Are extra books of the bible / apocrypha authentic?

[SumTinWong]

Yes, and Jesus' and the Apostles silence on other books of the Old Testament you consider inspired is also overwhelming and clear. Your assertion that an OT book must be quoted in the NT for it to be considered Scripture does not apply to every OT book. Besides, Jesus was a Palestinian Jew not a Pharisee. You abide by the canon agreed on upon by the Pharisaical school of Hillel and not by all of Judaism. Furthermore, I think a strong case can be made that allusions and references are made to the deuterocanonical books in the NT. You may not believe this fact to be true, but this is something that I consider to be true.

Well we will have to disagree on that point about there being allusions to apocryha books. ps139 had a list, and after I checked them I found only two or three that could have only come from an apocryphal source(compared to the OT). But that doesn't mean that they did. The fact, and this is fact by the way, that there are no references to the apocrypha, directly quoted is a pretty good reason for me to toss them out. But that isn't all. I gave a bunch of reasons, why take one and try to pick at it? Take them all togther and look at them. We just aren't going to agree on this. At all.

Anyway Jesus was a Palestine Jew, not a Qumran. Would you really like to trust a Qumran Jew? Gnostic as they were, they had alot of spurious books in their midst, should we include all of those too? Alexandrian Jews. You could make a case for them, but I can't. I honestly don't know much about them. Here is a fact for you: The Jews of today, still do not regard these books as inspired or worthy of their canon. You keep speaking of pharasees, but today, the Rabbis say no, so that is a mute point.

 

[Ann M]

They might be "authentic" in the sense of this definition:

Having a claimed and verifiable origin or authorship; not counterfeit or copied: an authentic medieval sword.

and they might be good to read to get a better understanding of history. However, I don't think they are fully trustworthy. I really don't know much about the extra-biblical books of the Bible. All I know is that they don't belong in the Bible, at least not mine (Protestant Bible).

They might not belong in your Bible, but I, personally, have cause to question the fact that my NAB Bible has the Book of Daniel finishing with chapter 12, verse 42, whilst my NIV Study Bible has the Book of Daniel finishing with Chapter 12, verse 13. To take out a whole book is one thing, but to remove sections of a book is of great concern. It is also documented fact that some Bible 'authors' added or changed specific words in some editions to suit themselves, or simply by mistake.

(a)I'm told that if I read a Lutheran Bible today I'm told that St Paul has written "We are justified by faith only", and not "We are justified by faith" that I read in my own Bible.

(b)And if we want to talk about everything in the Bible being the truth, that we should follow, then my favourite edition has got to be the edition that became known as "The Murderer's Bible", where tha words of Our Lord are printed thus 'But Jesus said unto her, let the children first be killed.'

 

[SumTinWong]

If Paul was writing in Greek, why wouldn't he use the LXX, particularly if he was writing to Gentile or mixed Gentile-Jewish or Diaspora congregations who may not have understood Hebrew anyway? Just like there wouldn't be much point in my quoting an Indonesian translation of the Bible here because no-one would understand it

It is believed that Paul was bilingual, as he had dual citizenship. But first and foremost he was a Jew. Not just any Jew, but a Pharasee. Honestly I really don't think Paul would have needed to refer to any book(LXX or Hebrew), as his lifelong training would have made him very familiar with the scriptures. That doesn't mean that he didn't, but you get the point.

When writing to someone else, it is proper to write in their own tongue, I agree. But I really don't think that Paul would have had to look up in the Greek LXX translation the verse from Hebrew. Do you understand what I mean? What I think people are not getting the point of, the LXX is a translation of Hebrew scriptures into Greek. These were not written originally in Greek and then passed on. They were written from the Hebrew texts, which means that there must have still been these texts around. All I am saying is, if you look at Jews of today they study what? Hebrew. This is a time honored thing. Imagine if you were a Pharasee, all of the studying you would have to do in Hebrew, and possibly Greek, or even Indonesian.

