Only 66 books?

[ewq1938]

Actually, the number is less than 66.

Not in the Christian bible.

 

[Albion]

And that would be a good point had anyone made the argument that they were infallible, which so far as I can see no one has.

In fact, I have often read that argued. And if the translators are NOT considered to be infallible, there is no point to be made about them.

 

[Radagast]

According to Romans 3.1-2 and 11.29, the Jews are STILL the guardians of all scripture, including the NT.

Absolute nonsense! The Jews guardians of the NT? Are you serious?

 

[Radagast]

The earliest Church councils dealing with the canon of Scripture affirmed a 73 book canon.

Church fathers from before that, like St Athanasius, say explicitly that some of the books in the 73 but not the 66 (like Sirach and Tobit) are not canonical. See CHURCH FATHERS: Letter 39 (Athanasius)

 

[Barney2.0]

Irrelevant. The LXX has never been accepted as part of the Hebrew Tenach. (A designation our Lord Himself referred to)

There was no universal canon among ancient Jews. The modern Hebrew Tanach wasn't decided until Jamnia in opposition to early Christianity.

 

[Barney2.0]

If so, how do we explain away the fact that the Catholic Church got rid of some of the Apocrypha on its own, in response to the Protestant Reformation??

Which Apocrypha? The Catholic Church modelled its canon on the old western one confirmed at the Council of Carthage.

 

[Barney2.0]

Are you asserting some theory about those people being endowed with infallibility?? If so, why?

No thats not what I'm saying, but the Jewish people thought that they were important enough to be translated into Greek signifying their importance as inspired scripture.

 

[Radagast]

No thats not what I'm saying, but the Jewish people thought that they were important enough to be translated into Greek signifying their importance as inspired scripture.

The "apocrypha" or "deuterocanonical books" were never translated into Greek. They were simply written in Greek.

It's the OT books in the Protestant and Hebrew canons that were written in Hebrew and Aramaic and translated into Greek as part of the LXX.

The modern Hebrew Tanach wasn't decided until Jamnia in opposition to early Christianity.

The modern Hebrew canon is simply all the books in the LXX that were originally written in Hebrew and Aramaic, in their original Hebrew or Aramaic form.

 

[Dave-W]

Absolute nonsense! The Jews guardians of the NT? Are you serious?

Absolutely.

 

[Barney2.0]

The "apocrypha" or "deuterocanonical books" were never translated into Greek. They were simply written in Greek.

It's the OT books in the Protestant and Hebrew canons that were written in Hebrew and Aramaic and translated into Greek as part of the LXX.



The modern Hebrew canon is simply all the books in the LXX that were originally written in Hebrew and Aramaic, in their original Hebrew or Aramaic form.

Most if not all of the Deuterocanonical books had a Hebrew original some were lost though. The Dead Sea scrolls also contain many Deuterocanonical books. Fragments of the book of Tobit in Hebrew may be found among the Dead Sea scrolls.

 

[Radagast]

Most if not all of the Deuterocanonical books had a Hebrew original some were lost though.

Well, that's an unfalsifiable hypothesis.

The Dead Sea scrolls also contain many Deuterocanonical books. Fragments of the book of Tobit in Hebrew may be found among the Dead Sea scrolls.

Fragments of four deuterocanonical books have been found among the DSS

• Tobit -- fragments in both Aramaic and Hebrew, but the original language is unclear: it may have been Greek.
• Sirach -- fragments in Hebrew, and the deutorocanonical Sirach could be based on these (but, if so, with several changes -- the Hebrew fragments have sexual elements not present in the Greek)
• Psalm 151a and Psalm 151b -- in Hebrew, and the deutorocanonical Psalm 151 seems to be loosely based on these, but with a great many changes.
• Epistle of Jeremiah -- in Greek only, and this book seems definitely to have been composed in Greek.

 

[Barney2.0]

Well, that's an unfalsifiable hypothesis.



