Canon Of The Bible

Come off it, Eliyahu, the translators as much as admit they use the LXX in the translation process in the Preface.

OT quotes in the NT indicate the use of the LXX by the Apostles, which in turn illustrates the LXX predating the Apostles. There is archeological evidence of Greek translations dating back to 3rd century B.C. and manuscript evidence of 2 Maccabees dating to at least 50 B.C. (F.F. Bruce The Canon of Scripture)

 

There are several interesting notions in the current discussion: "true Christians" and "true believers". Does this give us permission to consider the possibility that there may be some "pseudo" religion out there--some wolves in sheep's clothing perhaps?

God is not the author of confusion. All of the man-made doctrines are exactly that--confusing traditions of men which will burn up--see I Cor. Ch.3--the part about wood, hay and stubble. Then there is the part in Mt.7--those who had done all those wonderful things in Jesus name--He said He never knew them.

Everything we do will be tried by fire--are we ready?

Selah,

Bro. James

 

You are as ignorant of time zones then as you are of Biblical history; you post was timed at 5-37pm local time here which is way before my bedtime.

Re the LXX - others have made the point that the LXX predates the Apostles by a couple of centuries or thereabouts.

Bro James, I don't understand your post - please elaborate.

 

The real question here is why anybody would wish to remove the Deuterocanonicals! The OT scripture in most common use in the earliest church was the Septuagint, the Greek translation of the OT, as is evident from the fact that two-thirds of NT references to the OT are indentifiable as references to the Septuagint. In particular, there are plenty of references in the NT to the Deuterocanonicals, which are simply part of the Septuagint. Of course the early fathers also happily cited from the Deuterocanonicals. It took until the Council in Florence 1451 until the dust finally settled on canoncity, but certainly the Deuterocanonicals were in the running from the start. Ben Sirach in particular was so popular in church readings that it got called liber ecclesiasticus "church book", or simply Ecclesiasticus.

 

Whether the Council of Jamnia/ Yavneh even existed is debated by scholars; there never was a "Council" of Yavneh IMO. Yavneh was, indeed, the place from which the Pharisees (also called Rabbis) ran the government of Palestine that had been entrusted to them by the Romans. Presumably some of their debates took place there also, possibly including the famous one about which of the hagiographa "render the hands unclean". But this was no "council". It was simply a lawyers' debate about the precise boundaries of a library that had already been established by usage. Note Joshua ben-Sira's grandson's phrase, "the law and the prophets and the other books of our fathers". Josephus too mentions the law, the prophets, and four other books which contain songs and precepts. It isn't certain what they were, but one plausible guess is Psalms, Proverbs, Song of Songs, and Ecclesiastes, these last two being the very ones about which doubts are raised in the Mishnah. So the Aramaic-speaking Jews of Palestine had one sacred library, established by custom, the Greek-speaking Jews of Egypt had another. The Qumran sectarians gave great respect to the Books of Jubilees and Enoch in addition, and seem to have disliked the book of Esther. But (so I understand) fragments of all the books of the Hebrew Scriptures except Esther have been found at Qumran, suggesting that the so-called "Hebrew canon" was already as stable as the Septuagint, and formed the sectarians' starting point. The Rabbinical debates about whether Ecclesiastes and the Song of Songs "soil the hands" may not even have been very seriously intended, though Akiba seems to have taken them seriously. Perhaps the lawyers were, as lawyers will, merely positing hypotheticals or raising iconoclastic questions for the fun of it.

 

Be that as it may, whatever Jamnia decided can in no way be considered binding on Christians. Jesus had passed His authority to the apostles, not to the Jewish priests and scribes. And it seems quite likely that however the Masoretic canon actually was arrived at, its final form may well have been influenced by the Jewish desire to combat that new sect Christianity. Why would Christians let their canon be dictated by those who oppose them?


(Sorry for breaking this up into multiple posts, but the BB software wouldn't accept it any other way)

 

Indeed. Good post, Matt.
(*emphases in Matt's post are mine. Hope you don't mind, Matt.)

 

No worries

So why did the Reformers kick out the DCs? The real reason seems to be that DC books like 2 Macc contain Scriptural support for hated Catholic doctrines like praying for the dead to free them from their sins, merits of the martyrs and intercession of the saints. That's rather annoying if you are also propagating sola scriptura as a way of getting rid of the RC magisterium. So you construct some odd reason why against all history these books should be ignored (by adopting the Masoretic canon), and if that throws out old favorites like Ecclesiasticus, well, too bad.

