How do we know . . . .

[ScottBot]

I lean on forgiveability, not infallability.

I lean on both.

 

[Mathetes the kerux]

So? The Canon that has been accepted by the East and the West is the Septuagint, not the Hebrew only canon proposed by Jamnia. So, yes, the Reformationist canon is light by 7 books and parts of 2 others.

I am not sure where your info is coming from . . . but the only texts accepted by the JEWS themselves in the first Cent. are the ones in the OT WITHOUT the Apocrypha. All the targums and such refer to Malachi as the last prophet with the Word of the Lord and the last written words of God.

So I am not sure where you are getting your info . . . but the 39 Books without the Apocrypha was what the JEWS considered inspired scripture, even though they had the Apocrypha themselves, and all we did was agree with what they already affirmed. The Apocrypha was never considered inspired writ. So the OT that we have is the same that the Jews had and considered and the same that the first cent Christians had as well.

 

[Mathetes the kerux]

It shows Paul quoting Jesus when there's no Gospel record of that. As Paul wasn't there when Jesus taught, he must have heard it from somewhere and then recorded it.

Even if it were 'prophetic' it's still something he learnt orally!

Yes, he does. He commends the communities to keep to the lessons he gave orally and in Gospel.

Now I praise you, brethren, that you remember me in all things and keep the traditions as I delivered them to you (I Corinthians 11:2)

“Therefore, brethren, stand fast and hold the traditions which you were taught, whether by word or by our epistle” (II Thessalonians 2:15)

They are mentioned together.

By your logic we'd have to imagine Paul preaching to a crowd but his message being less of value than when he wrote it down as if the written lesson is worth more than the spoken one.



No. You mistake what traditions he's talking about. I could equally apply that to the 'laws' which were also written down which he said we are not helped to salvation by.

He differentiates between traditions (see quotes above)

As Paul wasn't there when Jesus taught, he must have heard it from somewhere and then recorded it.

Seems you forget that Paul was led into the Arabian wilderness for 3 years and taught by Christ Himself. So there is no need for a "must."

Even if it were 'prophetic' it's still something he learnt orally!

Categorical fallacy. You and I both know that the phrase "oral tradition" in this context refers to orally passed on teaching . . . not a prophetic utterance. The two don't cross even if they are both "spoken" . . . nice try though. ;0)

Yes, he does. He commends the communities to keep to the lessons he gave orally and in Gospel.

Now I praise you, brethren, that you remember me in all things and keep the traditions as I delivered them to you (I Corinthians 11:2)

“Therefore, brethren, stand fast and hold the traditions which you were taught, whether by word or by our epistle” (II Thessalonians 2:15)

They are mentioned together.

As I said, tradition is good, and it has AN authority . . . but it is never place alongside of Scripture as equal. Is tradition said to have the path that leads to salvation? Nope. Is tradition given the highly exalted hapaxlegomenon theopneustos? Nope. When Paul argues for the truth of the Gospel does he argue from the targums? Nope. Do the people who want to test what he says go and test by tradition? Nope. Does Jesus quote the targums when tempted by Satan? Nope. Is tradition ever mentioned as being "fulfilled"? Nope. Is tradition ever said to be "unbreakable"? Nope. Is tradition ever called a "more sure word of prophecy"? Nope. Ever said that traditions are men moved along by the Spirit of God? uh . . . nope.

Tradition is NEVER given the same place of prominence and primacy as Scripture. Tradition has its place . . . but not over Scripture.

By your logic we'd have to imagine Paul preaching to a crowd but his message being less of value than when he wrote it down as if the written lesson is worth more than the spoken one.

Uh no. The point is that his sermons were FOUNDED upon the exposition of the Scripture not appeal to tradition. Ergo, his messages spoken were rooted in the already existent authority of the Scrptures. As for his writing . . . well again they are all rooted in the Scripture and derive their authority from the well established motiff of the "word of the Lord," which begins in the writing of documents by God Himself in the giving of the decalouge. Much the same as when someone calls on the phone to grant you a deal . . . or a promotion in one's place of business and we say "CAN I HAVE THAT IN WRITING" . . . because what is written and agreed upon is a form of a covenant . . . verses he said she said word of mouth. It is a common biblical theme.

No. You mistake what traditions he's talking about. I could equally apply that to the 'laws' which were also written down which he said we are not helped to salvation by.