I am not ruling out that he did use the LXX from time to time, and perhaps since he was a foe to the Jews, he didn't have access to the Hebrew scriptures primarily. But I don't think that because he used the LXX that this proves that he was in favor of the apocryphal books. He doesn't mention them, as a matter of fact no one mentions them either way.

The OP is are the apocrypha authentic. In my opinion they were written around the times they said they were written (in between 350BC and 100BC). By whom we do not know. Add up all the things I have mentioned about the apocrypha in the posts here and in the praying to the saints thread, and I think you will see why I do not find them credible. Yes I know that we who believe this are in the minority. I don't care about numbers.

I aint trying to convince anyone, but I will say that no one has convinced me otherwise, to this point. I am open by the way to hear more arguments.

 

[Ann M]

Nope but in all cases we know who wrote them, and with the exception of Esther they were all written by Gods Prohpets/Chosen Ones. In the case of Esther there were NO errors in the history of the book. That seems to be something that proponents of the apocrypha are willing to over look. We are not.

What also glares out at me is that you did not mention, that NONE of the apocrypha is mentioned. NONE.

My NAB shows Esther finishing at Chapter 10, verse 10. MY NIV Study Bible shows it as finishing at Chapter 10, verse 3. In my book that shows that one is partly deuetrocanonical.

 

[Reader Nilus]

Then there is the book Daniel written in 164 BC that is not mentioned by Sirach, so it is really late, in the canon. The bottom line is that the Old Testament is a Christian Canon, and the Church defines Christian reading, not the Jewish Rabbis. Why would I question the Church on Judith because a Jewish Council rejected the book in the time after the Gospel has been proclaimed?
Jeff the Finn

 

[herev]

the apocrypha

Even though the evidence pointed to the fact that the apocrypha was not Canon & even though the Christian Church in it's first four centuries rejected these writings as spurious they were in the end included. Augustine (354-430 AD) pushed for the apocrypha as Scripture over the objections of Jerome, and the RCC included it in the Latin Vulgate after Jerome's death. Jerome disagreed with Augustine about the apocrypha, and at first refused to even translate them into Latin. He later relented, when the Pope insisted, though he was adamant that the books were uninspired. Jerome, the who was the main translator of the Latin Vulgate, in 395 AD specified that any books which fell outside of the traditional Hebrew Bible should be considered apocryphal. He said the apocryphal books "are not in the Canon". Jerome wrote that the apocrypha was:".. for edification of the people but not for establishing the authority of ecclesiastical dogmas."
Once these writings were tacked into place next to the Holy Scriptures many people became to regard them as Scriptural by association. The Church had arguments here and there, about the apocrypha, up until the time of the Reformation. The RCC made it's views clear at the Council of Trent when it stated that all of the Latin Vulgate (to include the apocrypha) was equally Canon. The doctrine was re-affirmed at the Vatican Council of 1870.

The Jewish Old Testament was originally bound in a scroll of 24 books, and the Apocrypha was never bound with these books. The Jews divided the Bible as:
The Law (Torah) - 5 Books - Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy
The Prophets (Nebhiim) - 8 Books
The former prophets - Joshua, Judges, Samuel, Kings
The latter prophets - Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, the Twelve
The Writings (Kethubhim) - 11 Books
Poetical books - Psalms, Job, Proverbs
Five rolls (Megilloth) - Ruth, Song of Songs, Ecclesiastes, Lamentations, Esther
Historical books - Daniel, Ezra-Nehemiah, Chronicles

The apocrypha was never counted among this Holy Division. Josephus(not only excluded the apocrypha from the canon, but also considered these writings to be a satanic infiltration of the scriptures), the ancient Jewish historian, combined Ruth-Judges and Lamentation-Jeremiah for a total of 22 books, rather than the traditional 24. He writes: "For we have not an innumerable multitude of books among us, ... only 22 books. which contain the records of all the past times; which are justly believed to be Divine;...It is true, our history hath been written since Artaxerxes very particularly, but hath not been esteemed of the like authority with the former by our forefathers;...and how firmly we have given credit to these books of our own nation is evident by what we do; for during so many ages as have already passed, no one has been so bold as either to add anything to them, or to make any change in them." (Flavius Josephus Against Apion Book 1, Section 8).

