Why not Apocraphy?

[sunlover1]

1. The LXX was not their Bible, it was a collection of yes, the Scriptures, and other writtings. They would read some of the DC's, even in their synagogues, but they have always considered there to be a difference between Scripture and the DC.

This is what I didn't know.

This helps so much.
Thank you BT.
I thought it was merely a translation from the hebrew to the greek (due to their captivity).

sunlover

 

[Oblio]

I thought it was merely a translation from the hebrew to the greek (due to their captivity).

Odd that you swallow BTs explanation hook, line and sinker ...

It wasn't just a translation, any more that the KJV is 'merely' a translation. The LXX fleshed out the actual meaning of OT Scripture into the language of people, Greek, rather than the arcane Hebrew that most Jews neither spoke, let alone read.

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

When the RCC, EO and OO denominations all agree on what are the DC books and which are Canonical - when there's some evidence of consensus (even 2000 years later), then I think this will be a far more relevant discussion.

 

[jckstraw72]

When the RCC, EO and OO denominations all agree on what are the DC books and which are Canonical - when there's some evidence of consensus (even 2000 years later), then I think this will be a far more relevant discussion.

perhaps this should tell you something about the authority of the Scriptures alone vs. the Holy Spirit's life in the Church. Considering the inexact OT canon which do you think was more important to Christians?

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

perhaps this should tell you something about the authority of the Scriptures alone vs. the Holy Spirit's life in the Church. Considering the inexact OT canon which do you think was more important to Christians?

It reveals to ME that all this talk about how these DC books have ALWAYS been regarded as Canonical just ain't so - 2,000 years later, there's STILL no consensus about them.


I do contrast that to the 39 OT books and 27 NT books.


Thank you.


Pax!


- Josiah



.

 

[jckstraw72]

It reveals to ME that all this talk about how these DC books have ALWAYS been regarded as Canonical just ain't so - 2,000 years later, there's STILL no consensus about them.


I do contrast that to the 39 OT books and 27 NT books.


Thank you.


Pax!


- Josiah

nice spin, but perhaps it should tell you that the actual living Tradition of the Church is more important than what books bare witness to the Tradition.

 

[BereanTodd]

Odd that you swallow BTs explanation hook, line and sinker ...

It wasn't just a translation, any more that the KJV is 'merely' a translation. The LXX fleshed out the actual meaning of OT Scripture into the language of people, Greek, rather than the arcane Hebrew that most Jews neither spoke, let alone read.

What is interesting is that you take your church's word over that of the people in question. Ask the Jews; read the ancient Jewish writtings. Who is better positioned to tell us what Jews think and how they feel (and felt, in reference to the ancient practices) in regards to those books? You, of a different faith and upbringing? Or the Jews themselves?

That's like me, a white upper middle class person, telling you what it feels like to be a black slave in the colonial Americas. I don't have the perspective, heritage or knowledge. And neither do you.

 

[jckstraw72]

What is interesting is that you take your church's word over that of the people in question. Ask the Jews; read the ancient Jewish writtings. Who is better positioned to tell us what Jews think and how they feel (and felt, in reference to the ancient practices) in regards to those books? You, of a different faith and upbringing? Or the Jews themselves?

hmmmm people who accepted Christ or ppl who denied Christ......

 

[BereanTodd]

hmmmm people who accepted Christ or ppl who denied Christ......

The question isn't their overall theological view of the world or who God is. The question is what position do they hold towards their own Scriptures?? They were God's people. We have the exact same OT as them, to the letter. We do not delete any books at all. Jesus was an observant Jew. We are not talking about pagan idoloters. They worship YHWH, and it was through them that YHWH gave us His Word, and His Son.

Now, what their position is on the very books that they wrote ... whether they were ever considered Scriptural IS important. Even the EO and RCC people here are saying it is important, because they are trying to argue that the Jews considered the DC Scriptural!!!!!!!

So then, the question is not whether or not what the Jews thought is important. Both sides here are telling us that it is important. The question is: who should we believe with regards to this question? We have two possible answers:

1. The Jews, their history, their writtings, even their ancient writtings of the first century and before. Their teachers, rabbis and others for millenia.

2. The EO/RCC who want to justify their inclusion of the DC in their Bibles, despite the fact that it was not included in the earliest canons, their was never a concensus over which ones to include - even today the EO, OO, RCC, Ethiopian church ... none of them who include the DC books can even agree on which ones to include.

So, who is better positioned to tell us what the Jews thought? Again, I stress the question is not whether the Jewish view is important ... Oblio is telling us that what they thought is important. He just thinks that we should listen to him about what they thought, rather than 3500 years of Jewish writting and teaching.