He differentiates between traditions (see quotes above)

I have made no mistake. Graphe is a technical term in the NT refering to the OT written books . . . and of the 51 times the term is used in the NT EVERY TIME it refers to the written Word of the Lord . . . and the high concepts associated with the term are NEVER applied to tradition.

Again . . . the authority ascribed to tradition is less than the authority ascribed to Scripture.

 

[Mathetes the kerux]

And even Peter was rebuked by Paul. What's your point?

We Orthodox do not follow any one man.

We're not Peterists, Paulists, Clementines, but Christians.

The checks-and-balances of Orthodoxy is to look at all our faith.

In Protestantism you get to believe that your own interpretations are as equally valid because everyone just has faith in the Holy Spirit - so whatever conclusion you come to must have been by the Holy Spirit guiding you there.

Don't presume to lump me in with others until you have done the responsible work of asking me where I stand . . .

as for my question about Clement and Justin . . . the point was to prove that even they had a higher view of Scripture than tradition.

 

[Mathetes the kerux]

So, obviously the Mesoteric Text was not the text used by the Early Church, Christ, or the Apostles. Why would people use this one rather than the text used by Christ and the Early Church? There are bibles with the Old Testament being translated from the Septuagint. Since we are told to "search the Scriptures" to make sure that what we are being taught is correct, how can you be sure when you don't have the entire Old Testament that the Early Church had at that time? Also, we are warned not to add to or take things out of the Scriptures. Well, 7 books were taken out of the Mesoteric Text that were in the Old Testament that the Early Church used.

The dilemma you are presenting is false. True that the OT used by many in the 1st Cent was the LXX . . . that does not mean that the Hebrew OT wasn't used . . . it was just expensive. Every Synagouge had one as far as I know of . . . and the Essenes of Qumran (assuming they Qumran community was Essene) had a few themselves . . . and what they had agreed with the Masoretic text. So there is no real dilemma.

And the Apocrypha was NOT part of the canon. The Apocrypha was never accepted as inspired canon by the Jews . . . and ergo Jesus' culture.

 

[Trento]

I am not sure where your info is coming from . . . but the only texts accepted by the JEWS themselves in the first Cent. are the ones in the OT WITHOUT the Apocrypha. All the targums and such refer to Malachi as the last prophet with the Word of the Lord and the last written words of God.

So I am not sure where you are getting your info . . . but the 39 Books without the Apocrypha was what the JEWS considered inspired scripture, even though they had the Apocrypha themselves, and all we did was agree with what they already affirmed. The Apocrypha was never considered inspired writ. So the OT that we have is the same that the Jews had and considered and the same that the first cent Christians had as well.