Artaxerxes and Malachi both lived about four centuries before Christ, while the books of the apocrypha were composed in the vicinity of two centuries before Christ. Josephus expressed the common belief of the Jews that no Scripture was written after the time of Artaxerxes. The Jewish Talmus also teaches that the Spirit of God departed from Israel insofar as Scriptural Writing is concerned after the time of Malachi. Philo, the Alexandrian Jewish philosopher (20 B.C .- A.D. 40), quoted the Old Testament frequently, recognizing the Jewish threefold division, but never quoted from the apocrypha as inspired. The Jewish scholars of Jamnia did not even recognize the apocrypha. So was the apocrypha ever "removed" from the Canon? No, it was never in the Canon.

What about the New Testament Church? Did the early Church regard these writings as "God Breathed"? Actually, the early Church literally ignored the apocrypha. There are 263 quotations and 370 allusions to the Old Testament in the New Testament and not one of them refers to any of the the apocryphal writings. Jesus(over 100 times) and His Apostles quoted extensively from the Old Testament, but never from the apocrypha.

Quick facts:
None Of the apocryphal books ever claim divine inspiration, though numerous canonised works claimed this of themselves: DEU 31.24-26; NEH 8.1-8; JOSH 1.8; JUD 3.4; DAN 12.2; 9.2; JER 36; JO 5.39; 10.35; 2 KI 22-23; NEH 8.5

All apocryphal authors(most of which are unknown by the way) never held the office or gift of a prophet

In the Book of Tobit, Tobit was supposed to be a youth (Tobit 1.3-5) in the days when the ten Northern Tribes of Israel revolted and seceded from the South (Judah). The book was supposed to have been written around the time of the Assyrian captivity, but if this was the case then Tobit would have been over 200 years old at the time of the writing. Yet Tobit 14:11 reports that he died when he was 158 years old. That's a pretty big error. But even if we discard this as "just a slip", Tobit 14:5 says that Ninevah was taken in battle by Nebuchadnezzar, something that just historically never happened. Tobit also endorses the use of fish liver to ward off demons. "Then the young man said to the angel, Brother Azarias, to what use is the heart and the liver and the gall of the fish? And he said unto him, Touching the heart and the liver, if a devil or an evil spirit trouble any, we must make a smoke thereof before the man or the woman, and the party shall be no more vexed..."

In 2 Maccabees 14:41-46 suicide seems to be justified:"Now as the multitude sought to rush into his house, and to break open the door, and to set fire to it, when he was ready to be taken, he struck himself with his sword: Choosing to die nobly rather than to fall into the hands of the wicked, and to suffer abuses unbecoming his noble birth. But whereas through haste he missed of giving a sure wound, and the crowd was breaking into the doors, he ran boldly to the wall, and manfully threw himself down to the crowd: But they quickly making room for his fall, he came upon the midst of the neck. And as he had yet breath in him, being inflamed in mind, he arose: and while his blood ran down with a great stream, and he was grievously wounded, he ran through the crowd: And standing upon a steep rock, when he was now almost without blood, grasping his bowels, with both hands he cast them upon the throng, calling upon the Lord of life and spirit, to restore these to him again: and so he departed this life."

2 Maccabees 12.41-45 teaches prayer for the dead as a means to bring them to salvation. This is totally contrary to Scripture, as illustrated by Jesus' story of the Rich man and Lazarus: Luke 16:24-31 "So he shouted, 'Father Abraham, have mercy on me! Send Lazarus to dip the tip of his finger in water and to cool off my tongue, because I am suffering in this fire.' But Abraham said, 'My child, remember that during your lifetime you received blessings, while Lazarus received hardships. But now he is being comforted here, while you suffer. Besides all this, a wide chasm has been fixed between us, so that those who want to cross from this side to you can't do so, nor can they cross from your side to us.' "The rich man said, 'Then I beg you, father, send him to my father's house- for I have five brothers-to warn them, so that they won't end up in this place of torture, too.' Abraham said, 'They have Moses and the Prophets. They should listen to them!' But the rich man replied, 'No, father Abraham! Yet if someone from the dead went to them, they would repent.' Then Abraham said to him, 'If they do not listen to Moses and the Prophets, they will not be persuaded, even if someone rises from the dead.'"

