What's the calibre of your canon?

[Valletta]

Seems a bit ironic that the Old Testament apocryphal writings, that are rejected by the Jews, are accepted, but not the New Testament apocrypha, which are rejected by Christians. I read somewhere a while ago that the Quran contains stories from a few of apocryphal gospels. I find this all funny.

As was mentioned before, there was disagreement among Jews as to what was Holy Scripture. A large group of Jews, after Christianity was estabished, rejected some of the books from the Septuagint as well as the Gospels. In 2 Maccabees is one of my favorite Bible passages, about the seven brothers, how each died refusing to renounce their belief in resurrection. Remember Hebrews 11:5 speaks of those who were tortured for such a belief, and there is only one place in the bible where that is found--2 Maccabees. If you were a Jew who rejected Jesus, as that group was, you would want to keep such words out of your Holy Scripture.

 

[fhansen]

For the Roman church, yes, by accepting the Athanasian canon which was already in force in the autocephalous Church of Alexandria. Rome accepting the Athanasian canon ensured Antioch would accept it, which otherwise is unlikely given the bitter differences between the two autocephalous churches at the time which would be exposed at the Council of Ephesus with the pointless objections raised by Patriarch John of Antioch to the doctrinal statements of Pope St. Cyril the Great of Alexandria, who once again had Archbishop St. Celestine of Rome on his side.

And my main point was that it meant that the same councils that determined the canon of the New Testament that we all accept today, also affirmed the canon of the Old, with 46 books.

 

[The Liturgist]

And my main point was that it meant that the same councils that determined the canon of the New Testament that we all accept today, also affirmed the canon of the Old, with 46 books.

The OT canon was never completely standardized between all the local churches. To this day even the Byzantine Catholics use two slightly different canons, one being the Greek Orthodox canon and one being the slightly different canon one would find among the Northern Slavonic churches, both of which are still similiar and similar to the canon used in the Latin Church, but with minor variations surrounding the numbering of the books, the number of books of Esdras and Maccabees recognized, etc.

 

[Hawkins]

The big picture is, OT went through a long way to be canonized by the Jews, from King Hezekiah through Ezra till to the hand of the Pharisees. It's the Jews' testimony, it's their canonization. It's because the Jew failed to do the job that the authentication shifted to Christians. NT is the testimony from the Apostles, it's thus canonized by Christians.

Judaism is authenticated before Jesus, thus OT was canonized by the Jews legitimately.
Christianity is authenticated after Jesus, thus NT was canonized by Christians legitimately.

However, NT is based off OT as NT represents God's Grace while OT represents God's Law. That's why OT was part of NT canonization. LXX is handily the version used as it's in Greek, however LXX is never a controlled copy as the Hebrew Bible is.

So the Catholics' OT canon is temperarily till the Protestants acquired the legitimate Jewish Canon, that's actually how Protestants are authenticated. Now God's Church is basically governed by the Apostles' Creed. The Jews have a legitimate OT Canon, the Catholics have a correct NT Canon while the newly authenticated Protestants have both a legitimate OT Canon and a legitimate NT Canon.

 

[chevyontheriver]

The big picture is, OT went through a long way to be canonized by the Jews, from King Hezekiah through Ezra till to the hand of the Pharisees. It's the Jews' testimony, it's their canonization. It's because the Jew failed to do the job that the authentication shifted to Christians. NT is the testimony from the Apostles, it's thus canonized by Christians.

Judaism is authenticated before Jesus, thus OT was canonized by the Jews legitimately.
Christianity is authenticated after Jesus, thus NT was canonized by Christians legitimately.

However, NT is based off OT as NT represents God's Grace while OT represents God's Law. That's why OT was part of NT canonization. LXX is handily the version used as it's in Greek, however LXX is never a controlled copy as the Hebrew Bible is.

So the Catholics' OT canon is temperarily till the Protestants acquired the legitimate Jewish Canon, that's actually how Protestants are authenticated. Now God's Church is basically governed by the Apostles' Creed. The Jews have a legitimate OT Canon, the Catholics have a correct NT Canon while the newly authenticated Protestants have both a legitimate OT Canon and a legitimate NT Canon.