In Josephus Antiquities of the Jews Book 12 Chapter 2 We find the title “How Ptolmey Philadelphus procured the laws of the Jews to be translated into the Greek tongue, and set many captives free; and dedicated many gifts to God.” This begins on page 309. First of all we find out that the “rebellious” Jews at Alexandria were actually there because they were held captive. It says that:“Philedelphus then took the kingdom of Egypt, and held it forty years within one. He procured the law to be interpreted, and set free those that were come from Jerusalem into Egypt, and where in slavery there, who were a hundred and twenty thousand.” Ptolmey had Demetrius Phalerius, the library keeper write a letter to the Jewish high priest Eleazar in Jerusalem that he should act accordingly.Ptolmey sent some gifts to Jerusalem I quote: “On which account I have subjoined a copy of these epistles, and set down a multitude of the vessels sent as gifts ”A suggestion than comes from Hecateus of Abdera to the king: “O king, thou mayest write to high priest of the Jews, to send six of the elders out of every tribe, and those such as are more skillful of the laws, that by their means we may learn the clear and agreeing sense of these books, and may obtain an accurate interpretation of their contents, so that we may have such a collection of these as may be suitable to their desire. When this epistle was sent to the king, he commanded that an epistle should be drawn up for Eleazar, the Jewish high priest, concerning these matters.”…We can see here that all of this Septuagint project is done with the co-operation and facilitation of the Aaronic priesthood in Jerusalem and not apart from it at all.Ptolmey than writes a letter (epistle) to Eleazar the high priest of Jerusalem and the pertinent part for our discussion I will quote here “I have determined to procure an interpretation of your law, and to have it translated out of Hebrew into Greek, and to have it deposited in my library.”Eleazar the high priest of Jerusalem responds with his letter back to Ptolmey and I will quote the parts that are germane to our issue at hand: “When we received thy epistle, we greatly rejoiced at thy intentions; and when the multitude were gathered together, we read it to them, and thereby made them sensible of the piety thou hast towards God.”And the confirming part from the Jerusalem high priest of the Aaronic priesthood: “…and that the translation of our law may come to the conclusion thou desirest, and be fore thy advantage. We have also chosen six elders out of every tribe, whom we have sent and the law with them. It will be they part, out of thy piety and justice to send back the law when it hath been translated; and to return those to us that bring it in safety.-Farewell.”
Then the account of Josephus moves on :“And these were what gifts were send by Ptolmey to Jerusalem and dedicated to God there. But when Eleazar the high priest had devoted them to God and had paid the due respect to those who had brought them,”…
Josephus continues “He then made haste to meet the elders that came from Jerusalem for the interpretation of the laws; “….Was the job done correctly? Josephus tells us “Accordingly, they made an accurate interpretation, with great zeal and great pains”:
All the quotes are from Josephus Antiquities of the Jews Book 12 Chapter 2 between the pages of 309-315 of the Works of Josephus.
Now the question is what did Josephus list as Scripture for the OT and why? I haven’t been able to locate a list in Josephus except a reference to there being 22 letters in the Hebrew alphabet and their being a book to correspond to each letter. If that is the case the 39 books of the current Jewish OT are appropriated more than one book per letter to mean the books accepted by the current Protestant canon. This inicates that the canon may not be that rigid as generally accepted by Josephus as more books could be appropriated to each letter. Theories as to why Josephus mentions only the canon accepted by the current Jews. If we knew the date in which Jamnia set the canon that could answer much of the speculation. The dates given for the Council of Jamnia can vary from about 75-96 a.d. If it was towards the earlier date than Josephus would be acting like a faithful Jew of his time and accept the limited canon which he listed in his book which was probably written after 80 a.d.. If it was later the canon which he listed was according to the Scriptures that were in the possesion of Titus at Rome in which Josephus was an interpreter for the Romans of Jewish practices. These Scriptures where probably taken from Jerusalem during the sack of Jerusalem in 70 a.d. There is a theory possibility that these Scriptures are those that where from Nehemiah. Dissertation 4 by the interpreter of Josephus postulates the following:“Proving that the copy of the books of the old testament laid up in Herods temple, and thence used by Josephus, the Jewish historian, in his antiquities, was not other than that most ancient collection or library made by Nehemiah, in the days of Artaxerxes, the son of Xerxes and was free from several additions and alterations made afterwards in the other copies which are not extant-this appears by the arguments following- (1) The book of Malachi is missing and (2) so is the Song of Songs and (3) Nehemiah is not a member of the Aaronic priesthood. If that is so then that would indicate that the canon was not closed with the addition of the above books, Malachi and Song of Songs and also it would not be authoritative because Nehemiah was not a member of the Aaronic priesthood.Evidence for the still open canon is concluded from the evidence of the high priest of the Aaronic priesthood in Jerusalem Eleazar approving and assisting in the translations of the Hebrew Scripture into the Septuagint which included the deutero-canonical books. .And finally when Ptolmey received the Septuagint translation:“And when the king had received these books from Demetrius, as we have said already, he adored them; and gave order that they might remain uncorropted. He also desired that the interpreters would come to him often out of Judea, “……The translators with the approval of the Aaronic priesthood kept in touch with the king Ptolmey to help instruct him on the contents.

Even today Ethiopian Jews still use the Septuagint version, not the shorter Palestinian canon settled upon by the rabbis at Javneh. In other words, the Old Testament canon recognized by Ethiopian Jews is identical to the Catholic Old Testament, including the seven deuterocanonical books (cf. Encyclopedia Judaica, vol. 6, p. 1147).

There are various theories as to when the Jews closed their Old Testament canon. One is that the Old Testament was closed once and for all by Ezra (400 BC). This is a view that was held by some of the Fathers, a number of more recent Catholics and many Protestants. Such a view, however, runs into a number of difficulties. For example, the second book of Ezra contains genealogies of the High Priests continuing 150 years after the death of Ezra. In the same book is a list of the descendents of King David traced down to the sixth generation after Zerobabel, that is, down to about 300 BC. The existence of these genealogies is proof enough that the Old Testament canon remained open at least 150 years after Ezra’s death.



