There's something about Jesus - in the old testament.

[Xeno.of.athens]

Wisdom 2:10-23 Let us oppress the poor just man, and not spare the widow, nor honour thc ancient grey hairs of the aged. 11 But let our strength be the law of justice: for that which is feeble is found to be nothing worth. 12 Let us, therefore, lie in wait for the just, because he is not for our turn, and he is contrary to our doings, and upbraideth us with transgressions of the law, and divulgeth against us the sins of our way of life. 13 He boasteth that he hath the knowledge of God, and calleth himself the son of God. 14 He is become a censurer of our thoughts. 15 He is grievous unto us, even to behold: for his life is not like other men's, and his ways are very different. 16 We are esteemed by him as triflers, and he abstaineth from our ways as from filthiness, and he preferreth the latter end of the just, and glorieth that he hath God for his father. 17 Let us see then if his words be true, and let us prove what shall happen to him, and we shall know what his end shall be. 18 For if he be the true son of God, he will defend him, and will deliver him from the hands of his enemies. 19 Let us examine him by outrages and tortures, that we may know his meekness, and try his patience. 20 Let us condemn him to a most shameful death: for there shall be respect had unto him by his words. 21 These things they thought, and were deceived: for their own malice blinded them. 22 And they knew not the secrets of God, nor hoped for the wages of justice, nor esteemed the honour of holy souls. 23 For God created man incorruptible, and to the image of his own likeness he made him.

 

[BobRyan]

The Hebrew Bible - the one called "scriptures" by Christ and his disciples in the Gospels (Josephus notes that it is only the Hebrew OT scriptures that were canonized at that time and kept in the Temple in Jerusalem as such for over 300 years) - so then there is Isaiah 53 that is about Christ. What is more ...

Luke 24:25 And He said to them, “O foolish men and slow of heart to believe in all that the prophets have spoken! 26 Was it not necessary for the Christ to suffer these things and to enter into His glory?” 27 Then beginning with Moses and with all the prophets, He explained to them the things concerning Himself in all the Scriptures.

The Gospel accounts repeatedly point back to scripture

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

Josephus notes

Honestly, Josephus was writing near the end of the first century as a Jew under Roman tutelage, so, it is not so likely that his comments are more pertinent regarding the books of the old testament that Christian use than the comments we have from Church Fathers and from the new testament. One can look at how the new testament uses the LXX and alludes to it and gain a far more accurate opinion of what books Christians used in the first century than one can glean from Josephus. And one can read saint Clement of Rome and see how he uses scripture and what he thinks is scripture. See CHURCH FATHERS: Letter to the Corinthians (Clement)

 

[BobRyan]

Honestly, Josephus was writing near the end of the first century

True - and he was reporting that the Temple in Jerusalem had the OT text - the Hebrew scriptures unchanged for over 300 years by the time of Josephus' writing. We are talking about a Jewish OT - written by Jews , and unchanged for centuries in the Temple - by the time of Josephus.

as a Jew under Roman tutelage, so, it is not so likely that his comments are more pertinent regarding the books of the old testament

That does not make sense.

that Christian use than the comments we have from Church Fathers

All Christians freely admit that the OT is NOT a Christian text (i.e. not authored by NT Christians) and was not being managed by Christians at the time of Christ or Josephus. I don't see how this is even a little bit confusing.

(I am not saying that OT and NT are at odds with each other - just that the Jews were the ones involved in the writing of it under divine inspiration... the same divine inspiration that produced the NT text)

and from the new testament. One can look at how the new testament uses the LXX and alludes to it and gain a far more accurate opinion of what books Christians used

The LXX was not written by Christians of the NT age either. Nor was it the primary text for Christians in Israel - so that Greek text could not be the primary text for Christ or Peter or John or Matthew at the time of the events in the Gospels.

So then in Luke 24 when Jesus proclaims His place in the OT scriptures "in ALL the Scriptures starting with Moses and all the prophets" speaking to His own disciples on resurrection Sunday - it is the OT text that those in Jerusalem were using -- rather than the Greek text of LXX that people outside of Israel were using.

