Christianity and how the bible was put together

[Thinkingstuff]

We recognize in our own Bibles that the inclusion of study notes and the like does not testify for their inclusion in the canon. We recognize that the existence of commentaries that quote Scripture and make comments does not mean that the comments are a part of Scripture. Yet some are hesitant to recognize that while the DC provide historical data, they are not a part of Scripture.

One of your arguments is that the DC are cited in the NT and that gives evidence of their canonicity. Yet poets and philosophers are also quoted, and I don't think you affirm the sources of those quotes as canonical. So it seems like you have a double standard. You can't argue that something is quoted and therefore the source is canonical for the DC and not argue it for other things.

That is not entirely true. Which is why I brought up Astronomers. Their usage in the text that quote them do not indicate that they are excluded. Quote Paul's use of philosophy in the NT and what can you determine from it. So there are two things you are looking at textual use and context on how it was used. We can determine that the NT writers used the DC what is their use in context? Does the context show a lack of authority?

 

[Pastor Larry]

I don't think that argument works. In the context, whatever is cited is cited for support of a poitn, whether it is a philosopher, a poet, or a DC author. That doesn't help.

 

[Agnus_Dei]

Yet some are hesitant to recognize that while the DC provide historical data, they are not a part of Scripture.

I believe historically we can state that the Apocrypha was included in English language Protestant Bibles in the 16th Century and evidence historically points to that the Apocrypha was widely read in Puritan circles. Only mid-17th Century do we start to see historically the Apocrypha being removed from the Protestant Bible.

In XC
-

 

[Thinkingstuff]

I don't think that argument works. In the context, whatever is cited is cited for support of a poitn, whether it is a philosopher, a poet, or a DC author. That doesn't help.

Well lets take a look at them. When I get the time I will and see what significant difference I can see.

 

[Pastor Larry]

I believe historically we can state that the Apocrypha was included in English language Protestant Bibles in the 16th Century and evidence historically points to that the Apocrypha was widely read in Puritan circles. Only mid-17th Century do we start to see historically the Apocrypha being removed from the Protestant Bible.

Yes, I think historically you can say that. You can also say that historically, tables of contents, concordances, etc. were found in Bibles. So what?

Furthermore, history and historical practices have been proven to be wrong on many accounts.

 

[Matt Black]

You said that the fact that God said he created the universe in six days does not compel you to believe that he created it in six days. Science aside (which is completely consistent with the biblical statements), it is a theological error on your part.

Being "literal" has nothing to do with it. I credit you with more intelligence than that.

Au contraire, being literal has everything to do with it, because it has to do with how and whether God said He created the universe in six days...

 

[Thinkingstuff]

Yes, I think historically you can say that. You can also say that historically, tables of contents, concordances, etc. were found in Bibles. So what?

Furthermore, history and historical practices have been proven to be wrong on many accounts.

They have also been right too? Doesn't really mean anything.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

In Athens ...[Paul] reasoned in the synagogue with the Jews and the God-fearing Greeks, ...A group of Epicurean and Stoic [Greek] philosophers began to dispute with him ... brought him to a meeting of the Areopagus where they said to him, "May we know what this new teaching is that you are presenting? You are bringing some strange ideas to our ears, and we want to know what they mean."(Acts 17:18-20)
..."Men of Athens! I see that in every way you are very religious. For as I walked around and looked carefully at your objects of worship, I even found an altar with this inscription: TO AN UNKNOWN GOD. Now what you worship as something unknown I am going to proclaim to you...From one man he made every nation of men, that they should inhabit the whole earth; and he determined the times set for them and the exact places where they should live. God did this so that men would seek him and perhaps reach out for him and find him, though he is not far from each one of us. (Acts 17:22-28)

You see how the usage of Greek philosophy is used differently here than what I quoted for Macc? This isn't idicating a referrence to a correctness or a current belief that these men held except that they were believing in something unknown. The context of Hebrews indicates and accepted belief. Usage is different.

 

[Pastor Larry]

Au contraire, being literal has everything to do with it, because it has to do with how and whether God said He created the universe in six days...

Let's not sidetrack this, but you should know that it is not about "literal" but about "normal." The normal interpretation is what we are looking for. How would the words normally be used? In the context, combined with Exodus 20:6, it is clear that God used six days to create the world.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

For there are many rebellious people, mere talkers and deceivers, especially those of the circumcision group. 11They must be silenced, because they are ruining whole households by teaching things they ought not to teach—and that for the sake of dishonest gain. 12Even one of their own prophets has said, "Cretans are always liars, evil brutes, lazy gluttons." 13This testimony is true. Therefore, rebuke them sharply, so that they will be sound in the faith

We see here that Paul is showing how the view of the Greek philosopher is correct on a specific group of Jews and their character. this has nothing to do with authority acceptance or scriptural truths. However lets look at the Hebrews text again.

Hebrews 11:35 Women received back their dead, raised to life again. Others were tortured and refused to be released, so that they might gain a better resurrection.

