Protestant canon

[Yarddog]

We don't see any of the above citing the books in the OT Apocrypha as Scripture, either.

Did Jesus, the Apostles and other writers cite from all the OT books? Is that how we decide OT canon?

Would Jesus get all this acclaim using the Septuagint in Jerusalem?

He quoted from the Septuagint according to the Gospels but then the majority of Jews rejected him.

I'm sure he would understand and speak Greek, but who's going to listen to a native of Aramaic language citing the Septuagint, then going back to Aramaic ...?

Who says that he did that, but what is the best translation of OT scripture? What we have now, or what Jesus had then? Justin Martyr accused the Jews of the 2nd century of dropping or changing what was in scripture. He said that he had older text.

There's an indication in Matthew that they're lookin' at Aramaic or Hebrew and translating.

Yes, Matthew was written in Hebrew or Aramaic but Mark, Luke, and John were written in Greek and each use the Septuagint.

Using the Septuagint doesn't imply that the entire Septuagint was considered of equal value.

Considered by whom? The Jews and Christians that used it or by the Jews that didn't?

It'd be like considering a whole corpus of Judaica to be inspired because some of the Hebrews' books are inspired.

Ahhh, how do you come to that conclusion? Is considering the OT books approved by the newer churches like considering a whole corpus of Judaica to be inspired? Do you know what the Septuagint was? I think that you know better than that.

 

[SummaScriptura]

Once agan: The Jews of which you spoke are the Apostles and the converts to the Way. Paul is clear that not all Israel is Israel. Gentiles are grafted into this.

Also according to Paul, the other branches were cast off. It is not the faithful Jews who formulated this Palestinian canon, but the faithless and the cast off, they who fomented hatred, stoned Stephen and Paul.

Yet you say these same Rabbinics are God's "chosen." So are the rocks of the field. They become His chosen by choosing Him.

You Christians of the Western persuasion continue to label these Rabbinic Jews as God's chosen. You even support them against your Palestinian/Arab Christian brothers.

Let's be very clear: God loves the Rabbinics- and they can be grafted back in- they HAVE NOT been replaced.

But they have been cast off- and some are looking to them for Light.
Really.

Good post.

 

[Erose]

Scrolls were expensive. But people could read. And lots of people did read, especially in the re-inculturating Greek period and the Roman period that followed. In the medieval period reading took a back seat.

Bryn Mawr Classical Review 03.03.07

Yes.

So did you fully read the essay? I never said that all people where illiterate but rather the majority of people during that time could not read, which the essay you refer to confirms. Your essay state a full 2/3 of the population was illiterate. So I guess I should thank you for confirming my point.

 

[SummaScriptura]

Regardless, if it were not for the Jews, we would not have these texts to argue about now. I stand by what I posted.

Well then you're just being stubborn.

You speak of "the Jews" as if the creators and preservers of the Greek Old Testament were somehow fake Jews.

 

[SummaScriptura]

If you toss all the books for which we have no Hebrew antecedents you will toss the Apostles.

 

[SummaScriptura]

But what are they compared to Martin Luther?

Chopped liver, I guess.

 

[SummaScriptura]

I think this is an eye-opener:

http://thebananarepublican.blogspot.com/2010/01/deuterocanon-is-scripture.html

 

[SummaScriptura]

Here's Polycarp, a Protestant favorite among the ECFs. Here (Philippians 10) he is teaching from and quoting Tobit and other Bible books on an equal par.

Stand fast, therefore, in these things, and follow the example of the Lord, being firm and unchangeable in the faith, loving the brotherhood, (1 Peter 2:17) and being attached to one another, joined together in the truth, exhibiting the meekness of the Lord in your intercourse with one another, and despising no one. When you can do good, defer it not, because “alms delivers from death.” (Tobit 4:10, Tobit 12:9) Be all of you subject one to another (1 Peter 5:5) “having your conduct blameless among the Gentiles,” (1 Peter 2:12) that you may both receive praise for your good works, and the Lord may not be blasphemed through you. But woe to him by whom the name of the Lord is blasphemed! (Isaiah 52:5) Teach, therefore, sobriety to all, and manifest it also in your own conduct.