In fact, the Old Testament canon was still in a state of flux in the time of Christ with both the Sadducees and Samaritans, for example, accepting only the first five books of Moses as inspired and canonical. The great Jewish historian, Josephus Flavius, provides one important hint as to why uncertainty still surrounded the Old Testament canon so late in its history:

"From the time of Artaxerxes to our own time, our history has been written down very particularly (accurately and in detail), but these books have not been considered worthy of the same credit as the books of earlier date, because there has not been an exact succession of prophets."2



From these last words it is evident that Josephus required a prophet to appear and canonize the Deuterocanon in the same way other prophets in the past had done for the Protocanon. The question at the time of his writing was still held in abeyance. Unbeknown to Josephus this "prophet" was to be Christ and the Apostles.



Nevertheless, Josephus makes it clear that though not canonized the Deuterocanon enjoyed great credit among the Jews as inspired literature:

"But what credence we have given to all those books of our own nation is evident from our conduct; for, though so long a time has passed, no one has ever been so bold as to add anything to them whatsoever. But all Jews are instinctively led, from the moment of their birth, to believe that these books contain divine oracles and to abide by them and, if need be, gladly to die for them."3


As if to emphasize this point further, Josephus says that in the composition of his Jewish Antiquities he had used exclusively "sacred writings," yet he frequently quotes 1 Maccabees and the deutero fragments of Esther. Further, in the Talmud Baruch is referred to as a "prophetic book," Wisdom as "written by Solomon" and the book of Sirach is quoted often.

In addition, excepting the Book of Wisdom and 2 Maccabees all the other parts of the Deuterocanon were previously written in Hebrew. This points to Palestine not only as their place of origin but also where the Alexandrian Jews received their belief in their inspiration and divine character. This is why there are no records of any schism or controversy on the subject between the Palestinian and Alexandrian Jews.



For the Jews no final determination of the Old Testament was to be made until the Council of Jamnia (Javnah) in 90 AD. The Jews in this Council (and again in 118 AD), seeking to build a new focal point for their religious beliefs after the Roman destruction of the Temple in 70 AD, and in an attempt to counter the early Christians who quoted the Septuagint in support of the claims of Christ, only accepted those Old Testament books which were (i) written in Hebrew; (ii) conformed to the Torah; (iii) pre-dated the time of Ezra; and (iv) written in Palestine. The Jewish authorities now xenophobically considered the Septuagint "too gentile." Only the Ethiopian Jews retained the Septuagint version and still do so today (Encyclopaedia Judaica, vol. 6, p. 1147). In any case, for Christians Jamnia is not authoritative, as all legitimate authority had passed to the Catholic Church sixty years earlier at Pentecost. By rejecting the seven additional books of the Septuagint Protestants therefore effectively follow the canon of the Old Testament as determined by the Jews at Jamnia.

 

[Mathetes the kerux]

Please list the books that were canonized and your source.

You forgot that they (the Jews who chose to modify their own canon) did not believe Christ either, and they decided that these books were not insipred 40 years after Christ because they did not like the way the LXX supported Jesus as being The Christ.


Forgive me...

The LXX suported Jesus as Christ?! What? That is one I have never heard. The OT prophecies were in Hebrew not Greek . . . and do you know the history of the LXX? It was started and then stopped and the later portions of the work are less accurate to the Hebrew because they lost funding for the project. SO you have the five books of Moses (Pentatuech) that are done REALLY well . . . and then the level of quality drops thereafter. Jesus quoted from the Is SCROLL (Hebrew) for His fulfilment NOT the LXX. As a Rabbi He had plenty of access to the OT in Hebrew (which NEVER contained the Apocrypha) and therefore had no need for the LXX.

As for the canonized text. The 27 NT books are what were ratified . . . history says that they accepted the LXX too . . . but IMO, their concern was on the NT and what should be in this canon . . . not the OT. I am assuming you don't need a link for this would be what you probably already know about Carthage . . .