 

[jckstraw72]

Now, what their position is on the very books that they wrote ... whether they were ever considered Scriptural IS important. Even the EO and RCC people here are saying it is important, because they are trying to argue that the Jews considered the DC Scriptural!!!!!!!

the Jews had no official canon to well after Christ....so how do you know they we'rent reading the "DC" before then? Christians didnt just dig this up out of nowhere in the early Church--they were already in wide circulation amongst Jews. Introducing hte Apocrypha by David deSilva would be a nice place to start on this whole topic.

 

[BereanTodd]

the Jews had no official canon to well after Christ....so how do you know they we'rent reading the "DC" before then? Christians didnt just dig this up out of nowhere in the early Church--they were already in wide circulation amongst Jews. Introducing hte Apocrypha by David deSilva would be a nice place to start on this whole topic.

I didn't say that they didn't read them. I've said that they did read them, even in the synagogue, but they did not ever consider them on equal footing with Scripture. To say that they did not have a class of Scripture is eroneous. Simple.

 

[jckstraw72]

I didn't say that they didn't read them. I've said that they did read them, even in the synagogue, but they did not ever consider them on equal footing with Scripture. To say that they did not have a class of Scripture is eroneous. Simple.

ok well i havent been reading all the posts in here....how do you know what was in their unofficial canon and how do you know the "DC" we'rent?

 

[BereanTodd]

ok well i havent been reading all the posts in here....how do you know what was in their unofficial canon and how do you know the "DC" we'rent?

I don't have time to seach it all out right now in order to make specific quotes or references. This isn't a common subject, and between seminary, ministry, work (which is especially crazy this time of year for me) my wife and kids, I just don't have the time to search for something this obscure.

However, I've read both their 1st century writtings, and much of the rest of their traditions and teachings. I've talked to and read modern rabis. I've learned from messianic jews who were raised to be rabbis before accepting Jesus as the Christ. All of my personal learning and teaching has shown me that they certainly had books they considered Scriptural and that the DC was not a part of it. Jesus even hinted that the DC was not a part of the OT. Jesus told the Jews:

Matthew 23:35so that upon you may fall the guilt of all the righteous blood shed on earth, from the blood of righteous Abel to the blood of Zechariah, the son of Berechiah, whom you murdered between the temple and the altar

Now, if we take the order of the OT in the Jewish Bible - the first blood shed by man was Abel, the last blood was that of Zechariah. That is not true of the order of our NT. That would not be true if we added the DC-ical books. But if we take on the Jewish view of Scripture then we see him making a point - they were guilty of all that was recorded in Scripture.

Moreover, I have not seen a single defender of the DC as scriptural who has dealt with the fact that at the very least the Macabees, and possibly other DC books were written after the LXX had been allready compiled. You guys keep pointing to their inclusion in the LXX as a defense, but many of the books were not written until after the LXX!!

 

[Oblio]

Well if the Jews understood the truth of the OT Scripture, they would be Christians and believe in Christ our God.

 

[BereanTodd]

Well if the Jews understood the truth of the OT Scripture, they would be Christians and believe in Christ our God.

It's not about their understanding of what is Scripture, it's about what constitutes Scripture. No one anywhere considered the DC scriptural until a very late date. You EO can claim an earlier date than the 1500s of the RCC if you want, but the fact remains it was still long centuries after the start of Christianity, not to mention even longer since they were writen and utilized by the Jewish religion.

 

[Oblio]

You EO can claim an earlier date than the 1500s of the RCC if you want, but the fact remains it was still long centuries after the start of Christianity, not to mention even longer since they were writen and utilized by the Jewish religion.

It was long centuries after the start of Christianity before there was a canon. Your point.

And if you were familiar with Biblical history, you would know that the Jews translated the Septuagint in the 3rd c BC, 6-700 years before the Christian canon was established (including the Deuterocanon) by the Christian Church. Now you can determine the canon of your own Bible, but the Bible of the Church has, and always will have the Deuterocanon as fully Scripture.

 

[Oblio]

It's not about their understanding of what is Scripture, it's about what constitutes Scripture.

No, because if you do not understand who God is, how can you possibly determine what is His word ? The Jews are in no position, especially as denying Christ, and therefore the Father, let alone the Holy Spirit, to determine what is Scripture.

