Jesus, the Holy Spirit, and Rabbi Akiva

[HTacianas]

The Christian canon of scripture was determined, at first we could say, by a holy synod of Christian bishops convened in the name of Christ at Hippo in 393 or so AD. They chose all those books of the new testament generally accepted through tradition of the Church. That synod also chose the books of the Septuagint as the old testament canon. The Septuagint had existed since 200 or so BC.

Jesus said that wherever two or more were gathered in his name he would be there with them, see Matthew 18:20. That synod of bishops certainly gathered in his name so certainly he was there with them.

However, before that synod convened, in late first century AD, a group of rabbis, including Rabbi Akiva (feel free to Google him to check me on this), convened to determine the Jewish canon of scripture, which differs from the Septuagint.

Since Jesus promised to be with that synod at Hippo, but never promised to be among any group of Jews, which canon should we accept?

Was the Holy Spirit present with rabbi Akiva in late first century AD, or was the Holy Spirit present with the Jews who compiled the Septuagint in 200 BC, or was the Holy Spirit present among the Christian synod of Hippo?

What old testament are we to accept?

 

[Davidnic]

Considering the removed books are quoted by Christ, and I would hesitate to accept a post Messiah Canon done by people who conveniently removed stuff that pointed to Him as the Messiah (Wisdom Chapter II comes to mind)...I go with the unified Church meeting.

 

[Jonaitis]

This is not directly about the canon, but I think the Septuagint has a lot to offer us in terms of translation. The Septuagint should not be entirely neglected, there are places where the Hebrew (Masoretic) is ambiguous, wrong, or missing words. However, this can be said the same with the LXX. You won't find certain passages that, I believe, should be there, while there are unnecessary additions to books like Esther an Daniel I cannot see be reconciled/incorporated to the text, as well as the fact that Hebrew/Aramaic is the original while the LXX is a translation. I believe every kind of manuscript should be weighed in the translation process, but I am convinced that the Masoretic should, as the original tongue, be the base text for our bibles today.

Carry on.

 

[Tutorman]

What old testament are we to accept?

The one from the synod most definitely not from the rabbi since he was trying to make sure there was nothing about Christ in Scriptures

 

[Tutorman]

If I may upon further reflection I really do not know why anyone would want to follow a text (If I not mistaken the Masoretic text) that was put to together by someone who despised Christ (Rabbi Akiva).

 

[com7fy8]

As a person with no seminary and no personal acquaintance with ones who have done Canon selection and translation into English . . . I pray about what God pleases to have me trust. And my impression is that the commonly accepted Christian Canon is what God can use.

The Apocrypha of the Catholic and Protestant sorts, for me, have not ministered like the more commonly accepted scriptures. But, of course, I can be prejudiced.

In any case, I find that God is able to use any scripture to help us find out how to be with Him and how to love. Therefore, I would say make sure this is how you are being blessed with God, in all your study