Ecclesiasticus(or Sirach) 3:30 Justifies Salvation By Giving Large Donations To God. It tries to tell us that we can buy our way into Heaven. This is totally contrary to God's Word (John 1:3; 2 Samuel 12:19; Hebrews 9:27; Romans 4:5; Galatians 3:11). "Water will quench a flaming fire, and alms maketh an atonement for sins."

Wisdom Of Solomon 8:19-20 Teaches The pre-existence of the soul and reincarnation

The apocryphal Books were never excluded from the Old Testament Canon of Scripture because they were never a part of the Canon. The Jews never accepted any of the apocryphal Books as Scriptural. This exclusion weighed heavily against the Church accepting the apocrypha as Scriptural. Other than the obvious defects, the Jews rejected the apocrypha because none of the works were written by Prophets. All of the Old Testament Canon, with a few exceptions, was written by people who either had the Gift or Office of Prophet. Of the few that did not fit this category, like Esther, the book contained enough historical and Scriptural accuracy for the Jews to determine it to be Canonical. The apocrypha contained so many errors that the Jews rejected the books outright. In addition to this, unlike most Canonized Works (Deuteronomy 31.24-26; Nehemiah 8.1-8; Joshua 1.8; Judges 3.4; Daniel 12.2; 9.2; Jeremiah 36; 2 King 22-23; Nehemiah 8.5), the Apocrypha never claimed to be the Inspired Word of God. They were merely "recountings", never claiming Divine Inspiration for themselves(2 Maccabees 2: 24-32 & 2 Maccabees 15: 39-40 for instance)

Just FYI:
Most books in the apocrypha were composed around 200 BC.

The books are in the Septuagint(LXX), but not in the Hebrew version of the Bible.

Eastern Christian churches accept all these books as canonical;

Not all books from the Septuagint are accepted by the RCC as canonical. The Prayer of Manasseh, 3 and 4 Esdras, 3 and 4 Maccabees and Psalm 151 are not considered to be canonical, and are not included in the canon. Some Protestants include these books in the apocrypha. In the Vulgate, these books are found in an Appendix.

Among the Oriental Orthodox, the Apocrypha are accepted, and with the Ethiopian Orthodox there are additional books such as Jubilees, Enoch, and the Rest of the Words of Baruch. Enoch was accepted as scripture because the book of Jude in the New Testament quotes it as scripture

While Jews reject the apocrypha as having religious value in and of itself, at various times some in the Jewish community have drawn from it as a legitimate part of Jewish literary creativity; elements of the apocrypha have even been used as the basis for two important parts of the Jewish liturgy. In the Mahzor (High Holy day prayer book), a medieval Jewish poet used Ben Sira as the basis for a beautiful poem, Ke'Ohel HaNimtah. This is a closing piyut in the Seder Avodah section, in the Yom Kipur Musaf. It begins: "How glorious indeed was the High Priest, when he safely left the Holy of Holies. Like the clearest canopy of Heaven was the dazzling countenance of the priest". The Conservative Mahzor replaces the medieval piyut with the relevant section from Ben Sira, which is more direct. The apocrypha has even formed the basis of the most important of all Jewish prayers, the Amidah (the Shemonah Esrah). Ben Sira provides the vocabulary and framework for many of the Amidah's blessings, which were instituted by the men of the Great Assembly.