Fragments of four deuterocanonical books have been found among the DSS

• Tobit -- fragments in both Aramaic and Hebrew, but the original language is unclear: it may have been Greek.
• Sirach -- fragments in Hebrew, and the deutorocanonical Sirach could be based on these (but, if so, with several changes -- the Hebrew fragments have sexual elements not present in the Greek)
• Psalm 151a and Psalm 151b -- in Hebrew, and the deutorocanonical Psalm 151 seems to be loosely based on these, but with a great many changes.
• Epistle of Jeremiah -- in Greek only, and this book seems definitely to have been composed in Greek.

It’s not an unfalsifiable opinion, most if not all the Deuterocanonical books were written before Hellenism took over in Judea. You yourself just said that certain Deuterocanonical books were written first in Hebrew or Aramaic.

 

[Radagast]

most if not all the Deuterocanonical books were written before Hellenism took over in Judea

Well, no.

 

[Barney2.0]

Well, no.

Hellenism itself didn't take place until the era in which the book of Maccabees was written in.

 

[Radagast]

Hellenism itself didn't take place until the era in which the book of Maccabees was written in.

Alexander the Great conquered Palestine in 332 BC. Hellenism was well established by the time that the books of Maccabees were written. In fact, the events described in those books were a reaction against Hellenism.

 

[Barney2.0]

Alexander the Great conquered Palestine in 332 BC. Hellenism was well established by the time that the books of Maccabees were written. In fact, the events described in those books were a reaction against Hellenism.

I'm talking about the rest of the deuterocanonical books found in the Dead Sea Scrolls such as Tobit or etc. Even the the Greek manuscripts of the books of Maccabees are regarded to be a translation of an earlier Hebrew original.

 

[Radagast]

I'm talking about the rest of the deuterocanonical books found in the Dead Sea Scrolls such as Tobit or etc. Even the the Greek manuscripts of the books of Maccabees are regarded to be a translation of an earlier Hebrew original.

The deuterocanonical book among the Dead Sea Scrolls are only these:

• Tobit -- fragments in both Aramaic and Hebrew, but the original language is unclear: it may have been Greek.
• Sirach -- fragments in Hebrew, and the deutorocanonical Sirach could be based on these (but, if so, with several changes -- the Hebrew fragments have sexual elements not present in the Greek)
• Psalm 151a and Psalm 151b -- in Hebrew, and the deutorocanonical Psalm 151 seems to be loosely based on these, but with a great many changes.
• Epistle of Jeremiah -- in Greek only, and this book seems definitely to have been composed in Greek.

For the other books, you can imagine a Hebrew original, but there's no manuscript evidence for one.

 

[Barney2.0]

The deuterocanonical book among the Dead Sea Scrolls are only these:

• Tobit -- fragments in both Aramaic and Hebrew, but the original language is unclear: it may have been Greek.
• Sirach -- fragments in Hebrew, and the deutorocanonical Sirach could be based on these (but, if so, with several changes -- the Hebrew fragments have sexual elements not present in the Greek)
• Psalm 151a and Psalm 151b -- in Hebrew, and the deutorocanonical Psalm 151 seems to be loosely based on these, but with a great many changes.
• Epistle of Jeremiah -- in Greek only, and this book seems definitely to have been composed in Greek.

For the other books, you can imagine a Hebrew original, but there's no manuscript evidence for one.

We don't need manuscripts to prove their existence, books such as Maccabees have traces of originally being written in Hebrew.

 

[Radagast]

We don't need manuscripts to prove their existence, books such as Maccabees have traces of originally being written in Hebrew.

Really. And those traces would be what, exactly?

Yes, there are semiticisms, but the NT has those too, and it was composed in Greek.

And your asking us to believe that these "Hebrew originals" of the Apocrypha were so important that they were thrown away.

 

[Barney2.0]

Really. And those traces would be what, exactly?

Yes, there are semiticisms, but the NT has those too, and it was composed in Greek.

And your asking us to believe that these "Hebrew originals" of the Apocrypha were so important that they were thrown away.

The so called “Apocrypha” were thrown away at the council of Jamnia largely in response to the Christian use of the Septuagint which came to be despised by Rabbinical Jews. The New Testament was composed in Greek as there’s no proof it ever was composed in Aramaic. The majority of scholars do think the books of Maccabees especially the first book were written in Hebrew or Aramaic before being translated to Greek:

The books of the Maccabees.