 

Elaborating or belaboring?

It is really quite simple: God has spoken. He has revealed all we could possibly learn in a lifetime. God is not confused, bewildered nor perplexed.

Man, in his depravity, cannot accept the fact that he must give an account to his creator. Man likes to try to save himself. He has concocted all sorts of ways to appease God.

Casting doubt on the fact that God has given man an infallible written revelation did not originate in heaven--but rather the pits of Hell. Satan is the author of confusion.

The "smarter" we get the more agnostic we become. How "dumbeth" we are. A child understands--without debate--amazing.

Selah,

Bro. James

 

I don't think anyone is casting doubt on the inspiration of the Bible here, just debating its extent. I'm still none the wiser as to what your point is and its relevance to this thread .

 

Matt, I think you are right. However, I don't think all those arguing for the shorter canon are completely without historical support. After all, they can selectively quote church fathers (particular by the third century and later) who are at the very least cautious about the status of the DCs. However, they ignore the historical context of this caution. By that time the Palestinian Jews were more specifically defining their canon (in response to the Christians) and also making new Greek translations of the OT to compete with the LXX used by the Church. In apologetic arguments against Jewish polemics, certain fathers were less likely to employ the DCs since the Jews at that time didn't accept them. However, the fact is that the Jews of the Dispersion had been using the LXX at the time of Christ and the Apostles, and the Ethiopian Jews use the DCs in their OT to this day. Naturally, the earliest chuch fathers (Apostolic Fathers) used these writings as well and quoted them in their writings making no distinction between the DCs and the books of the "proto-Canon".

But I guess when one is arguing polemics it's easier to selectively cite history especially when one's objective is to oppose all things Catholic.

 

My point is: Canonicity and the determination thereof is of man. Man is depraved. There is no void in revelation or guidance from Jesus and the emergence of "The Canon" as commonly called. The early churches had enough scripture and The Holy Spirit to get them through--even the Dark Ages. They still do. God is faithful.

Selah,

Bro. James

 

So how would you propose we determine what's in the Canon then?

 

The best answer: Rev. 22:18-19. Sure sounds like the canon was complete circa A.D. 95. That which is perfect(complete)was come; that which was in part(spiritual gifts) was done away. See ICor. 13 and 14, especially: 13:9-13.
Anything after the Book of Revelation is corrupted, spurious or downright fraud.

What about the Book of Mormon? Joseph Smith Jr. claims to have been divinely inspired.

Now what?

Selah,

Bro. James

 

That's all very well I suppose with regard to what came after Revelation. But Rev 22:18-19 doesn't say anything about the rest of what we now call the NT which was written before it; how therefore does it help us to know whether we should include the four Gospels (written c.70 AD) or I Clement (written c.85-90AD)? It's all very well quoting from I Corinthians but Revelation doesn't tell us whether this letter should be in the NT anymore than it tells us whether I Clement should be...

 

The problem is that in context that verse is merely referring to the BOOK of Revelation itself and not to the question of NT canon.

But the Deuterocanonicals of the OT were written, at the latest, 150 years before Christ.

 

Ah, yes. Those two 'minor' points as well. But even if the words at the end of Revelation do mean what Bro James thinks they mean (and I'm trying to operate within his frame of reference here) then we still have the problem of how to canonise the rest of the NT and also, as you say, the fact that the DCs precede Revelation by a good couple of centuries if not more.

 

It is five minutes to midnight on the dawn of the last day brethren; we are worried about a little canonicity? It is smoke screen and diversion tacts from the pit.

We are spending too much time in the Catholic Encyclopedia. Contrary to popular opinion, they are not the only ones with a "cannon". Indeed, God can use the Duay-Confraternity to save souls. That does not make Apocraphal writings the Word of God. Neither does it make the holy see the keeper of the keys. They have some keys, perhaps, but they do not fit the lock.

Jesus told His disciples to wait for power from on high, which they received on the Day of Pentecost. The Holy Spirit still indwells the New Testament Churches--not the churches founded by men/women.

The Word does not return void.

Selah,

Bro. James

[ March 16, 2006, 03:43 PM: Message edited by: Bro. James ]

 

And that answers my question how, exactly? Or are you going to continue to duck and dive on this one?