Can you provide me with a link providing evidence for the Jews ever rejecting the LXX . . . because according to the Targums and the other Jewish material . . . even before Christ they considered their OT canon CLOSED at the end of Malachi/Ezra (depending on the sequence of listing). This would have been the well accepted fact affirmed by Jesus' own view of the OT. So a link showing the rejection based on bias . . . or even better something showing the affirmation of the inspiration of the OT Apocrypha by the Jews of 1st Cent Palestine . . . for that would prove the view that Jesus affirmed.

 

[Mathetes the kerux]

In Josephus Antiquities of the Jews Book 12 Chapter 2 We find the title “How Ptolmey Philadelphus procured the laws of the Jews to be translated into the Greek tongue, and set many captives free; and dedicated many gifts to God.” This begins on page 309. First of all we find out that the “rebellious” Jews at Alexandria were actually there because they were held captive. It says that:“Philedelphus then took the kingdom of Egypt, and held it forty years within one. He procured the law to be interpreted, and set free those that were come from Jerusalem into Egypt, and where in slavery there, who were a hundred and twenty thousand.” Ptolmey had Demetrius Phalerius, the library keeper write a letter to the Jewish high priest Eleazar in Jerusalem that he should act accordingly.Ptolmey sent some gifts to Jerusalem I quote: “On which account I have subjoined a copy of these epistles, and set down a multitude of the vessels sent as gifts ”A suggestion than comes from Hecateus of Abdera to the king: “O king, thou mayest write to high priest of the Jews, to send six of the elders out of every tribe, and those such as are more skillful of the laws, that by their means we may learn the clear and agreeing sense of these books, and may obtain an accurate interpretation of their contents, so that we may have such a collection of these as may be suitable to their desire. When this epistle was sent to the king, he commanded that an epistle should be drawn up for Eleazar, the Jewish high priest, concerning these matters.”…We can see here that all of this Septuagint project is done with the co-operation and facilitation of the Aaronic priesthood in Jerusalem and not apart from it at all.Ptolmey than writes a letter (epistle) to Eleazar the high priest of Jerusalem and the pertinent part for our discussion I will quote here “I have determined to procure an interpretation of your law, and to have it translated out of Hebrew into Greek, and to have it deposited in my library.”Eleazar the high priest of Jerusalem responds with his letter back to Ptolmey and I will quote the parts that are germane to our issue at hand: “When we received thy epistle, we greatly rejoiced at thy intentions; and when the multitude were gathered together, we read it to them, and thereby made them sensible of the piety thou hast towards God.”And the confirming part from the Jerusalem high priest of the Aaronic priesthood: “…and that the translation of our law may come to the conclusion thou desirest, and be fore thy advantage. We have also chosen six elders out of every tribe, whom we have sent and the law with them. It will be they part, out of thy piety and justice to send back the law when it hath been translated; and to return those to us that bring it in safety.-Farewell.”
Then the account of Josephus moves on :“And these were what gifts were send by Ptolmey to Jerusalem and dedicated to God there. But when Eleazar the high priest had devoted them to God and had paid the due respect to those who had brought them,”…
Josephus continues “He then made haste to meet the elders that came from Jerusalem for the interpretation of the laws; “….Was the job done correctly? Josephus tells us “Accordingly, they made an accurate interpretation, with great zeal and great pains”:
All the quotes are from Josephus Antiquities of the Jews Book 12 Chapter 2 between the pages of 309-315 of the Works of Josephus.
Now the question is what did Josephus list as Scripture for the OT and why? I haven’t been able to locate a list in Josephus except a reference to there being 22 letters in the Hebrew alphabet and their being a book to correspond to each letter. If that is the case the 39 books of the current Jewish OT are appropriated more than one book per letter to mean the books accepted by the current Protestant canon. This inicates that the canon may not be that rigid as generally accepted by Josephus as more books could be appropriated to each letter. Theories as to why Josephus mentions only the canon accepted by the current Jews. If we knew the date in which Jamnia set the canon that could answer much of the speculation. The dates given for the Council of Jamnia can vary from about 75-96 a.d. If it was towards the earlier date than Josephus would be acting like a faithful Jew of his time and accept the limited canon which he listed in his book which was probably written after 80 a.d.. If it was later the canon which he listed was according to the Scriptures that were in the possesion of Titus at Rome in which Josephus was an interpreter for the Romans of Jewish practices. These Scriptures where probably taken from Jerusalem during the sack of Jerusalem in 70 a.d. There is a theory possibility that these Scriptures are those that where from Nehemiah. Dissertation 4 by the interpreter of Josephus postulates the following:“Proving that the copy of the books of the old testament laid up in Herods temple, and thence used by Josephus, the Jewish historian, in his antiquities, was not other than that most ancient collection or library made by Nehemiah, in the days of Artaxerxes, the son of Xerxes and was free from several additions and alterations made afterwards in the other copies which are not extant-this appears by the arguments following- (1) The book of Malachi is missing and (2) so is the Song of Songs and (3) Nehemiah is not a member of the Aaronic priesthood. If that is so then that would indicate that the canon was not closed with the addition of the above books, Malachi and Song of Songs and also it would not be authoritative because Nehemiah was not a member of the Aaronic priesthood.Evidence for the still open canon is concluded from the evidence of the high priest of the Aaronic priesthood in Jerusalem Eleazar approving and assisting in the translations of the Hebrew Scripture into the Septuagint which included the deutero-canonical books. .And finally when Ptolmey received the Septuagint translation:“And when the king had received these books from Demetrius, as we have said already, he adored them; and gave order that they might remain uncorropted. He also desired that the interpreters would come to him often out of Judea, “……The translators with the approval of the Aaronic priesthood kept in touch with the king Ptolmey to help instruct him on the contents.