What you wrote here would be true IF the Jewish canon was settled at the time of the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus. Unless you can show that the Jewish canon was settled by that time in 33 AD it is the Christians that settle the canon (the whole canon) from the books available to them and the books they wrote based on what the Holy Spirit teaches them. And they did exactly that. The Jewish authorities eventually chose a different canon, one that excluded EVERY BIT of anything about Jesus. IF the Jewish authorities were following the Holy Spirit with respect to settling the OT canon after the life and death and resurrection of Jesus then they were also following the Holy Spirit at the same time in REJECTING the entire NT.

The Protestants don't have a correct OT canon because the Jewish authorities lost the authority to set any canon after the Church was born. IF they had settled a canon BEFORE the time of Jesus, and fixed it for all time, then and only then would we have a legitimate OT canon from them. As it is we can affirm the books they include but we cannot limit ourselves from the books they exclude. Those decisions were made by the Church in the following couple of centuries.

 

[Hawkins]

What you wrote here would be true IF the Jewish canon was settled at the time of the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus. Unless you can show that the Jewish canon was settled by that time in 33 AD it is the Christians that settle the canon (the whole canon) from the books available to them and the books they wrote based on what the Holy Spirit teaches them. And they did exactly that. The Jewish authorities eventually chose a different canon, one that excluded EVERY BIT of anything about Jesus. IF the Jewish authorities were following the Holy Spirit with respect to settling the OT canon after the life and death and resurrection of Jesus then they were also following the Holy Spirit at the same time in REJECTING the entire NT.

The Protestants don't have a correct OT canon because the Jewish authorities lost the authority to set any canon after the Church was born. IF they had settled a canon BEFORE the time of Jesus, and fixed it for all time, then and only then would we have a legitimate OT canon from them. As it is we can affirm the books they include but we cannot limit ourselves from the books they exclude. Those decisions were made by the Church in the following couple of centuries.

History cannot be shown, technically speaking. The Jewish Canon was fixed around Jesus' days. With 17 books said to be sealed with King Hezekiah's mark. The Pharisees are the enforcers of the Scripture, while Josephus the Pharisee said that at least 22 books are uncontroversially legitimate, though the question is whether the Pharisaic Bible arranged in 22 books is the same as the 24 book rabbinical version, or the last 2 books (in Aramaic) are not yet fully accepted as being canonized.

All in all, even in the case the 22 books mentioned by Josephus lacking 2 books as from the 24 book rabbinical version, at least it shows that 22 books are canonized at Jesus's days without controversy. And it doesn't nullify the OT Canon being a testimony from the effort of the Jews since King Hezekiah, and including Ezra. More apparently, this effort excludes the content of the Apocrypha.

 

[Erose]

Yes they did as the non-Christian Jewish Josephus confirms in the first century AD. Their canon had been finalized for over 300 years by that time. It was already compiled and kept in the Temple for all that time - without change as Josephus points out.

They did not have a fully accepted canon in the first century as is obvious. People need to understand that the Jewish people where not some monolithic, united religion. There were various sects in Judaism at that time: Pharisees, Sadducees, Essenes, Zealots, Hellenistic Jews, Ethiopian Jews and you probably can add in there the Samaritans. None of these agreed with what was and was not Holy Scripture.

The Pharisees had at that time a collection close to what the Jews use today, although the Torah and the Prophets lists are identical to what they have today, there was still some debate (and this comes from the Talmud) on some of the writings to include in the Writings. Ruth, Esther, Baruch, Epistle of Jeremiah, Sirach and Jubilees, to name the ones I remember off the top of my head.

But other sects though did not follow this.

The Sadducees (and the Samaritans) only accepted the Torah as sacred.

The Zealots with don't have any info on.

The Essenes and Ethiopian Jews had a much larger set of writings as Sacred Scripture.

And the Hellenistic Jews used what we know now as the LXX.

So no this wasn't a lock at that time by any stretch of the imagination.

 

[Jonaitis]

What saddens me is the fact that most Christians trust men of like nature, but won't examine their own convictions for themselves. Councils mean nothing if they are wrong. They were intended to confirm what is true, not determine truth.

