Christianity and how the bible was put together

[Thinkingstuff]

I am not saying that DC were not in existence.
I am not saying that some ECF's did not quote from them.

Josephus says:

"For we have not an innumerable multitude of books among us, disagreeing from and contradicting one another, [as the Greeks have,] but only twenty-two books, (8) which contain the records of all the past times; which are justly believed to be divine;"

This has nothing to do with the LXX.

As far as Jamnia, I am surprised you think it actually occurred. It does not have academic support and has not for...35 years.

The contents of the LXX at the time of Christ are unknown. In fact, once again, it was not set even at the times of our earliest existing copies.

Clement absolutely does not quote extensively from them. He mentions Judith...

I guess...I just do not know how to proceed.

Remember what I said about how astronomers figure our there are planets around a distant star? Well in the same way Clement mentions Judith (DC) Tobit (DC). Hebrews referrences 2 Macc 7(DC). In fact there is more support for the use of them then the contrary opinion.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

An aquaintance I know quoted R.H. Charles who said this:

The Letter of Aristeas (2nd cent. BC)

shows the Jews thought the translation inspired. The Talmud speaks of it as the fullfillment of Noah's blessing that Japheth will dwell in the tents of Shem. Sirach is commented on in the Talmud. The closing of the Jewish canon took place after the NT was written, and took several centuries to take, as the Jews translated new Greek translations for themselves, which included the DC.

 

[BRIANH]

Remember what I said about how astronomers figure our there are planets around a distant star? Well in the same way Clement mentions Judith (DC) Tobit (DC). Hebrews referrences 2 Macc 7(DC). In fact there is more support for the use of them then the contrary opinion.

Use?
Interesting term. What does that mean to you?

 

[Thinkingstuff]

Use?
Interesting term. What does that mean to you?

I think I've made it clear with the many post on this thread of how I believed the early church used them in the NT and quotes from the ECF.

 

[Matt Black]

I
As far as Jamnia, I am surprised you think it actually occurred. It does not have academic support and has not for...35 years.

Really? Which academics have you been reading, then?

Clement absolutely does not quote extensively from them. He mentions Judith...

OK, let me rephrase it then to avoid ambiguity: the ECFs as a whole quote extensively from them, starting with Clement of Rome

 

[DHK]

An aquaintance I know quoted R.H. Charles who said this:

"The Letter of Aristeas (2nd cent. BC)

shows the Jews thought the translation inspired"

Whatever the source is, it is inaccurate.
The Jews, the Apostles, the early believers, as we do today, all believed that only the original manuscripts are inspired. No translation is inspired. That is why in the synagogues, in the time of Christ, it was the Hebrew Scriptures that were always read. That was their sacred language. It was the only one that was accepted as Scripture. All the Jews were required to learn it.

Look at an example:
Paul, about to be arrested, says to a mob of Jews:

Acts 22:1-2 Men, brethren, and fathers, hear ye my defence which I make now unto you.
2 (And when they heard that he spake in the Hebrew tongue to them, they kept the more silence: and he saith,)

When he spoke in Hebrew, the common language being Greek, then the people were quiet and heard him. It was their sacred language; it demanded a respect from the people. It was the language of their forefathers; the language that their Scriptures were written in.

 

[BRIANH]

Really? Which academics have you been reading, then?


OK, let me rephrase it then to avoid ambiguity: the ECFs as a whole quote extensively from them, starting with Clement of Rome

WM Christie
Raymond Brown--who has serious doubts about its historicity
Jack P Lewis primarily in Bruce Metzger's book.
I cannot remember what seminary you said you attended Matt but what did they say? What books did you use and did they believe it occured? I cannot imagine that the study of the formation of the canon would differ THAT significantly from school to school. Heck Harrington and Brown are Catholic historians.

The ECF's do not quote extensively from them at all. That is not an accurate assessment of the Ante-Nicene literature. A mention is not extensive. There are just as many mentions of books that never made it into anyone's Bible. Let's take Clement of Rome for example. How much of the OT that we do agree on does he quote versus the deuterocanonicals? Not even in the same ball park. Miniscule in comparision.

If we are going to be accurate, SOME of the books like Sirach MIGHT be mentioned in the Didache and Barnabas according to Daniel Harrington but as he states, "he sites them as good advice, but without attribution and in a different Greek form".

 

[BRIANH]

I think I've made it clear with the many post on this thread of how I believed the early church used them in the NT and quotes from the ECF.

Use versus canonical? We would need to go book by book to see how they are quoted. But to be fair, we would also have to include books held in high regard and even called scripture, by Irenaeus and the Shepherd comes to mind, that never make anyone's canon.
Yes they used them.
Yes it was in flux even to the time of the earliest existing manuscripts.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

Use versus canonical? We would need to go book by book to see how they are quoted. But to be fair, we would also have to include books held in high regard and even called scripture, by Irenaeus and the Shepherd comes to mind, that never make anyone's canon.
Yes they used them.
Yes it was in flux even to the time of the earliest existing manuscripts.