Even today Ethiopian Jews still use the Septuagint version, not the shorter Palestinian canon settled upon by the rabbis at Javneh. In other words, the Old Testament canon recognized by Ethiopian Jews is identical to the Catholic Old Testament, including the seven deuterocanonical books (cf. Encyclopedia Judaica, vol. 6, p. 1147).

There are various theories as to when the Jews closed their Old Testament canon. One is that the Old Testament was closed once and for all by Ezra (400 BC). This is a view that was held by some of the Fathers, a number of more recent Catholics and many Protestants. Such a view, however, runs into a number of difficulties. For example, the second book of Ezra contains genealogies of the High Priests continuing 150 years after the death of Ezra. In the same book is a list of the descendents of King David traced down to the sixth generation after Zerobabel, that is, down to about 300 BC. The existence of these genealogies is proof enough that the Old Testament canon remained open at least 150 years after Ezra’s death.



In fact, the Old Testament canon was still in a state of flux in the time of Christ with both the Sadducees and Samaritans, for example, accepting only the first five books of Moses as inspired and canonical. The great Jewish historian, Josephus Flavius, provides one important hint as to why uncertainty still surrounded the Old Testament canon so late in its history:

"From the time of Artaxerxes to our own time, our history has been written down very particularly (accurately and in detail), but these books have not been considered worthy of the same credit as the books of earlier date, because there has not been an exact succession of prophets."2



From these last words it is evident that Josephus required a prophet to appear and canonize the Deuterocanon in the same way other prophets in the past had done for the Protocanon. The question at the time of his writing was still held in abeyance. Unbeknown to Josephus this "prophet" was to be Christ and the Apostles.



Nevertheless, Josephus makes it clear that though not canonized the Deuterocanon enjoyed great credit among the Jews as inspired literature:

"But what credence we have given to all those books of our own nation is evident from our conduct; for, though so long a time has passed, no one has ever been so bold as to add anything to them whatsoever. But all Jews are instinctively led, from the moment of their birth, to believe that these books contain divine oracles and to abide by them and, if need be, gladly to die for them."3


As if to emphasize this point further, Josephus says that in the composition of his Jewish Antiquities he had used exclusively "sacred writings," yet he frequently quotes 1 Maccabees and the deutero fragments of Esther. Further, in the Talmud Baruch is referred to as a "prophetic book," Wisdom as "written by Solomon" and the book of Sirach is quoted often.

In addition, excepting the Book of Wisdom and 2 Maccabees all the other parts of the Deuterocanon were previously written in Hebrew. This points to Palestine not only as their place of origin but also where the Alexandrian Jews received their belief in their inspiration and divine character. This is why there are no records of any schism or controversy on the subject between the Palestinian and Alexandrian Jews.