 

[Erose]

It sounds like Wisdom 2:1-9 contradicts the whole message of Ecclesiastes. Thus, I cannot agree with you.

So how does Wisdom 2:1-9 contradict the whole message of Ecclesiastes? Does the message of Ecclesiastes say that sinners act in a completely different way than what is described in Wisdom 2? You do realize that this what Wisdom 2 is referring to right? The author is not relating how the righteous should act but rather how the unrighteous acts. Perhaps you misread it.

 

[Yekcidmij]

They did not have a fully accepted canon in the first century as is obvious. People need to understand that the Jewish people where not some monolithic, united religion. There were various sects in Judaism at that time: Pharisees, Sadducees, Essenes, Zealots, Hellenistic Jews, Ethiopian Jews and you probably can add in there the Samaritans. None of these agreed with what was and was not Holy Scripture.

The Pharisees had at that time a collection close to what the Jews use today, although the Torah and the Prophets lists are identical to what they have today, there was still some debate (and this comes from the Talmud) on some of the writings to include in the Writings. Ruth, Esther, Baruch, Epistle of Jeremiah, Sirach and Jubilees, to name the ones I remember off the top of my head.

But other sects though did not follow this.

The Sadducees (and the Samaritans) only accepted the Torah as sacred.

The Zealots with don't have any info on.

The Essenes and Ethiopian Jews had a much larger set of writings as Sacred Scripture.

And the Hellenistic Jews used what we know now as the LXX.

So no this wasn't a lock at that time by any stretch of the imagination.

It may be warranted to be a little skeptical of the interpretation that the Sadducees rejected the prophets.

Ant 18.11 But the doctrine of the Sadducees is that souls die with the bodies. Nor do they regard as obligatory the observance of anything besides what the law enjoins them. For they think it an instance of virtue to dispute with those teachers of philosophy whom they frequent. (17) This doctrine is accepted only by a few, yet by those still of the greatest standing. But they are able to do almost nothing by themselves, for when they become magistrates, as they are unwillingly and by force sometimes obliged to be, they submit themselves to the notions of the Pharisees because the multitude would not otherwise tolerate them.​

It's not clear on this that the Sadducees were rejecting anything other than Pharisee halakah (ie, the Pharisee's "oral law"). The same is the case in Ant. 13.

 

[Jonaitis]

So how does Wisdom 2:1-9 contradict the whole message of Ecclesiastes? Does the message of Ecclesiastes say that sinners act in a completely different way than what is described in Wisdom 2? You do realize that this what Wisdom 2 is referring to right? The author is not relating how the righteous should act but rather how the unrighteous acts. Perhaps you misread it.

Please re-read Ecclesiastes in its entirety. It speaks of both the righteous and unrighteous, wise and fool. I'll rest my case there.

 

[Erose]

And my main point was that it meant that the same councils that determined the canon of the New Testament that we all accept today, also affirmed the canon of the Old, with 46 books.

Only Laodicea, but it isn't the exact canon that is used in the Jewish Canon today. Laodicea also includes Baruch and the Epistle of Jeremiah.

 

[chevyontheriver]

History cannot be shown, technically speaking.

So you don't know.

The Jewish Canon was fixed around Jesus' days.

Before or after? Fixed permanently or only with some additions, just as the prophets were added to the Torah?

With 17 books said to be sealed with King Hezekiah's mark.

Fine. Accepted.

The Pharisees are the enforcers of the Scripture,

Not all Jews agreed. The Sadducees in particular.

while Josephus the Pharisee said that at least 22 books are uncontroversially legitimate, though the question is whether the Pharisaic Bible arranged in 22 books is the same as the 24 book rabbinical version,

So we really don't know which books Josephus ACTUALLY had in mind.

or the last 2 books (in Aramaic) are not yet fully accepted as being canonized.

Not yet fully canonized? As in, up in the air at the time of Jesus? As in not yet fixed at the time of Jesus?

All in all, even in the case the 22 books mentioned by Josephus lacking 2 books as from the 24 book rabbinical version, at least it shows that 22 books are canonized at Jesus's days without controversy.