 

[Grego]

Pope Innocent I, Letter to Exsuperius, Bishop of Toulouse 6, 7, 13
(405 AD)

"A short annotation shows what books are to be accepted as canonical. As
you wished to be informed specifically, they are as follows: The five books
of Moses, that is, Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy; and
Jesus Nave, one of Judges, four of Kingdoms, and also Ruth, sixteen books
of Prophets, five books of Solomon, the Psalter. Likewise, of histories, one
book of Job, one book of Tobias, one of Esther, one of Judith, two of
Maccabees, two of Esdras, two books of Paralipomenon. Likewise, of the
New Testament: four books of Gospels, fourteen Epistles of Paul, three
Epistles of John, two Epistles of Peter, the Epistle of Jude, the Epistle of
James, the Acts of the Apostles, the Apocalypse of John. Others, however,
which were written under the name of Matthias or of James the Less, or
under the name of Peter and of John, by a certain Leucius–or under the
name of Andrew, by the philosophers Nexocharis and Leonidas–or under
the name of Thomas, and such others as may be, are not only to be
repudiated, but, as you know, are also to be condemned."

This list of the Canon has not changed ever since then , but has been confirmed over and over again to this day.

The Bible is a Tradition of the Catholic Church.

 

[sunlover1]

Odd that you swallow BTs explanation hook, line and sinker ...

It wasn't just a translation, any more that the KJV is 'merely' a translation. The LXX fleshed out the actual meaning of OT Scripture into the language of people, Greek, rather than the arcane Hebrew that most Jews neither spoke, let alone read.

BT does have informative posts and seems to know a lot about the Bible as well.

I looked into this stuff years ago, but got back to just studying the Word (KJV).

But I never lost interest in why 'protestants' don't recognize certain books and catholics do.

While I believe BT to be sharing what he believes is truth, it will take me some time to decide what I personally choose.

ty for the info.
sunlover

 

[DarkLord]

Pope Damacus in the Council of Rome 382AD

Seems some EO doesnt beleive me...i quoted this from wikipedia....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Council_of_Rome

It is likewise decreed: Now, indeed, we must treat of the divine Scriptures: what the universal Catholic Church accepts and what she must shun. The list of the Old Testament begins: Genesis, one book; Exodus, one book: Leviticus, one book; Numbers, one book; Deuteronomy, one book; Jesus Nave, one book; of Judges, one book; Ruth, one book; of Kings, four books; Paralipomenon, two books; One Hundred and Fifty Psalms, one book; of Solomon, three books: Proverbs, one book; Ecclesiastes, one book; Canticle of Canticles, one book; likewise, Wisdom, one book; Ecclesiasticus (Sirach), one book;

Likewise, the list of the Prophets: Isaiah, one book; Jeremias, one book; along with Cinoth, that is, his Lamentations; Ezechiel, one book; Daniel, one book; Osee, one book; Amos, one book; Micheas, one book; Joel, one book; Abdias, one book; Jonas, one book; Nahum, one book; Habacuc, one book; Sophonias, one book; Aggeus, one book; Zacharias, one book; Malachias, one book.

Likewise, the list of histories: Job, one book; Tobias, one book; Esdras, two books; Esther, one book; Judith, one book; of Maccabees, two books.

Likewise, the list of the Scriptures of the New and Eternal Testament, which the holy and Catholic Church receives: of the Gospels, one book according to Matthew, one book according to Mark, one book according to Luke, one book according to John. The Epistles of the Apostle Paul, fourteen in number: one to the Romans, one to the Corinthians [2 Corinthians is not mentioned], one to the Ephesians, two to the Thessalonians, one to the Galatians, one to the Philippians, one to the Colossians, two to Timothy, one to Titus one to Philemon, one to the Hebrews.

Likewise, one book of the Apocalypse of John. And the Acts of the Apostles, one book.

Likewise, the canonical Epistles, seven in number: of the Apostle Peter, two Epistles; of the Apostle James, one Epistle; of the Apostle John, one Epistle; of the other John, a Presbyter, two Epistles; of the Apostle Jude the Zealot, one Epistle. Thus concludes the canon of the New Testament.

Likewise it is decreed: After the announcement of all of these prophetic and evangelic or as well as apostolic writings which we have listed above as Scriptures, on which, by the grace of God, the Catholic Church is founded, we have considered that it ought to be announced that although all the Catholic Churches spread abroad through the world comprise but one bridal chamber of Christ, nevertheless, the holy Roman Church has been placed at the forefront not by the conciliar decisions of other Churches, but has received the primacy by the evangelic voice of our Lord and Savior, who says: "You are Peter, and upon this rock I will build My Church, and the gates of hell will not prevail against it; and I will give to you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you shall have bound on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you shall have loosed on earth shall be loosed in heaven."

Common sense tells u, that Luther ripped it off at 1500s.

The bible canon was dogmatised in the Council of Trent because Luther challenged it.