For the Jews no final determination of the Old Testament was to be made until the Council of Jamnia (Javnah) in 90 AD. The Jews in this Council (and again in 118 AD), seeking to build a new focal point for their religious beliefs after the Roman destruction of the Temple in 70 AD, and in an attempt to counter the early Christians who quoted the Septuagint in support of the claims of Christ, only accepted those Old Testament books which were (i) written in Hebrew; (ii) conformed to the Torah; (iii) pre-dated the time of Ezra; and (iv) written in Palestine. The Jewish authorities now xenophobically considered the Septuagint "too gentile." Only the Ethiopian Jews retained the Septuagint version and still do so today (Encyclopaedia Judaica, vol. 6, p. 1147). In any case, for Christians Jamnia is not authoritative, as all legitimate authority had passed to the Catholic Church sixty years earlier at Pentecost. By rejecting the seven additional books of the Septuagint Protestants therefore effectively follow the canon of the Old Testament as determined by the Jews at Jamnia.

Can you give me your own response? The only dichotomy of inspiration was that of the Saducees and Pharisees . . . but the Pharisees were the large class. The Targums show that the people of God considered the OT canon CLOSED at the termination of Malachi/Ezra . . . regardless of succession of prophets . . . not to mention that there really was no succession save for Elijah/Elisha . . . just that there were subsequent prophets . . . and the testimony of the Jews themselves was that the prophets were NO MORE after Malachi (perhaps another . . . I cant seem to recall if Mal was the last chronologically) . . . there was no Word of the Lord. Even the Apocrypha itself affirms this.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Can you give me your own response? The only dichotomy of inspiration was that of the Saducees and Pharisees . . . but the Pharisees were the large class. The Targums show that the people of God considered the OT canon CLOSED at the termination of Malachi/Ezra . . . regardless of succession of prophets . . . not to mention that there really was no succession save for Elijah/Elisha . . . just that there were subsequent prophets . . . and the testimony of the Jews themselves was that the prophets were NO MORE after Malachi (perhaps another . . . I cant seem to recall if Mal was the last chronologically) . . . there was no Word of the Lord. Even the Apocrypha itself affirms this.

You are probably correct.
I would have rather the Jewish/Hebrew book of Revelation as the last Prophetic book in the OT after Malachi. The book of Malachi also appears to be close to the book of Hebrews concerning the Priesthood.

Malachi 3:2 and who enduring the Day of coming of Him, and who the one Standing in the to appear Him. That He as fire of refiner and as soap of launderers.

Revelation 16:16 And they are saying to the mountains and to the rocks: Be ye falling upon us! and hide Ye us! from face of the One-sitting upon the throne, and from the Wrath/orghV <3709> of the Lamb-kin
17 that came the Day, the great, of the wrath of Him and who is able to Stand.

 

[Rick Otto]

I lean on both.

It's forgiveable.

 

[sunlover1]

The LXX suported Jesus as Christ?! What? That is one I have never heard. The OT prophecies were in Hebrew not Greek . . . and do you know the history of the LXX? It was started and then stopped and the later portions of the work are less accurate to the Hebrew because they lost funding for the project. SO you have the five books of Moses (Pentatuech) that are done REALLY well . . . and then the level of quality drops thereafter. Jesus quoted from the Is SCROLL (Hebrew) for His fulfilment NOT the LXX. As a Rabbi He had plenty of access to the OT in Hebrew (which NEVER contained the Apocrypha) and therefore had no need for the LXX.

Learned soemthing new! Thank you Mathetes.
And thank you for being such a blessing.
Your ministry causes me to praise God
for you.

 

[Mathetes the kerux]

Learned soemthing new! Thank you Mathetes.
And thank you for being such a blessing.
Your ministry causes me to praise God
for you.

Love to you.

 

[OrthodoxyUSA]

The LXX suported Jesus as Christ?! What? That is one I have never heard. The OT prophecies were in Hebrew not Greek . . . and do you know the history of the LXX? It was started and then stopped and the later portions of the work are less accurate to the Hebrew because they lost funding for the project. SO you have the five books of Moses (Pentatuech) that are done REALLY well . . . and then the level of quality drops thereafter. Jesus quoted from the Is SCROLL (Hebrew) for His fulfilment NOT the LXX. As a Rabbi He had plenty of access to the OT in Hebrew (which NEVER contained the Apocrypha) and therefore had no need for the LXX.