​

Luke 24:25 And then He said to them, “You foolish men and slow of heart to believe in all that the prophets have spoken! 26 Was it not necessary for the Christ to suffer these things and to come into His glory?” 27 Then beginning with Moses and with all the Prophets, He explained to them the things written about Himself in all the Scriptures.​

So this proves that the NT readers did NOT have the concept "We do NOT yet know what the term 'ALL the scriptures' means ... we need someone to come along 3 centuries from now and tell us what that means"

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

True - and he was reporting that the Temple in Jerusalem had the OT text - the Hebrew scriptures unchanged for over 300 years by the time of Josephus' writing.

Except Josephus wrote after the temple was destroyed in 70 AD. He started writing in 75 AD, it is said.

That does not make sense.

Josephus was a Jew not a Christian, his writings give evidence that he either didn't know of Christians or had only a scant knowledge of Christians so how could he know what Christians read as scripture and how they used the scriptures?

All Christians freely admit that the OT is NOT a Christian text

That isn't exactly true insofar that Christians regard the Old Testament as the beginning of the Christian scriptures.

One can look at how the new testament uses the LXX and alludes to it and gain a far more accurate opinion of what books Christians used in the first century than one can glean from Josephus. And one can read saint Clement of Rome and see how he uses scripture and what he thinks is scripture. See CHURCH FATHERS: Letter to the Corinthians (Clement)

You may have started your reply before I completed the post, so I provide the completed text above, which you are welcome to review and comment upon if you want to.

 

[BobRyan]

Except Josephus wrote after the temple was destroyed in 70 AD. He started writing in 75 AD, it is said.

True - and he was reporting that the Temple in Jerusalem had the OT text - the Hebrew scriptures unchanged for over 300 years by the time of the first century.

Except Josephus wrote after the temple was destroyed in 70 AD. He started writing in 75 AD, it is said.

Josephus did not say "The OT was preserved in the Temple for over 300 years by this time -- which means that the temple can never be destroyed". The fact that the temple is destroyed in 70 A.D. does not change Josephus claim about the canonized OT text already known for over 300 years in a stable unchanged state.

The fact that Jesus and his hearers were reading it - means they had access to it during the time that the gospels are telling us about.

Josephus was a Jew not a Christian,

I keep saying that. And it is not Christians that had custody of the OT text in the first century - it is the Jews.

again - I don't see how that is even a little bit confusing.

his writings give evidence that he either didn't know of Christians or had only a scant knowledge of Christians

Why would a Jewish historian have to 'know about Christian Jews' in order to report a fact regarding what scriptures had been preserved in the Jewish temple in canonized form for over 300 years?? I don't see how that changed history.

Christians regard the Old Testament as the beginning of the Christian scriptures.

No Christians claim that the OT was written by Christians or that Christians managed the OT text in the days of Christ or the days of Paul.

So while I agree that our Bible includes the Jewish OT - I do not think that the Christians wrote it or were custodians of it in the days of Christ or in the days of the NT writers. And I don't know of any OT scholars that do think such a thing.

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

No Christians claim that the OT was written by Christians or that Christians managed the OT text in the days of Christ

You make a fair point here

or the days of Paul.

But here you are wrong. Peter already writes of some of Pauls letters being scripture so in Paul's time Christians were conscious that the writings of the apostles and Paul were forming a new body of inspired texts and the way the apostles and Paul as well as James, and Jude and Luke use the old testament testifies that the LXX was their most used source for old testament quotes. And saint Clement wrote in the 90s AD and his use of the old testament is an additional witness to how Christians used the old testament.

 

[BobRyan]

You make a fair point here

But here you are wrong. Peter already writes of some of Pauls letters being scripture

I don't challenge that - what I challenge is the suggestion that the small persecuted group of Christians at the time of Paul or Peter - were actually "custodians of OT texts" as if they had some sort of cult-repository / library /institution that held its own official OT texts that differed from the OT in the Jewish temple. Because the OT texts in the temple were in fact the recognized canon of "scripture" used by Christ and his disciples during the times covered by the gospels as we see in the Luke 24 example.