 

[Erose]

We don't see any of the above citing the books in the OT Apocrypha as Scripture, either.

Would Jesus get all this acclaim using the Septuagint in Jerusalem? I'm sure he would understand and speak Greek, but who's going to listen to a native of Aramaic language citing the Septuagint, then going back to Aramaic ...? There's an indication in Matthew that they're lookin' at Aramaic or Hebrew and translating.

Using the Septuagint doesn't imply that the entire Septuagint was considered of equal value. It'd be like considering a whole corpus of Judaica to be inspired because some of the Hebrews' books are inspired.

Considering that Jesus was teaching to a predominately Greek speaking crowd, it would only make sense that He would quote scripture from Greek. Remember that the Jews did not understand what he was saying when he cried out on the cross in Aramaic.

Greek was the common tongue back then with some Palestine Jews speaking Aramaic and Hebrew at the time being a dead language.

Again I say the primary reason for the Pharisees choosing Hebrew as part of the criteria is due primarily to control the interpretation of scripture.

 

[Ortho_Cat]

I posted Catholic information that can be found at the Catholic Encyclopedia, not that it bears an Imprimature, but it hasn't been sued into changing its name either.
Your claim of "modern understanding" I find to be a euhphemism for modern confusion.

It's common knowledge around here that the word worship has changed definitions over time.

 

[mark46]

Aaah, Polycarp another of those liberals (like Augustine) who don't seem to look at Scripture is the same way as 21st century fundamentalists.

Here's Polycarp (Philippians 10) teaching from and quoting Tobit and other books.

Stand fast, therefore, in these things, and follow the example of the Lord, being firm and unchangeable in the faith, loving the brotherhood, (1 Peter 2:17) and being attached to one another, joined together in the truth, exhibiting the meekness of the Lord in your intercourse with one another, and despising no one. When you can do good, defer it not, because “alms delivers from death.” (Tobit 4:10, Tobit 12:9) Be all of you subject one to another (1 Peter 5:5) “having your conduct blameless among the Gentiles,” (1 Peter 2:12) that you may both receive praise for your good works, and the Lord may not be blasphemed through you. But woe to him by whom the name of the Lord is blasphemed! (Isaiah 52:5) Teach, therefore, sobriety to all, and manifest it also in your own conduct.

 

[Dorothea]

Considering that Jesus was teaching to a predominately Greek speaking crowd, it would only make sense that He would quote scripture from Greek. Remember that the Jews did not understand what he was saying when he cried out on the cross in Aramaic.

Greek was the common tongue back then with some Palestine Jews speaking Aramaic and Hebrew at the time being a dead language.

Again I say the primary reason for the Pharisees choosing Hebrew as part of the criteria is due primarily to control the interpretation of scripture.

This is true. From what I learned, Hebrew was only used in the Synagogues to read from their scriptures.

 

[SummaScriptura]

This is true. From what I learned, Hebrew was only used in the Synagogues to read from their scriptures.

This is true. From what I learned, Hebrew was only used in the Synagogues to read from their scriptures, and Greek was more pervasive and used both in the Synagogues to read from their scriptures as well as elsewhere.

 

[narnia59]

We don't see any of the above citing the books in the OT Apocrypha as Scripture, either.

The original KJV sure saw a lot of citing, or at least correlation between what was written in those seven books (even though it labeled them Apocrypha) and the rest of Scripture. More than 100 cross-references I believe. You can see some of them here, like:


Right hand column referencing Matthew 6:7 is a cross-reference to Ecclesiasticus (Sirach) 7:14
sceti | furness | King James Bible (editio princeps, 1611): Page A4v

Right hand column referencing Matthew 27:43 is a cross-reference to Wisdom 2:15-16
sceti | furness | King James Bible (editio princeps, 1611): Page D1r

Left hand column referencing Luke 6:31 is a cross-reference to Tobit 4:15
sceti | furness | King James Bible (editio princeps, 1611): Page F6v

There's a image-size button you can click on the right to make larger.