It seems you're working backwards a bit. Canonical is a later development in the church. Scriptures were self evident by NT use of them and at that time everyone knew (that could read) what everyone else was talking about. We can determine what they thought was authoritative and by the use of the LXX and the DC both in the NT and the ECF the use shows significance of the writings. The NT would be a lot more fluid because there were many writings but canonisity was not established until a couple of hundred years later. You find many ECF referring to the writings in the DC. Why, well, I believe its evidence as accepted scripture of the LXX.

I don't try to redefine history to match my theology. I try to look at the evidence and the evidence is use of the DC from the LXX by the early christians signifing authority.

 

[BRIANH]

It seems you're working backwards a bit. Canonical is a later development in the church. Scriptures were self evident by NT use of them and at that time everyone knew (that could read) what everyone else was talking about. We can determine what they thought was authoritative and by the use of the LXX and the DC both in the NT and the ECF the use shows significance of the writings. The NT would be a lot more fluid because there were many writings but canonisity was not established until a couple of hundred years later. You find many ECF referring to the writings in the DC. Why, well, I believe its evidence as accepted scripture of the LXX.

I don't try to redefine history to match my theology. I try to look at the evidence and the evidence is use of the DC from the LXX by the early christians signifing authority.

We are running in circles...

Question when did the LXX contain the DC in your view?

Do you believe that the DC were in circulation as ONLY as a part of the LXX? Why? I am not trying to insult you by asking that question but some statements lead me to think you might actually believe that. I say actually because you would be the only person I know who has ever said that.

Something to add. I know you are aware but for any readers; the earliest versions of the LXX contain substantial textual differences AND different books.
In other words, the distinction LXX, while handy, must be followed with..which one?

 

[Matt Black]

The Jews, the Apostles, the early believers, as we do today, all believed that only the original manuscripts are inspired.

WEll, seeing as the original MSS are, by and large, lost, that's all of us stuffed then.

 

[Matt Black]

WM Christie

Never heard of him. Who he?

Raymond Brown--who has serious doubts about its historicity

I think the debate centres on whether or not there was actually a defined meeting at Jamnia or whether the term 'Jamnia' denotes a process (see below). I'm quite happy for our purposes to acccept the latter if that makes you happy, although it doesn't alter the conclusion for our purposes, as we shall see.

The late Fr Brown died in 1999. Since then, there has been further research by the likes of Justin Taylor and Etienne Nodet of the Ecole Biblique in Jerusalem to demonstrate that, whilst there might not have been an actual council that we can date, theer was nevertheless a clear process and movement of a Puritan nature within Judaism after the fall of the Second Temple which at least had the effect (if not the design) to put some clear blue water between Judaism and Christianity. The process went like this:-

1. The Jews who decamped from Jerusalem to Jamnia after 70AD questioned how God had allowed the Second Temple to fall.

2. They concluded that there was sin - leaven - in their midst and that that was the reason for the calamity.

3. Two specific instances of sin were identified:

a. The use of Greek - a goyim language - rather than Hebrew, including the use of Greek translations of the Jewish Scriptures such as the LXX.

b. The toleration of Christian sectaries - minim - within their ranks.

4. The result:-

a. A purging of the minim: the Jewish Christians were expelled from the synagogues (it is no coincidence that there is a ramping-up of anti-Jewish polemic in Christian literature of the time such as John's Gospel, Revelation and the Letter of Barnabas); at the instigation of Gamaliel II, there is the Birkat ha-Minim (the Curse on the Minim) included in the Prayer of the Eighteen Benedictions; rejection of the LXX and the DCs because these were used as Scripture by the minim.

b. A purging of Greek literature, including the LXX, and a reversion to Hebrew-only texts.

Whilst 4a took place in the 80s and 90sAD, 4b was a much longer process, only completed by about 200AD

I cannot remember what seminary you said you attended Matt but what did they say?

I haven't - I'm not ordained. I have however studied under a pupil of the aforementioned Messrs Nodet and Taylor

What books did you use and did they believe it occured?

See above

 

[Thinkingstuff]

We are running in circles...

Question when did the LXX contain the DC in your view?

Do you believe that the DC were in circulation as ONLY as a part of the LXX? Why? I am not trying to insult you by asking that question but some statements lead me to think you might actually believe that. I say actually because you would be the only person I know who has ever said that.

Something to add. I know you are aware but for any readers; the earliest versions of the LXX contain substantial textual differences AND different books.
In other words, the distinction LXX, while handy, must be followed with..which one?