An already held belief of an event which occured and is a referrence to Macc. There is a scriptural truth referreced here about the ressurection. Usage in both cases are different in their respective context. So, what we can see how the resurection mentioned here (scriptural accepted beliefs and authoritative to the Jewish Christians) supports the view that LXX with the DC is authoritative lets look at the passage more closely

And what more shall I say? I do not have time to tell about Gideon, Barak, Samson, Jephthah, David, Samuel and the prophets, 33who through faith conquered kingdoms, administered justice, and gained what was promised; who shut the mouths of lions, 34quenched the fury of the flames, and escaped the edge of the sword; whose weakness was turned to strength; and who became powerful in battle and routed foreign armies. 35Women received back their dead, raised to life again. Others were tortured and refused to be released, so that they might gain a better resurrection. 36Some faced jeers and flogging, while still others were chained and put in prison. 37They were stoned[f]; they were sawed in two; they were put to death by the sword. They went about in sheepskins and goatskins, destitute, persecuted and mistreated— 38the world was not worthy of them. They wandered in deserts and mountains, and in caves and holes in the ground.

39These were all commended for their faith

Who are these women from Macc being compared with? Prophets. In relation to their faith. So this is a stronger indication than not that the DC with in the LXX was authoritative scripture than not to believe that. (the star is dimming and there is a wobble to show the gravitation pull of the DC as authoratative).

 

[BRIANH]

Sorry to jump in so late.
There is no proof the early LXX at the time of Christ contained the DC. We have no copies or any writers saying what they contained.
The earliest existing copies of the LXX contain different DC books. That is 300 years later to boot.
So...can anyone prove that the LXX of the time of Christ had the DC books or are you using the argument from silence.
IF you disagree, please state which of the earliest existing copies of the LXX, which differ in books, should I believe was the one used by Christ and why.
Thanks

 

[Thinkingstuff]

Sorry to jump in so late.
There is no proof the early LXX at the time of Christ contained the DC. We have no copies or any writers saying what they contained.
The earliest existing copies of the LXX contain different DC books. That is 300 years later to boot.
So...can anyone prove that the LXX of the time of Christ had the DC books or are you using the argument from silence.
IF you disagree, please state which of the earliest existing copies of the LXX, which differ in books, should I believe was the one used by Christ and why.
Thanks

Please note my previous statements of the inclusion of 2 Macc 7 in the Book of Hebrews.

also Note the quotes from Igantius (117 AD) reference to the books of Tobit and Judith.

 

[Matt Black]

Sorry to jump in so late.
There is no proof the early LXX at the time of Christ contained the DC. We have no copies or any writers saying what they contained.
The earliest existing copies of the LXX contain different DC books. That is 300 years later to boot.
So...can anyone prove that the LXX of the time of Christ had the DC books or are you using the argument from silence.
IF you disagree, please state which of the earliest existing copies of the LXX, which differ in books, should I believe was the one used by Christ and why.
Thanks

Hmmm...beware of conflating date of work with date of earliest extant MS; on that reckoning Caesar's Gallic Wars was written in c1100AD. A common mistake, but a mistake nevertheless

 

[BRIANH]

Matt and Thinkingstuff.

Thank you for your comments. Let's take it back a bit because your comments are in my view not really addressing my comments.
I have never read a book for personal benefit, seminary, anything that stated that the LXX was closed in 30 AD. It has always been described as in flux even at the time of the earliest manuscripts we do have.

Have you read someone who says the LXX was set?
Who?
What was their evidence?
Thank you

 

[Thinkingstuff]

Matt and Thinkingstuff.

Thank you for your comments. Let's take it back a bit because your comments are in my view not really addressing my comments.
I have never read a book for personal benefit, seminary, anything that stated that the LXX was closed in 30 AD. It has always been described as in flux even at the time of the earliest manuscripts we do have.

Have you read someone who says the LXX was set?
Who?
What was their evidence?
Thank you

No. What I am saying is that the use of the DC in the NT and in the writings of the ECF indicate the use of them as authoritative or at least acknowledge. Now the use of these books would indicate that these books were in common knowledge and applicable to the early churches understanding of scripture to include Jesus and the Apostles. In other words The books of the DC didn't just apear 300 years later after Christ but seemed to be considered with the other OT text translated from the Alexandrian LXX. That was my point. Which gives more creedance to the traditional churches argument of inclusion than against it.

 

[Matt Black]

Brian, for starters, Josephus (c70AD) refers to the DCs. Secondly, Jamnia explicitly rejected them (c90AD); they had to exist to be rejected! Thirdly. the ECFs, beginning with the likes of Clement of Rome (c85AD) quote extensively from them.

So they were definitely around in the 1st century AD

 

[Thinkingstuff]

Brian, for starters, Josephus (c70AD) refers to the DCs. Secondly, Jamnia explicitly rejected them (c90AD); they had to exist to be rejected! Thirdly. the ECFs, beginning with the likes of Clement of Rome (c85AD) quote extensively from them.

So they were definitely around in the 1st century AD

Yes I meant Clement Not Ignatius I think. I'll have to read their writing agian.

 

[Doubting Thomas]

Yes I meant Clement Not Ignatius I think. I'll have to read their writing agian.

Polycarp quotes the DCs as well....as does the Epistle of Barnabas (and if I'm not mistaken, so does the Didache)

 

[Thinkingstuff]

Here is a good question. Was their any christian literture that did not either referrence them or quote them?

 

[BRIANH]

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...