Luke 24:25 And then He said to them, “You foolish men and slow of heart to believe in all that the prophets have spoken! 26 Was it not necessary for the Christ to suffer these things and to come into His glory?” 27 Then beginning with Moses and with all the Prophets, He explained to them the things written about Himself in all the Scriptures."

That assumption on your part is pretty huge - and it can't be strained out of that one text from Peter which at best tells us that NT were were being recognized as they were written - but does not tell us that any OT text were being re-grouped, modified, re-canonized etc.

so in Paul's time Christians were conscious that the writings of the apostles and Paul were forming a new body of inspired texts

Indeed - we call it the New Testament and all Christians -- both Catholic and Protestant agree on what that NT is. In that case we DO have a body of writing where Christians were the custodians of it - from the start.

and the way the apostles and Paul as well as James, and Jude and Luke use the old testament testifies that the LXX was their most used source for old testament quotes.

All of the NT is written in Greek because that is the lingua franca at the time of the NT writing where their intent was to reach gentiles and not just jews. So it is not too surprising that the Greek NT texts would tend to quote from the Greek Old Testament sources. But it does not mean that they abandoned what they called "scriptures" in Luke 24 which was distinctively the Hebrew Bible used in Jerusalem.

Luke appears to know that - and so just refers to it as "all of scriptures" in Luke 24.

And saint Clement wrote in the 90s AD and his use of the old testament is an additional witness to how Christians used the old testament.

I am not rejecting the Old Testament by any stretch (I am SDA after all). My point is that consistency shows us that the "all of scriptures" in Luke 24 had to be a reference NOT to a greek text but to the Hebrew text used in Jerusalem by Christ and his disciples and their understanding that this canonized set of scriptures - held static and unchanged in the temple as such for over 300 years could not be consistent with some of the assumptions you have been making.

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

what I challenge is that the small persecuted group of Christians at the time of Paul or Peter - were actually "custodians of OT texts"

They were custodians of their own copies of the texts, the ones they used in meetings and copied for use in other churches or perhaps for their family.

I am not rejecting the Old Testament

Clement of Rome in his first letter to the church in Corinth quotes from the book of Wisdom, and from the book of Judith. He quotes from them as scriptures.

 

[BobRyan]

They were custodians of their own copies of the texts, the ones they used in meetings and copied for use in other churches or perhaps for their family.

We don't have any records of them changing anything in Jewish scriptures or claiming to be custodians over Jewish scriptures. What is more as we see in Acts 17:1-4 and in Acts 13 and in Acts 18:4 and in Acts 17:11 they went freely to Jewish synagogues and other non-Christian Jewish groups and made their case "from scriptures" that both were using and not "well these are MY scriptures I became custodian of my scriptures".

You are pouring a mountain of inference and preference into a historic context that does not allow for it - and I understand that your view "needs it" but that is hardly objective.

The fact that a NT writer quotes an extra-biblical source does not mean they then went around as custodians of non-biblical texts and canonized them. And for a few examples - we have ...

Acts 17:27 that they would seek God, if perhaps they might feel around for Him and find Him, though He is not far from each one of us; 28 for in Him we live and move and exist, as even some of your own poets have said, ‘For we also are His descendants.’

Titus 1:10 For there are many rebellious people, empty talkers and deceivers, especially those of the circumcision, 11 who must be silenced because they are upsetting whole families, teaching things they should not teach for the sake of dishonest gain. 12 One of them, a prophet of their own, said, “Cretans are always liars, evil beasts, lazy gluttons.” 13 This testimony is true.

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

We don't have any records of them changing anything in Jewish scriptures

That is not really a meaningful claim. What they wrote is the record of them using the scriptures and what they wrote is not the same as what you claim about the content of the scriptures that Jews use.

If you disagree with saint Clement's first letter to the Corinthians okay. I am inclined to say Clement is a contemporary witness to what Christians did with the scriptures that they used, because he was a Christian and a saint and because was the 4th Pope in Rome, 26 April 88 AD to 23 November 99 AD.

 

[BobRyan]

That is not really a meaningful claim. What they wrote is the record of them using the scriptures

It is also a record of their use of non-biblical sources that even you agree are non-Biblical in the examples given from Acts 17 and Titus 1.