The problem with the bolded statement is that you are viewing the LXX at the time of christ as a codex. It wasn't but there were books translated by the Alexandrian scholars from Jewish literature into Greek. These are, I believe due to NT use, authoritative. I believe that the DC books were translated in Alexandria before christ. The Codex wasn't established until the fourth century.
And you are hitting on the point I'm making. What did paul mean by all. To limit the books to the 39 is disingenuous by use of the DC in the NT. So again what did paul mean by all? Well how about all the translated literature with regards to scripture out of Alexandria. you're thinking of the Alexandrian texts as codex I am not. I am thinking all translated literature specified from Alexandria before the time of christ.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

Ask yourself this. How did the Church settle on the 27 books of the NT? Since that was in flux until the third century? By what authority? God? Through what agency? the christian church. the christian church shows evidence in the 27 and other literature use and reliance on also the DC. So why would you think the ECF would rely on a Jewish council after the founding of christianity to dictate their scriptures?

 

[DHK]

WEll, seeing as the original MSS are, by and large, lost, that's all of us stuffed then.

There is a difference between inspiration and preservation. Look at Scripture.

2 Peter 1:21 For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.

Although the word used is prof-ay-ti'-ah, and is normally translated prophecy, as it is here, it can be translated simply as "scripture."
Holy men of God spoke as they were moved by the Holy Ghost. The Scripture came through the prophets and the Apostles. It was the Holy Spirit that inspired them to write the very words of God. Thus only the original manuscripts are the inspired copies.

However God has promised to preserve His Word. Preservation and Inspiration are two different things. We have the preserved Word of God. It is preserved in the original languages. When a translation is made meaning is always lost in a translation. One can never have a translation that is one hundred percent accurate because of idioms and untranslatable phrases or even words. Thus it becomes necessary to go back to the original languages many times. It is the manuscripts in original languages that God has preserved for us today.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

here is a quote which also makes the same point that I was getting at.

Much of the debate today centers on whether Jesus accepted the Septuagint as scripture. In the Gospels Jesus never quotes the Septuagint directly. This does not condemn the Deuterocanonical books since there are many other Old Testament (OT) books Jesus did not quote either. No Christian Church accepts only those OT books quoted by Jesus. Old Testament books not quoted by Jesus are still considered scripture. So what did Jesus mean when he refers to scriptures? This seems to be the more compelling question because apparently there was no closed canon of scripture in Jesus' time.

Also keep in mind this quote:

In the first century the Christian Bible had simply been the Old Testament (read in the Septuagint version). Authority resided in this scripture and in the words of the Lord, which long circulated in oral tradition, as is apparent in the letter of Clement to the Corinthians." ("The Early Church" Henry Chadwick p 42)


The LXX version was also used by the authors of the New Testament. Most scholars date the New Testament books to various dates between 75 AD and about 150 AD depending on the book. The authors of scripture, writing in Greek, cite the Septuagint version Old Testament books since the Septuagint was in Greek.


As the Christian Church grew and started separating from Judaism, the Jews also began to codify a set of books that where inspired. (Either in response to Christianity or to divisions between the different Jewish schools.) In "The Early Church" Henry Chadwick points out that it was only after Christian appeals to the Septuagint became embarrassing that more literal (to the Hebrew) translations became favored by the Greek synagogue (p 12). Some rabbis even denounced the making of the Septuagint as a sin like the worship of the golden calf!


It was in these early years of Church formation that the two distinct Old Testaments were codified. The Jews did not have access to the entire LXX texts in original Hebrew; using this as a basis, they rejected the Deuterocanonical books as not being inspired.

A Flimsy basis if you ask me. And entirely not christian.

For many years throughout Christendom the bible, with the Septuagint, was used. Martin Luther's break from Catholicism and the development of the idea of "faith alone" as the basis for salvation gave the reformers a chance to question books in the bible that did not support this view. The reformers particulary attacked Hebrews, Revelation, and the Deuterocanonical books. Since the New Testament books had already been agreed upon at the council at Carthage in 395AD, the idea of removing Hebrews and Revelation from the bible was not widely embraced. The Deuterocanonicals, however, did not fare so well. Some reformation churches included them in scripture and others did not. Finally the Church was forced to formally recognized what books had been traditionally used

Which the evidence concludes.

 

[Matt Black]

I'm quite happy to call Jamnia-Yavneh a school rather than a council, if that helps.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

I'm quite happy to call Jamnia-Yavneh a school rather than a council, if that helps.

Sure. The point is the same. The 39 Books of the OT that we have is a Jewish convention after Jesus Christ death and resurection not before. The early church used and arguably treated the books that are DC as authoritative. It seems that you have to work hard at taking them out rather than at their inclusion.

 

[Matt Black]

' Zackly!:thumbs:

 

[Thinkingstuff]

Sure. The point is the same. The 39 Books of the OT that we have is a Jewish convention after Jesus Christ death and resurection not before. The early church used and arguably treated the books that are DC as authoritative. It seems that you have to work hard at taking them out rather than at their inclusion.

So it seems safer to theorize that there is an inclusion of the DC than not since, from a historical perspective exclusion of them from the canon of scripture is a modern phenominon rather than a historical one. So again what does Paul mean by all since the OT was not closed at the time of Christ or the apostle Paul's writing? How does that effect the Pseudographical books? I'm having a difficult time reconciling Modern christian view with the historical one.