As for the canonized text. The 27 NT books are what were ratified . . . history says that they accepted the LXX too . . . but IMO, their concern was on the NT and what should be in this canon . . . not the OT. I am assuming you don't need a link for this would be what you probably already know about Carthage . . .

Can you provide me with a link providing evidence for the Jews ever rejecting the LXX . . . because according to the Targums and the other Jewish material . . . even before Christ they considered their OT canon CLOSED at the end of Malachi/Ezra (depending on the sequence of listing). This would have been the well accepted fact affirmed by Jesus' own view of the OT. So a link showing the rejection based on bias . . . or even better something showing the affirmation of the inspiration of the OT Apocrypha by the Jews of 1st Cent Palestine . . . for that would prove the view that Jesus affirmed.

Where did you learn this? Secular sources I suppose.

Forgive me...

 

[OrthodoxyUSA]

Christ in the Psalms...

http://www.amazon.com/Christ-Psalms-Patrick-Henry-Reardon/dp/1888212217

http://www.amazon.com/gp/reader/1888212217/ref=sib_dp_pt/103-8908370-5384658#reader-link

The Church (All of the Ancient Churches) disagrees with much of what you said.

Forgive me...

 

[Thekla]

page comparing New Testament references in LXX (Septuagint) vs. Masoretic

http://www.geocities.com/Heartland/Pines/7224/Rick/Septuagint/spexecsum.htm

 

[Mathetes the kerux]

Where did you learn this? Secular sources I suppose.

Forgive me...

Nope. Bible College.

Check on the History of the LXX. It was started and then stopped due to lack of funding . . . and the scholars who did the latter portions did not do the earlier portions . . . and due to the lack of funding . . . the earlier portions of the LXX are better linguistically and consistency wise than the latter portions.

Facts are facts.

As for Carthage . . . you and I both know that their concern was primarily the NT, yes? Then their superficial grasing of the OT is not the brunt of the importance in my book. The concerns of heresy and import for the Christians was primarily of the NT documents.

So I will ask again:

Can you provide me with a link providing evidence for the Jews ever rejecting the LXX . . . because according to the Targums and the other Jewish material . . . even before Christ they considered their OT canon CLOSED at the end of Malachi/Ezra (depending on the sequence of listing). This would have been the well accepted fact affirmed by Jesus' own view of the OT. So a link showing the rejection based on bias . . . or even better something showing the affirmation of the inspiration of the OT Apocrypha by the Jews of 1st Cent Palestine . . . for that would prove the view that Jesus affirmed.

?

 

[Mathetes the kerux]

page comparing New Testament references in LXX (Septuagint) vs. Masoretic

http://www.geocities.com/Heartland/Pines/7224/Rick/Septuagint/spexecsum.htm

Truly the LXX was quoted . . . but notice that they are NOT of the Apocrypha? Perhaps the ONLY reference in the NT is the reference by Jude of the bones of Moses.

 

[Thekla]

Truly the LXX was quoted . . . but notice that they are NOT of the Apocrypha? Perhaps the ONLY reference in the NT is the reference by Jude of the bones of Moses.

the LXX is, however, closer to the language of the NT (ie, as source for NT quotes) indicating that, indeed, the LXX was the primary source at the time of the NT writing. Additionally, IIRC (check page to confirm) most OT books (Masoretic or LXX) are not quoted; the lack of quotation from other OT books does not, to the average Christian, suggest that these books should be, therefore, discarded as "uninspired".

 

[OrthodoxyUSA]

Nope. Bible College.

Check on the History of the LXX. It was started and then stopped due to lack of funding . . . and the scholars who did the latter portions did not do the earlier portions . . . and due to the lack of funding . . . the earlier portions of the LXX are better linguistically and consistency wise than the latter portions.

Facts are facts.

As for Carthage . . . you and I both know that their concern was primarily the NT, yes? Then their superficial grasing of the OT is not the brunt of the importance in my book. The concerns of heresy and import for the Christians was primarily of the NT documents.

So I will ask again:



?

Bible college is a secular source. State your source for this starting and stopping please. I am more concerned with the textual editing of the psalms.

BTW ~ Do you know who St. Simeon is? According to The Church, he was one of the seventy, and translated the book of Isaiah.

Forgive me...

 

[OrthodoxyUSA]

You know the major difference here is who we trust to teach us.

I trust The Church of Antioch to teach me.

Forgive me...