What is irrefutable is that the phrase "in all the scriptures" used by Christ as recorded in Luke 24 is proof that such a concept existed at the time Luke writes - and in that context - Christ could not have been using GREEK texts on that resurrection Sunday as He spoke with his followers coming from Jerusalem. This is irrefutable.

Context requires that this be a reference to scriptures the Jews were using as they walked that day from Jerusalem to Emaus. This is irrefutable.
Context requires that we admit that Luke's readers knew that the term he was using was a reference to the scriptures the Jews used - this is irrefutable.

Your notion that christians became custodians of the OT texts in the first century is not at all supported by any historians that I know of. I suspect you may also know this is the case.

If you disagree with saint Clement's first letter to the Corinthians okay. I am inclined to say Clement is a contemporary witness to what Christians did

Clement did not argue that the Christians were custodians of the OT canon of scripture not even in your own quote.

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

It is also a record of their use of non-biblical sources that even you agree are non-Biblical in the examples given from Acts 17 and Titus 1.

God may use a Greek poet to write truth that is inspired scripture, the inclusion of the inspired words from the Greek poet in the new testament means that you accept them as scripture *, and God may use the book of Enoch to present a God inspired prophecy so Jude quotes from it as scripture, and the words he quotes are scripture - which I think you acknowledge because the words are in the new testament. Thus the new testament establishes how Christian used scripture and so does the Letter of Clement to the Corinthians.

* For in him we live and move and are: as some also of your own poets said: For we are also his offspring. Being therefore the offspring of God, we must not suppose the divinity to be like unto gold or silver or stone, the graving of art and device of man. Acts 17
One of them a prophet of their own, said: The Cretans are always liars, evil beasts, slothful bellies. This testimony is true. Titus 1

Clement did not argue that the Christians were custodians of the OT canon of scripture

I do not think saint Clement ever thought of such a thing, he says nothing about any canon nor about any custodians yet he is in fact a Christians and teacher of Christians and by his example he teaches what Christians treat as holy scripture and he includes Judith and Wisdom * in his example.

* CHURCH FATHERS: Letter to the Corinthians (Clement) The blessed Judith, when her city was besieged, asked of the elders permission to go forth into the camp of the strangers; and, exposing herself to danger, she went out for the love which she bare to her country and people then besieged; and the Lord delivered Holofernes into the hands of a woman. (Judith 8:30)
For this reason righteousness and peace are now far departed from you, inasmuch as every one abandons the fear of God, and has become blind in His faith, neither walks in the ordinances of His appointment, nor acts a part becoming a Christian, but walks after his own wicked lusts, resuming the practice of an unrighteous and ungodly envy, by which death itself entered into the world. (Wisdom 2:24)

 

[BobRyan]

God may use a Greek poet to write truth

no doubt. My point is not that the only thing that is true - is the Hebrew OT or the Greek NT.

My point is that the OT itself was a divinely inspired product written by OT Jews not NT Christians. The Jews compiled it and were the custodians of it. The NT disciples of Christ read as "scripture" what was canonized in the temple and had remained unchanged for over 300 years as history shows us. This is irrefutably the case in Luke 24:27. So then years after that event when Luke uses the term for his readers - the context limits its scope and definition that which the Jews in Jerusalem would have reference in the term "all of scriptures" . This is irrefutable and it poses a problem for some of the suggestions you have posted.

​

Luke 24:25 And then He said to them, “You foolish men and slow of heart to believe in all that the prophets have spoken! 26 Was it not necessary for the Christ to suffer these things and to come into His glory?” 27 Then beginning with Moses and with all the Prophets, He explained to them the things written about Himself in all the Scriptures."​

that is inspired scripture, the inclusion of the inspired words from the Greek poet in the new testament means that you accept them as scripture *

I never claimed that Luke in Acts 17 or Paul in Titus 1 claims those extra-biblical sources were "inspired of God" only that they made a statement that the NT author found useful in illustrating a point. That does not justify referring to the pagan sources they quote as "inspired by God".