Fine. Christians can accept the books already canonized before the time of Jesus without question. They HAD the authority before the time of Jesus to canonize books.

And it doesn't nullify the OT Canon being a testimony from the effort of the Jews since King Hezekiah, and including Ezra.

Yes. They could and did add books up to the time of Jesus and Christians accept that. No problem. The problem is in the books they had not yet accepted and in the end they did not accept. How long does their authority endure into the Christian era? I would say not a day past Pentecost.

More apparently, this effort excludes the content of the Apocrypha.

Whoa. What books they did not include yet determines NOTHING for the Church. The authority to set the canon after the time of Jesus belongs to the Church. Any books not settled by the Jewish authorities were settled by the Christian authorities. And the Jewish authorities were not including anything about Jesus. IF the Jewish authorities could authoritatively settle the OT canon after the time of Jesus, that would have been under the guidance of the Holy Spirit. But that same Holy Spirit would have had them canonize the books about Jesus. Were the Jewish authorities acting under the guidance of the Holy Spirit in failing to accept any gospel or epistle about Jesus?

 

[Erose]

It may be warranted to be a little skeptical of the interpretation that the Sadducees rejected the prophets.

Ant 18.11 But the doctrine of the Sadducees is that souls die with the bodies. Nor do they regard as obligatory the observance of anything besides what the law enjoins them. For they think it an instance of virtue to dispute with those teachers of philosophy whom they frequent. (17) This doctrine is accepted only by a few, yet by those still of the greatest standing. But they are able to do almost nothing by themselves, for when they become magistrates, as they are unwillingly and by force sometimes obliged to be, they submit themselves to the notions of the Pharisees because the multitude would not otherwise tolerate them.​

It's not clear on this that the Sadducees were rejecting anything other than Pharisee halakah (ie, the Pharisee's "oral law"). The same is the case in Ant. 13.

We know from our New Testament, that the Sadducees and the Pharisees were not lock step with each other on matters outside the "oral law", such as in the case of the resurrection. But that being said there isn't a ton of info from that time, so none of us can be absolutely sure of much when it comes to the workings of 1st century temple Judaism.

For example Josephus only speaks of the 22 scrolls, and that they were broken down into the Law, Prophets and Writings. We do not exactly what was in those 22 scrolls except what people have claimed over 200 years later, and none of them fully agree. And none of the lists given agree exactly with what the Jews accept now. One other thing, the sources for these lists are all Christian sources as well.

 

[fhansen]

What you wrote here would be true IF the Jewish canon was settled at the time of the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus.

And even then we'd defer to the Chruch if there were any discrepancy between the views. Either way Protestants went back and forth on this issue, finally influenced centuries after the fact by a couple Bible Societies who in turn impacted the actual product as it came from the publishers. Not exactly a Spirit-guided enterprise IMO, but one that few ended up bothering to question. In Christian history, however, the Church, east and west, not individuals, made these decisions, with the EO and RCC accepting the apochrypha as inspired while determing the canon of the new testament as well-the same church(s) that hammered out the Nicene creed during the Arian controversy, as another example, a creed which virtually all Christians have accepted. Jesus didn't dance to anyone else's tune, clarifying and explaining where Jewish teachers were right and wrong-and they didn't all agree with each other. Neither should His church necessarily do so.

 

[Yekcidmij]

Not all Jews agreed. The Sadducees in particular.

Can you cite your source, your primary source, on the Sadduccees views on the canon? The two references from Joseephus can, and probably should be read as the Sadducees rejecting Pharisee halakah, not a rejection of Pharisee canon. The other ref's in the Mishnah and Talmud look to be arguments with Pharisee halakah, not arguments about the canon.

 

[chevyontheriver]

What saddens me is the fact that most Christians trust men of like nature, but won't examine their own convictions for themselves. Councils mean nothing if they are wrong. They were intended to confirm what is true, not determine truth.

Reformers mean nothing if they are wrong. They should have confirmed what is true rather than making up meta-dogmas like Sola Scriptura.

 

[Yekcidmij]

We know from our New Testament, that the Sadducees and the Pharisees were not lock step with each other on matters outside the "oral law", such as in the case of the resurrection. But that being said there isn't a ton of info from that time, so none of us can be absolutely sure of much when it comes to the workings of 1st century temple Judaism.