On a side note, if anybody ever wants to make an argument for language changing, looking at what's happened to English in a mere 400 years is a trip.

 

[heymikey80]

Those are topical cross references, at best. Again, you can find the subject discussed in two places, but not cited from one to the other.

 

[heymikey80]

Considering that Jesus was teaching to a predominately Greek speaking crowd, it would only make sense that He would quote scripture from Greek. Remember that the Jews did not understand what he was saying when he cried out on the cross in Aramaic.

So you're saying there were Judeans around the Cross who didn't know Aramaic? Keeping in mind that this is Preparation Day for the Passover Sabbath. Whew, and you'd be defiled by Gentiles and have to race home before sundown for sure, so you could bathe. But then ... you'd be unclean until morning. You'd be unclean on Passover Sabbath.

It's not likely there was a large Jewish crowd at the Crucifixion. Certainly not observant.

Greek was the common tongue back then with some Palestine Jews speaking Aramaic and Hebrew at the time being a dead language.

OK, so: concluding Matthew to be a native Greek speaker, he really did mean that Jesus rode two donkeys at once into Jerusalem .... Right?

You can see how little this person knew about either the Aramaic or Hebrew he was translating (and which he must've translated so woodenly as to be a Scriptural fundamentalist when it came to grammar construction). Either that or you have to admit that the writer didn't know Greek well enough to know quite what he was saying. To me, the latter is the more obvious conclusion.

A survey of the Dead Sea Scrolls sees high representation of Hebrew manuscripts. This is for religious reasons, and it's much broader than one or another group in Judaism.

The next most popular language of the Dead Sea Scrolls is not Greek, however.

It's Aramaic.

The dominant language in Palestine at the time among native peoples, was Aramaic. The business language in Palestine, to deal with Gentiles and others in the region, that language was Koine Greek.

Again I say the primary reason for the Pharisees choosing Hebrew as part of the criteria is due primarily to control the interpretation of scripture.

To place responsibility for preserving the Hebrew language at the foot of the Pharisees is untenable. The Essenes hated both Pharisees and the then-controllers of the Temple. And they preserved more Hebrew manuscripts than anything else. This is actually a Judaic phenomenon -- not specifically a Pharisaical function.

 

[SummaScriptura]

The original KJV sure saw a lot of citing, or at least correlation between what was written in those seven books (even though it labeled them Apocrypha) and the rest of Scripture. More than 100 cross-references I believe. You can see some of them here, like:


Right hand column referencing Matthew 6:7 is a cross-reference to Ecclesiasticus (Sirach) 7:14
sceti | furness | King James Bible (editio princeps, 1611): Page A4v

Right hand column referencing Matthew 27:43 is a cross-reference to Wisdom 2:15-16
sceti | furness | King James Bible (editio princeps, 1611): Page D1r

Left hand column referencing Luke 6:31 is a cross-reference to Tobit 4:15
sceti | furness | King James Bible (editio princeps, 1611): Page F6v

There's a image-size button you can click on the right to make larger.

On a side note, if anybody ever wants to make an argument for language changing, looking at what's happened to English in a mere 400 years is a trip.

Seven books?

Who said anything about 7?

There's more books than seven in question here.

Oh, that's right, I forgot. The Catholic Church deleted books too.

 

[Rdr Iakovos]

Seven books?

Who said anything about 7?

There's more books than seven in question here.

Oh, that's right, I forgot. The Catholic Church deleted books too.

LOL
What is a Catholic going to do when a Baptist tells her she doesn't read enough 'apocrypha?'

