Jews didn't reject the Apocrypha for another 600 years until around 400 AD at the Council of Jamnia. See, around 385 AD, Pope Damascus and the Catholic Church canonized the books we Catholics (and Orthodox) have today. The Council of Jamnia was called by the Jews to deal with this new "threat" of Christianity. Since the Christians recognized the Apocrypha, the Jews at Jamnia decided they wouldn't accept it because it wasn't written in Hebrew. They also hoped this would discredit Christianity. The Reformers threw out the Apocrypha because they looked back at the Council of Jamnia and figured if the Jews thought the Apocrypha wasn't inspired, that was good enough for them. Ironically, the Reformers agreed with a council that was called to combat Christianity.

Hoonbaba · Apr 23, 2002

Originally posted by jukesk9
The Apocrypha was included in the OT somewhere around 300 BC. It differs from the rest of the OT because it was written by Hellenistic Jews, ie they wrote in Greek. The rest of the OT was written in Hebrew. Now, the Jews didn't reject the Apocrypha for another 600 years until around 400 AD at the Council of Jamnia. See, around 385 AD, Pope Damascus and the Catholic Church canonized the books we Catholics (and Orthodox) have today. The Council of Jamnia was called by the Jews to deal with this new "threat" of Christianity. Since the Christians recognized the Apocrypha, the Jews at Jamnia decided they wouldn't accept it because it wasn't written in Hebrew. They also hoped this would discredit Christianity. The Reformers threw out the Apocrypha because they looked back at the Council of Jamnia and figured if the Jews thought the Apocrypha wasn't inspired, that was good enough for them. Ironically, the Reformers agreed with a council that was called to combat Christianity.

Hi Jukesk9,

Thanks for sharing. Actually I was wondering if you know of any books on this particular topic. I find it fascinating to know that the apocrypha was considered orthodox in the past.

God bless!

-Jason

isshinwhat · Apr 23, 2002

You can go to

www.newadvent.org and look it up in the Catholic Encyclopedia. It is a great site.

Neal

nyj · Apr 23, 2002

Originally posted by Hoonbaba
When were was 'apocrypha' included in the Old Testament canon?

The books unjustly called "apocryphal" were placed in the Jewish Canon anywhere from 300 to 100 years before the birth of Christ by the Alexandrian Jews. Before, during and after the life of Christ, the majority of Jews did not live in Israel, but instead lived in Alexandria. During this time, Hebrew became less and less used and so it was decided to translate the Hebrew Scriptures (ie: our Old Testament) into Greek. This was referred to as the Septuagint. The Septuagint became the foundation of the Christian Scriptures from the very beginning (as almost all Christians knew Greek and the main drive of the Church came from the Greek-speaking Gentiles since the predominance of Jews rejected the New Covenant established by Jesus Christ).

Was it included during the Council of Trent?

The deuterocanonicals (as they have become to be known) were re-affirmed by the Council of Trent, but they were determined to be "canonical" at the same time all the other books of the Bible (Old and New Testament) were deemed so.

Or was it included at a later time?

No, it was included at the same time.

If it wasn't included when scripture was canonized, then isn't that adding to scripture which was strictly forbidden (Rev 22:18)? Or am I taking that out of context?

Moot point, see above. However, for the Revelation quote... I do not see how John meant that to refer to Scripture as a whole, because when he wrote Revelation (anywhere between 65 and 95 AD) there was no decided Canon of Scripture.

Hoonbaba · Apr 23, 2002

Originally posted by nyj

The books unjustly called "apocryphal" were placed in the Jewish Canon anywhere from 300 to 100 years before the birth of Christ by the Alexandrian Jews. Before, during and after the life of Christ, the majority of Jews did not live in Israel, but instead lived in Alexandria. During this time, Hebrew became less and less used and so it was decided to translate the Hebrew Scriptures (ie: our Old Testament) into Greek. This was referred to as the Septuagint. The Septuagint became the foundation of the Christian Scriptures from the very beginning (as almost all Christians knew Greek and the main drive of the Church came from the Greek-speaking Gentiles since the predominance of Jews rejected the New Covenant established by Jesus Christ).

So the 'apocrypha' was INCLUDED in the 'Septuagint'?

The deuterocanonicals (as they have become to be known) were re-affirmed by the Council of Trent, but they were determined to be "canonical" at the same time all the other books of the Bible (Old and New Testament) were deemed so.

Click to expand...

Whoa...fascinating!

Moot point, see above. However, for the Revelation quote... I do not see how John meant that to refer to Scripture as a whole, because when he wrote Revelation (anywhere between 65 and 95 AD) there was no decided Canon of Scripture.

Click to expand...

heh, yea I knew someone would bring that up. By the way, I believe Revelation was written around the 60s AD =)

-Jason

Hoonbaba · Apr 23, 2002

I just realized something...if the Bible was canonized with the other books (aka apocrypha), then if Rev 22:18 applies to us, then protestants are the ones in big trouble

-Jason

nyj · Apr 23, 2002

Originally posted by Hoonbaba
So the 'apocrypha' was INCLUDED in the 'Septuagint'?