Fair enough. There isn't a whole lot about them definitively, especially since our known references are mostly from the Pharisees (and small handful in the NT). You just had previously made a pretty conclusive statement about their view on the canon when the evidence is that they disagreed with Pharisee "oral law" - Pharisee particular legal rulings about the law, not that there was a canonical dispute. In fact, I'm not aware of evidence of a canonical dispute between Pharisees and Sadduccees unless someone else knows of one, and if they do they're welcome to share it and I'll change my mind on the Sadducees view of the canon.

 

[Erose]

Please re-read Ecclesiastes in its entirety. It speaks of both the righteous and unrighteous, wise and fool. I'll rest my case there.

Do you now. Lets see what Wisdom 2 says:



1For, not thinking rightly, they said among themselves: “Brief and troubled is our lifetime; there is no remedy for our dying, nor is anyone known to have come back from Hades.
2For by mere chance were we born, and hereafter we shall be as though we had not been; because the breath in our nostrils is smoke, and reason a spark from the beating of our hearts,
3And when this is quenched, our body will be ashes and our spirit will be poured abroad like empty air.
4Even our name will be forgotten in time, and no one will recall our deeds. So our life will pass away like the traces of a cloud, and will be dispersed like a mist pursued by the sun’s rays and overpowered by its heat.
5For our lifetime is the passing of a shadow; and our dying cannot be deferred because it is fixed with a seal; and no one returns.
6Come, therefore, let us enjoy the good things that are here, and make use of creation with youthful zest.
7Let us have our fill of costly wine and perfumes, and let no springtime blossom pass us by;
8let us crown ourselves with rosebuds before they wither.
9Let no meadow be free from our wantonness; everywhere let us leave tokens of our merriment, for this is our portion, and this our lot.
10Let us oppress the righteous poor; let us neither spare the widow nor revere the aged for hair grown white with time.
11But let our strength be our norm of righteousness; for weakness proves itself useless.
12* Let us lie in wait for the righteous one, because he is annoying to us; he opposes our actions, reproaches us for transgressions of the law and charges us with violations of our training.
13He professes to have knowledge of God and styles himself a child of the LORD.
14To us he is the censure of our thoughts; merely to see him is a hardship for us,
15Because his life is not like that of others, and different are his ways.
16He judges us debased; he holds aloof from our paths as from things impure. He calls blest the destiny of the righteous and boasts that God is his Father.
17Let us see whether his words be true; let us find out what will happen to him in the end.
18For if the righteous one is the son of God, God will help him and deliver him from the hand of his foes.
19With violence and torture let us put him to the test that we may have proof of his gentleness and try his patience.
20Let us condemn him to a shameful death; for according to his own words, God will take care of him.”
21These were their thoughts, but they erred; for their wickedness blinded them,
22* And they did not know the hidden counsels of God; neither did they count on a recompense for holiness nor discern the innocent souls’ reward.
23For God formed us to be imperishable; the image of his own nature he made us.
24But by the envy* of the devil, death entered the world, and they who are allied with him experience it.

Explain to me which part of the above passage contradicts anything in Ecclesiastes? What part of the above passage does not ring true, even today?

 

[Yekcidmij]

The Sadducees (and the Samaritans) only accepted the Torah as sacred.

I think the Samaritan view isn't so simple either. Samaritans do have their own historical writings, and books of Psalms and hymns. Their non-use of our biblical texts has more to do with our biblical text's centrality of Jerusalem (rather than Schechem and Mt Gerizim/Mt Ebal). This is also the major difference between the Samaritan Torah and our Pentateuch. So this is not really the same canonical debate as far as I can tell. The debate here between Samaritanism and Judaism + Christianity is over the centrality and legitimacy of Jerusalem, the Davidic house and the Jerusalem Temple and priesthood. It also is a little misnomer to state without qualificiation that the Samaritans accept the Torah as sacred - you'd have to qualify that with the "Samaritan Torah," which is not the same as the Torah any of us are using.

Side note: there is an English version of the Samaritan Torah out there now. It's interesting to compare.