The Protestants:
John Calvin wrote, "I am not one of those, however, who would entirely disapprove the reading of those [apocryphal] books", though he objected to "placing the apocrypha in the same rank with inspired Scripture" (Antidote to the Council of Trent, pp. 67,68).
Martin Luther, placed the apocrypha in an appendix to the Old Testament in his German Bible. He described them as "Books which are not to be held equal to Holy Scripture, but are useful and good to read."
Wycliffs' Bible (14th century) included the Apocrypha, but in it's preface made it clear that it accepted Jerome's judgement, not Augustine's.
The Church of England (1562) explicitly denied the apocrypha as Canon, though admitted that the books could be read for their "didactic worth" (Article IV).
The King James Bible of 1611 put the Apocrypha between the Old and New Testaments, but omitted it from all versions from 1630 and on.
The Westminister Confession of the Presbyterians decreed the apocrypha to be no part of the Scripture.
The British and Foreign Bible Society of 1827 resolved never to print or circulate Bibles that contained the apocrypha.

excellent post

 

[Bingley]

It is believed that Paul was bilingual, as he had dual citizenship. But first and foremost he was a Jew. Not just any Jew, but a Pharasee. Honestly I really don't think Paul would have needed to refer to any book(LXX or Hebrew), as his lifelong training would have made him very familiar with the scriptures. That doesn't mean that he didn't, but you get the point.

When writing to someone else, it is proper to write in their own tongue, I agree. But I really don't think that Paul would have had to look up in the Greek LXX translation the verse from Hebrew. Do you understand what I mean? What I think people are not getting the point of, the LXX is a translation of Hebrew scriptures into Greek. These were not written originally in Greek and then passed on. They were written from the Hebrew texts, which means that there must have still been these texts around. All I am saying is, if you look at Jews of today they study what? Hebrew. This is a time honored thing. Imagine if you were a Pharasee, all of the studying you would have to do in Hebrew, and possibly Greek, or even Indonesian.

I'm not denying that Paul knew Hebrew. I'm only saying that when writing to Greek speakers it would be natural for him to use the LXX when he wanted to quote the OT scriptures (however defined).

 

[Bingley]

Well, are you willing to also discard the following books?

Esther
Nehemiah
Song of Songs
Ecclesiastes
Ruth

None of these books are quoted in the New Testament. However, books that none of us regard as inspired, such as the Book of Enoch and the Assumption of Moses are referred to in the book of Jude.

Eric

Nope but in all cases we know who wrote them.

(Lollard)


We do? Who wrote Ruth?

 

[KennySe]

I cannot be deeply involved in this thread as the words "apocrypha" and "apocryphal" are used throughout, similarly as the words "Romish", "popery" and "Romanist" might be casually used by those opposed to the Catholic Church.

What I would appreciate is if someone would cut through all this quagmire and provide the historical Bible Canon, listing all the books of the Bible, from Genesis to Revelation, that does not include the seven books which were first labelled "deuterocanonical" in the 16th century.

And provide the name of the complete Christian Bible, from Genesis through Revelation
(Apocalypse of John) that does NOT include those 7 books. The seven books are not in the Bible in any section or area: entirely removed.)

Meanwhile, I have provide the Catholic CHurch's historical documentation of Her Bible Canon, and that all books were listed together Genesis - Revelation.

Council of Rome

"Now indeed we must treat of the divine scriptures, what the universal Catholic Church accepts and what she ought to shun. The order of the Old Testament begins here: Genesis, one book; Exodus, one book; Leviticus, one book; Numbers, one book; Deuteronomy, one book; Joshua [Son of] Nave, one book; Judges, one book; Ruth, one book; Kings, four books [that is, 1 and 2 Samuel and 1 and 2 Kings]; Paralipomenon [Chronicles], two books; Psalms, one book; Solomon, three books: Proverbs, one book, Ecclesiastes, one book, [and] Canticle of Canticles [Song of Songs], one book; likewise Wisdom, one book; Ecclesiasticus [Sirach], one book . . . . Likewise the order of the historical [books]: Job, one book; Tobit, one book; Esdras, two books [Ezra and Nehemiah]; Esther, one book; Judith, one book; Maccabees, two books" (Decree of Pope Damasus [A.D. 382]).

*

Council of Hippo

"[It has been decided] that besides the canonical scriptures nothing be read in church under the name of divine Scripture. But the canonical scriptures are
as follows: Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, Joshua the Son of Nun, Judges, Ruth, the Kings, four books, the Chronicles, two books, Job, the Psalter, the five books of Solomon [Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Song of Songs, Wisdom, and a portion of the Psalms], the twelve books of the prophets, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Daniel, Ezekiel, Tobit, Judith, Esther, Ezra, two books, Maccabees, two books . . ." (Canon 36 [A.D. 393]).