 

[Erose]

So you're saying there were Judeans around the Cross who didn't know Aramaic? Keeping in mind that this is Preparation Day for the Passover Sabbath. Whew, and you'd be defiled by Gentiles and have to race home before sundown for sure, so you could bathe. But then ... you'd be unclean until morning. You'd be unclean on Passover Sabbath.

It's not likely there was a large Jewish crowd at the Crucifixion. Certainly not observant.

I don't know but if you go off of the witness of the gospels there was a jewish crowd there and they are the ones that Matthew referred to:

(NIV) Matt 27:39 Those who passed by hurled insults at him, shaking their heads 40 and saying, “You who are going to destroy the temple and build it in three days, save yourself! Come down from the cross, if you are the Son of God!” 41 In the same way the chief priests, the teachers of the law and the elders mocked him. 42 “He saved others,” they said, “but he can’t save himself! He’s the king of Israel! Let him come down now from the cross, and we will believe in him. 43 He trusts in God. Let God rescue him now if he wants him, for he said, ‘I am the Son of God.’” 44 In the same way the rebels who were crucified with him also heaped insults on him. 45 From noon until three in the afternoon darkness came over all the land. 46 About three in the afternoon Jesus cried out in a loud voice, “Eli, Eli,[c] lema sabachthani?” (which means “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?&#8221.[d] 47 When some of those standing there heard this, they said, “He’s calling Elijah.”

Matthew says that the chief priests, teachers and the elders where also there at the cruxifiction mocking Jesus so it would be easy to conclude that these leaders would like to have as many witnesses as possible to see Jesus die. Then in verse 46, Jesus crys out in Aramaic which those around him thought He was calling out to Elijah. Now it should also be easy to conclude that only those who have heard the law and the prophets would know Elijah don't you think? Do you think that the gentile crowds, if there was any there, would have known who Elijah was?

OK, so: concluding Matthew to be a native Greek speaker, he really did mean that Jesus rode two donkeys at once into Jerusalem .... Right?

You can see how little this person knew about either the Aramaic or Hebrew he was translating (and which he must've translated so woodenly as to be a Scriptural fundamentalist when it came to grammar construction). Either that or you have to admit that the writer didn't know Greek well enough to know quite what he was saying. To me, the latter is the more obvious conclusion.

It is generally accepted that the Gospel of Matthew was originally written in Aramaic and not Greek and was latter translated into Greek.

A survey of the Dead Sea Scrolls sees high representation of Hebrew manuscripts. This is for religious reasons, and it's much broader than one or another group in Judaism.

This may be the case but since the Essenes where exterminated in the 1st century one can easily conclude that they did not have a voice in the latter organization of the Hebrew canon.

The dominant language in Palestine at the time among native peoples, was Aramaic. The business language in Palestine, to deal with Gentiles and others in the region, that language was Koine Greek.

I would not necessarily say that this is the case unless the Jews that showed up at Jesus' cruxifiction, which include's the priests and scribes were not local Jews. I am sure that some there where foreign Jews and I would have to conclude that not all of them were foreign Jews.

To place responsibility for preserving the Hebrew language at the foot of the Pharisees is untenable. The Essenes hated both Pharisees and the then-controllers of the Temple. And they preserved more Hebrew manuscripts than anything else. This is actually a Judaic phenomenon -- not specifically a Pharisaical function.

Untenable? It is a historical fact that the Rabbinic form of Judaism has its roots in the Pharisees. And again from historical record the Essenes had absolutely no imput in the Hebrew canon due to their extermination by the Romans.

 

[Erose]

LOL
What is a Catholic going to do when a Baptist tells her she doesn't read enough 'apocrypha?'

I look forward to that day for it would mean that reunification of the churches is much closer than it is now.

One thing I have been interested about but cannot find any information on. I know that the Eastern churches have differing canons due to liturgical usage but what is your specific church's view of the additional writings such as ps 151, prayer of Mannaseh, 3rd & 4th Maccabees in relation to the other OT writings? Are they held to the same level of sacredness as the rest?