Yes.

Whoa...fascinating!

Indeed.

heh, yea I knew someone would bring that up. By the way, I believe Revelation was written around the 60s AD =)

Of course.

And if it was written in the 60's (not the 1960's of course) I would not be surprised in the slightest.

Hoonbaba · Apr 23, 2002

Hm...but why weren't other books not included particularly 1 Enoch? There's MANY parallels with Enoch and Revelation, and the other apocalyptic books. In fact Jude 14-15 is a direct quotation of 1 Enoch 2:1. And there's hundreds of direct parallels with the Bible and 1 Enoch. In fact, some of the church fathers regarded it as scripture.

God bless!

-Jason

nyj · Apr 23, 2002

Originally posted by Hoonbaba
Hm...but why weren't other books not included particularly 1 Enoch?

But? We've now moved onto a different subject entirely haven't we? We've gone from basically asking why the Catholic Chuch justifies including the deuterocanonicals to why the Catholic Church excludes the Book of Enoch.

The answer might simply lie in the fact that the Book of Enoch, after the 3rd century, pretty much disappears from the scene. No Church Fathers quote from it directly and between that period and 1773 (when an ethiopian manuscript was found) no one had a complete manuscript (according to the Catholic Encyclopedia).

There may have been plenty of reasons why the Book of Enoch was never considered canonical. Same goes for the Shepherd of Hermas and the Didache, two other books which we're told were seen as profitable for teaching, but were never considered canonical in nature. As to why they were not included though, I believe for the most part those reasons have been lost to antiquity. Some of the reasons may have been their widespread acceptance (or lack thereof), some of the reasons may have been "committee oriented", especially at the Councils where the fate of the final canon were decided. We have lists from Popes (Pope Damascus' list being the most common in support of the current Catholic Canon) and Saints (Augustine, Athanasius, Jerome) and none of them mention the Book of Enoch.

There's MANY parallels with Enoch and Revelation, and the other apocalyptic books. In fact Jude 14-15 is a direct quotation of 1 Enoch 2:1.

Paul also quotes a pagan poet.

And there's hundreds of direct parallels with the Bible and 1 Enoch. In fact, some of the church fathers regarded it as scripture.

This is true, and perhaps it is profitable for reading, as are the Didache and Shepherd of Hermas. However, the Church decided against using these writings as a foundation for doctrine. Just because they were not included doesn't mean they're not useful, just that doctrine should not be directly formulated from them... though such writings have been used in support of doctrine (ie: Protoevangelium of James supports the Perpetual Virginity of Mary).

Hoonbaba · Apr 23, 2002

Originally posted by nyj

But? We've now moved onto a different subject entirely haven't we? We've gone from basically asking why the Catholic Chuch justifies including the deuterocanonicals to why the Catholic Church excludes the Book of Enoch.

Sorry for suddenly jumping off topic but I think it actually is somewhat relevant =)

There may have been plenty of reasons why the Book of Enoch was never considered canonical. Same goes for the Shepherd of Hermas and the Didache, two other books which we're told were seen as profitable for teaching, but were never considered canonical in nature. As to why they were not included though, I believe for the most part those reasons have been lost to antiquity. Some of the reasons may have been their widespread acceptance (or lack thereof), some of the reasons may have been "committee oriented", especially at the Councils where the fate of the final canon were decided.

Click to expand...

So is it possible that some books were actually inspired, yet weren't canonized due to having been lost to antiquity?

Paul also quotes a pagan poet.

Click to expand...

But he uses that quote to prove a point. Hm..I guess you can say the same thing about Jude 14-15.

This is true, and perhaps it is profitable for reading, as are the Didache and Shepherd of Hermas. However, the Church decided against using these writings as a foundation for doctrine. Just because they were not included doesn't mean they're not useful, just that doctrine should not be directly formulated from them... though such writings have been used in support of doctrine (ie: Protoevangelium of James supports the Perpetual Virginity of Mary). [/B]

Click to expand...

The book of enoch mentions battles between demons and angels. What I find interesting is that there's no scriptural reference to Satan falling out of heaven in scripture. Many people quote Isaiah 14:12-15 and say it's referring to Satan. But Isaiah 14:3 says it's about the King of Babylon. Anyway, could it be that Enoch unlocks some hidden mysteries of the truth? Just curious =)

-Jason

Search

Search

Old Testament Canon

Hoonbaba

Catholic Preterist

More options

jukesk9

Dixie Whistlin' Papist

More options

Hoonbaba

Catholic Preterist

More options

isshinwhat

Pro Deo et Patria

More options

nyj

Goodbye, my puppy

More options

Hoonbaba

Catholic Preterist

More options

Hoonbaba

Catholic Preterist

More options

nyj

Goodbye, my puppy

More options

Hoonbaba

Catholic Preterist

More options

nyj

Goodbye, my puppy

More options

Hoonbaba

Catholic Preterist

More options

Similar threads