*
Council of Carthage III

"[It has been decided] that nothing except the canonical scriptures should be read in the Church under the name of the divine scriptures. But the canonical scriptures are: Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, Joshua, Judges, Ruth, four books of Kings, Paralipomenon, two books, Job, the Psalter of David, five books of Solomon, twelve books of the prophets, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Daniel, Ezekiel, Tobit, Judith, Esther, two books of Esdras, two books of the Maccabees . . ." (Canon 47 [A.D. 397]).

*

Pope Innocent I

"A brief addition shows what books really are received in the canon. These are the things of which you desired to be informed verbally: of Moses, five books, that is, of Genesis, of Exodus, of Leviticus, of Numbers, of Deuteronomy, and Joshua, of Judges, one book, of Kings, four books, and also Ruth, of the prophets, sixteen books, of Solomon, five books, the Psalms. Likewise of the histories, Job, one book, of Tobit, one book, Esther, one, Judith, one, of the Maccabees, two, of Esdras, two, Paralipomenon, two books . . ." (Letters 7 [A.D. 408]).

*
http://catholicoutlook.com/objapoc1.html

Council of Florence

“[T]his sacred ecumenical council of Florence . . . professes that one and the same God is the author of the old and the new Testament – that is, the law and the prophets, and the gospel – since the saints of both testaments spoke under the inspiration of the same Spirit. It accepts and venerates their books, whose titles are as follows. Five books of Moses, namely Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy; Joshua, Judges, Ruth, four books of Kings [i.e., 1 Samuel, 2 Samuel, 1 Kings, 2 Kings], two of Chronicles, Ezra, Nehemiah, Tobit, Judith, Esther, Job, Psalms of David, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Song of Songs, Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Baruch, Ezechiel, Daniel; the twelve minor prophets, namely Hosea, Joel, Amos, Obadiah, Jonah, Micah, Nahum, Habakkuk, Zephaniah, Haggai, Zechariah, Malachi; two books of the Maccabees . . . [they go on to list the 27 New Testament books we all accept today].” (February 5, 1442)

​

 

[Oblio]

Don't confuse us with the facts Kenny

 

[SumTinWong]

(Lollard)


We do? Who wrote Ruth?

You are correct, we do not know who wrote Ruth. Traditionally it has been held that Samiel wrote it, but later people have said that it was after Samuel.

 

[SumTinWong]

I cannot be deeply involved in this thread as the words "apocrypha" and "apocryphal" are used throughout, similarly as the words "Romish", "popery" and "Romanist" might be casually used by those opposed to the Catholic Church

Though I do not condone the other words you have mentioned here I might add that it was Jerome and Keroles of Jerusalem who were the first persons who used the word Apocrypha .They were referring to the books which were translated in the Septuagint and those books are not included in the Books of the Jews. From that time on the word ‘apocrypha’ developed the meaning of 'books, which are less important and have not the authority like the books of the Old and New Testament’.

So this is not a protestant word.

 

[Iosias]

In my opinion, the burden of proof rests on those defending the 66 book canon since this was not the Bible of the early Church plain and simple. Even if you cite Jerome as your supposed champion of the 66 book canon, I can easily provide quotations from Jerome where he quotes from the deuterocanon in his writings and refers to these books as SCRIPTURE. Thus, the supposed champion of the Protestant canon amongst the early Fathers still calls these books Scripture...and that's not a very sound argument.

I am a fundamentalist Protestant who holds the AV of 1611 to be the inspired word of God and yet I find myself agreeing to some extent with the Orthodox and Catholics on this

My question is this: If we agree with Councils that certified the 66 books as being cannonical why would we disagree with those Councils who certify that the deutrocanonical books are canon also?

 

[Lotar]

My question is why you hold 66 books of the KJV 1611 to be inspired, when the KJV 1611 had 72 books?

 

[PaladinValer]

Actually, the first edition of the Geneva included the Catholic Deuterocanon and the Prayer of Manasseh.