, and God may use the book of Enoch to present a God inspired prophecy so Jude quotes from it

Jude says he is quoting Enoch himself.

Jude 1:14 It was also about these people that Enoch, in the seventh generation from Adam, prophesied, saying, “Behold, the Lord has come with many thousands of His holy ones, 15 to execute judgment upon all, and to convict all the ungodly of all their ungodly deeds which they have done in an ungodly way, and of all the harsh things which ungodly sinners have spoken against Him.”

The idea that Enoch either spoke Greek or wrote in Greek 3300+ years before Jude's letter is pretty far fetched. I suspect you agree with this.
And we both know that the book of Enoch is NOT in the LXX (so not just excluded from the Jewish OT canonized in the Temple but also not in LXX)

The Book of Enoch has many doubtful additions, authors etc.
It has Enoch contacting Noah even though Noah is not born until almost 70 years after Enoch's life on Earth is over.

​

“And then the Most High, the Great and Holy One, spoke and sent Arsyalalyur to the son of Lamech, and said to him: “Say to him in my name; hide yourself! And reveal to him the end, which is coming, because the whole earth will be destroyed. A deluge is about to come on all the earth, and everything in it will be destroyed. And now teach him so that he may escape and his offspring may survive for the whole Earth.” Enoch 10:1-3​

It is hard to support the suggestion that Jude's quote of an extra-biblical source outside of the scriptures - would be something the Jews included in the Luke 24:27 term "All of scriptures" -- even though it is neither in the LXX or the canonized Hebrew Bible.

as scripture, and the words he quotes are scripture - which I think you acknowledge because the words are in the new testament.

The devil is quoted in Matt 4 - but it does not mean that the devil was inspired or that everything else the Devil said was inspired.

Jude quotes Enoch and that is legit - but is he inspired to know what the real Enoch said, or is Jude simply inspired to select a snip out of an extra-biblical text ...some part of it that is true?

Thus the new testament establishes how Christian used scripture and so does the Letter of Clement to the Corinthians.

I don't know of anyone that thinks Clement's letter is scripture or inspired.

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

Jude quotes Enoch and that is legit - but is he inspired to know what the real Enoch said, or is Jude simply inspired to select a snip out of an extra-biblical text ...some part of it that is true?

Inspiration is a property of the words of the holy scriptures and not a property of the writers. The words in the new testament are inspired as the scriptures say in 2 Timothy 3:14-17. It is scripture (writings) that are - as some translations say - God-breathed. And the writer of holy scripture is moved by the Holy Spirit to write the inspired words of the holy prophetic scripture, as the scripture says in 2 Peter 1:19-21. So, what I wrote in my previous post is that the words preserved in the new testament are scripture and are inspired, this includes the quotes from Satan, Enoch, and the Greek poet. And saint Clement's letter is what a Christian bishop in Rome had to say, when he wrote near the end of the first century AD; his letter is not inspired, yet it is a testimony to what Christians quoted as holy scripture in the first century AD. And just as your own argument looks to Josephus for evidence of what the Jews in the first century said is holy scripture, the same argument shows what saint Clement had to say was Holy Scripture for a Christian teacher in the first century AD. My post reports the evidence. I say that a Christian in the first century AD is a witness for what Christians were using as holy scripture. Josephus is a witness for what Jews said about the Jewish scriptures. Josephus says nothing about what Christians in the first century AD used as holy scripture. Josephus may not have known, and even if he did know he did not write a word about it.

 

[BobRyan]

Inspiration is a property of the words of the holy scriptures and not a property of the writers.

The writers were inspired by the Holy Spirit to write. That is how the writing gets onto the page as scripture.

the writer of holy scripture is moved by the Holy Spirit to write

ok we agree on that much

So, what I wrote in my previous post is that the words preserved in the new testament are scripture and are inspired

The words of the devil found in scripture in Matt 4 are not inspired of God. God is not dictating to the devil on Matt 4 to tempt Christ. I suspect we all can see that. But Matthew the writer is inspired to record the event.

I don't see how this is a confusing point.

, this includes the quotes from Satan, Enoch, and the Greek poet.

indeed the quotes of Satan, and the pagan poets are a function of the writer being inspired to write what actually happened and is not a statement that God inspired either Satan or the pagans to do what they did.

And saint Clement's letter is what a Christian bishop in Rome had to say

We can agree on that.

But we have Paul's warning in Gal 1:6-9 "Even though WE (Apostles) or an Angel from HEAVEN should come to you and give a different gospel let him be accursed".

Everything is to be tested. And we find in Luke 24 that the term "All the scriptures" was known to Luke's readers and was known to the disciples of Christ even in Jerusalem at the time of His resurrection.

I say that a Christian in the first century AD is a witness for what Christians were using as holy scripture. Josephus is a witness for what Jews said about the Jewish scriptures.

And what we all know - is that NT Christians were not the custodians of the OT text. They read and accepted it as Luke shows us in Luke 24:27 but they were not doing editing/auditing/changing of what was already accepted scripture. We see in Luke 24 that the disciples themselves accepted the Jewish canon in the temple as the text informs us. More than that - Luke's readers - years later - also accepted it as such given the way that Luke references the term in Luke 24.

This is a powerful detail in support of that canon of scripture even after Christ went to heaven.

 

[BBAS 64]

Good Day

I would be historically with Jerome on the question and how the Church reads them.

Jerome's preface to the books of Solomon

As the Church reads the books of Judith and Tobit and Maccabees but does not receive them among the canonical Scriptures, so also it reads Wisdom and Ecclesiasticus for the edification of the people, not for the authoritative confirmation of doctrine."

I Have read the "other books" and enjoy them as well, then there are other books out side of these books that are also useful.

there are other books besides these not indeed included in the Canon, but appointed by the Fathers to be read by those who newly join us, and who wish for instruction in the word of godliness. The Wisdom of Solomon, and the Wisdom of Sirach, and Esther, and Judith, and Tobit" (Athanasius, Festal Letter 39:2-4, 39:7)

In Him

Bill

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

As the Church reads the books

But saint Jerome was not right about how the Church read those books.

 

[BBAS 64]

But saint Jerome was not right about how the Church read those books.

Good Day, Xeno

Cardinal Cajetan is known for his disputations with Martin Luther. Wrote a commentary on all the canonical books of the Old Testament which he dedicated to the pope. He stated that the books of the Apocrypha were not canonical in the strict sense, explaining that there were two concepts of the term 'canonical' as it applied to the Old Testament. He gave the following counsel on how to properly interpret the decrees of the Councils of Hippo and Carthage under Augustine:


Here we close our commentaries on the historical books of the Old Testament. For the rest (that is, Judith, Tobit, and the books of Maccabees) are counted by St Jerome out of the canonical books, and are placed amongst the Apocrypha, along with Wisdom and Ecclesiasticus, as is plain from the Prologus Galeatus. Nor be thou disturbed, like a raw scholar, if thou shouldest find anywhere, either in the sacred councils or the sacred doctors, these books reckoned as canonical. For the words as well of councils as of doctors are to be reduced to the correction of Jerome. Now, according to his judgment, in the epistle to the bishops Chromatius and Heliodorus, these books (and any other like books in the canon of the bible) are not canonical, that is, not in the nature of a rule for confirming matters of faith. Yet, they may be called canonical, that is, in the nature of a rule for the edification of the faithful, as being received and authorised in the canon of the bible for that purpose. By the help of this distinction thou mayest see thy way clearly through that which Augustine says, and what is written in the provincial council of Carthage.

Seems that at least in this case the Cardinal and Luther held the same view all be it for different reasons.

You are welcome to you option on this matter and of your own will decided to follow the teachings of your denomination on their Canon. I think you have errored in that decision. Historically I find the Cardinal here to be a little more (knowledgeable) than you on the subject.

In Him,

Bill

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

Cardinal Cajetan is known for his disputations with Martin Luther. Wrote a commentary on all the canonical books of the Old Testament which he dedicated to the pope. He stated that the books of the Apocrypha were not canonical in the strict sense, explaining that there were two concepts of the term 'canonical' as it applied to the Old Testament.

So, you have unearthed an opinion held by a cardinal. Is that important?