And the entire Deuterocanon, Catholic and Orthodox, is God-inspired. That's what was included in the Holy Canon and therefore, that is what should be accepted. IMO, denial would mean a rejection of the inspiration of the Holy Spirit.

 

[ExOrienteLux]

A question for those of you who disagree with using the LXX and instead want to use the Masoretic text:

Does this mean that Christ was not born of a virgin? Because in the Masoretic text, Isaiah's prophecy uses the Hebrew for 'young woman', which the LXX translates as parthenos or virgin. So, which is right?

For myself, I would prefer to use the Scriptures that the Church, the pillar and foundation of the Truth, has chosen as inspired, rather than those that were chosen by an anti-christian Jewish council.

His sinful and unworthy servant,
Josh.

 

[PaladinValer]

That's the fallacy of Equivocation; the texts used don't equate submitting to the Jewish Council that established their canon.

 

[Patristic]

Well we will have to disagree on that point about there being allusions to apocryha books. ps139 had a list, and after I checked them I found only two or three that could have only come from an apocryphal source(compared to the OT). But that doesn't mean that they did. The fact, and this is fact by the way, that there are no references to the apocrypha, directly quoted is a pretty good reason for me to toss them out. But that isn't all. I gave a bunch of reasons, why take one and try to pick at it? Take them all togther and look at them. We just aren't going to agree on this. At all.

Anyway Jesus was a Palestine Jew, not a Qumran. Would you really like to trust a Qumran Jew? Gnostic as they were, they had alot of spurious books in their midst, should we include all of those too? Alexandrian Jews. You could make a case for them, but I can't. I honestly don't know much about them. Here is a fact for you: The Jews of today, still do not regard these books as inspired or worthy of their canon. You keep speaking of pharasees, but today, the Rabbis say no, so that is a mute point.

Actually, many Protestant scholars have stated in various books and commentaries that references to some deuterocanonical books were made. You may not think they are there, but scholars of serious repute have said that some references were made and this is enough to atleast put a serious dent in your assertion. Furthermore, I looked at all your reasons and you act as if your argument isn't strong on one particular point so we should all accept your points en masse and bow to your argumentative prowess. I never stated you could not make a serious argument for your position, I just don't think your argument is overwhelmingly convincing seeing as there are good counterarguments to every point you make.

Second, your assertion that Qumranic Jews were gnostic is a bold assertion. They were definitely sectarian and strict and quasi mystical and predestinarian in their beliefs, but I wouldn't call them Gnostic. Gnostic as a term belongs to various heretical Christian sects of the 1st, 2nd, and 3rd centuries and not to the Qumran community. The Qumran community never denied the reality of the incarnation or deemed physical matter inherently evil because it was created by an inferior god, the demiurge. I have read some the Dead Sea Scrolls and base my assessment of the Qumran community on works by Sanders, espcecially Paul and Palestinian Judaism, and works by other scholars. Sanders never once associates Qumran with gnosticism. The point is this, no community knew of a closed canon in Jesus' time. All acknowledged the authority of the Penteteuch and most regarded the prophets as inspired, but no one really defined what books belonged with the prophets and what ones didn't until the end of the 1st century. It was within the third classification of books where the most disagreement arose and it was within this classification that all the deuterocanonical books were placed by the various communities. And even though the Rabbis may tell me these books don't belong in the OT they also say the NT is not inspired and the Rabbis, according to the Talmud, would classify the NT books as books that defile the mind and endanger the soul of the reader. Therefore, I do not consider the Rabbis absolutely authoritative since they would tell me I am reading from heretical books and believe a false prophet is the Messiah.

 

[ExOrienteLux]

That's the fallacy of Equivocation; the texts used don't equate submitting to the Jewish Council that established their canon.

Point granted, and I'm sorry if my post came across that way. However, this doesn't change the fact that it is the LXX that says the Christ will be born of a virgin and the Masoretic that says He will be born of a young woman.

My question still stands: Which is right?

+IC XC NIKA+
Josh.

 

[PaladinValer]

Both.