Confused, did the early christians accept the non-canonized books?

[Matt Black]

The Jews never accepted the Apocrypha.
Neither did Jesus.
Neither did the Apostles.
Neither did the early Christians.

I'm intrigued as to how you purport to know this. Do you have a quote from the New Testament to support your contention?

 

[DHK]

I'm intrigued as to how you purport to know this. Do you have a quote from the New Testament to support your contention?

The Jews:
Isaiah 8:20 To the law and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them. (ca. 700 B.C.)

Nehemiah 8:8 So they read in the book in the law of God distinctly, and gave the sense, and caused them to understand the reading. (One of the last books to be written)

It is an established historical fact that no book of the Jewish canon was considered inspired or even considered for canonicity if it was written after 400 B.C. The entire Jewish canon was completed by 400 B.C., in not earlier. It was impossible for the Apocrypha written between 150 B.C. and 50 A.D. to be a part of the Old Testament Scriptures when the OT Scriptures had already been completed.

Jesus:
Jesus grew up as a Jews.
He did not break the law of God only condemned the tradition of the Pharisees. He came to fulfill the law, not break it. In the light of Isaiah 8:20 he could not have accepted uinspired books. He makes no reference to them. He never quotes them. He quotes many other OT books but never the Apocrypha. Remeber that some of them were written during and after his ministry. It is absurd logic to think that either the Apostles or Jesus could accept books as Scripture that were written after their lifetime.

Apostles.
2 Peter 3:2 That ye may be mindful of the words which were spoken before by the holy prophets, and of the commandment of us the apostles of the Lord and Saviour:
--Be mindful of whose words?
The words of the prophets of the Old Testament, and
The words of the Apostles of the New Testament.
These are the writers of the Bible. There are no others. Put Sirach in the trash can and forget about him; likewise Baruch. They are false prophets, as far as Scripture is concerned. The believers were to take heed only to the OT writers and to the writings of the Apostles of the NT. They knew which books were inspired. The Apostles told them.

Early Christians.
The early Christians were taught by the Apostles.
The above verse in 2Peter 3:2 is evidence enough.
DHK

 

[Matt Black]

Sorry, didn't quite catch that. None of the above quotes refer to any of the DC books. I was kind of looking for a quote from Jesus or one of the apostolic letters along the lines of "Oh, by the way, guys, don't touch II Macabees with a barge-pole; it's a bit dodgy theologically so give it a wide berth". None of the passages referred to by you says anything remotely like that, so I'm not sure what your evidence is...?

 

[tragic_pizza]

I'd be willing to think that Paul, being from Tarsus, might have been familiar with the Septuagint, and thus the DC books. The Eleven, though, were Palestinian Jews, and (at least I think) have retained the Hebrew Scriptures.

In any case, does not Jude quote the extracanonical Book of Enoch? Isn't there at least one other quote in the Pastoral Epistles from the DCs? I think so, but I cannot recall...

 

[DHK]

Sorry, didn't quite catch that. None of the above quotes refer to any of the DC books. I was kind of looking for a quote from Jesus or one of the apostolic letters along the lines of "Oh, by the way, guys, don't touch II Macabees with a barge-pole; it's a bit dodgy theologically so give it a wide berth". None of the passages referred to by you says anything remotely like that, so I'm not sure what your evidence is...?

That's like asking Shakespeare to quote from Winston Churchill. Your demands are absurd.
The OT canon was completed in 400 AD. The Apocrypha is considered to be an OT insertion, which it is not. That is why the Jews never accepted them That is why not only the Jews, but Jesus and the Apostles--all being Jews or formerly Jews would never accept them. They knew the truth concerning these spurious books.
Did you want Moses to quote from Malachi as well? At least Malach is inspired and part of the canon if Moses had that capability. But the Apocrypha wasn't finished until about 50 AD
DHK

 

[Jim1999]

What books did the early Christians have? How do we know what they accepted or rejected outright?

We know that the majority of New Testament references are to the Old Testament and not the New Testament.

Cheers,

Jim

 

[Taufgesinnter]

No, The Jews as a whole accept the MT of the OT as their canon of Scripture. I will assert that to my dying days. It is a true fact. The only "Jews" that may say otherwise would be liberals, the equivalent of the liberal faction of Christianity who deny the virgin birth of Christ and His deity. I am speaking of Jews, those who are the children of Israel and have not apostasized from being so.
DHK

The Jews today--in general--do accept the medieval MT of the Jamnian canon as their Scripture. Go ahead and assert that. It is a true fact, despite the amount of fiction you've otherwise posted. I don't think, though, that any reasonable and informed person would call Ethiopian Jews "liberals."

 

[Taufgesinnter]

If you were in my class...

The Jews:
Isaiah 8:20 To the law and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them. (ca. 700 B.C.)

Nehemiah 8:8 So they read in the book in the law of God distinctly, and gave the sense, and caused them to understand the reading. (One of the last books to be written)

It is an established historical fact that no book of the Jewish canon was considered inspired or even considered for canonicity if it was written after 400 B.C. The entire Jewish canon was completed by 400 B.C., in not earlier. It was impossible for the Apocrypha written between 150 B.C. and 50 A.D. to be a part of the Old Testament Scriptures when the OT Scriptures had already been completed.

Jesus:
Jesus grew up as a Jews.
He did not break the law of God only condemned the tradition of the Pharisees. He came to fulfill the law, not break it. In the light of Isaiah 8:20 he could not have accepted uinspired books. He makes no reference to them. He never quotes them. He quotes many other OT books but never the Apocrypha. Remeber that some of them were written during and after his ministry. It is absurd logic to think that either the Apostles or Jesus could accept books as Scripture that were written after their lifetime.

Apostles.
2 Peter 3:2 That ye may be mindful of the words which were spoken before by the holy prophets, and of the commandment of us the apostles of the Lord and Saviour:
--Be mindful of whose words?
The words of the prophets of the Old Testament, and
The words of the Apostles of the New Testament.
These are the writers of the Bible. There are no others. Put Sirach in the trash can and forget about him; likewise Baruch. They are false prophets, as far as Scripture is concerned. The believers were to take heed only to the OT writers and to the writings of the Apostles of the NT. They knew which books were inspired. The Apostles told them.

Early Christians.
The early Christians were taught by the Apostles.
The above verse in 2Peter 3:2 is evidence enough.
DHK

I rarely expose any of my personally identifying information on the Internet, but let me say at least this: I was trained as a professional historian, have completed all the course work for a Ph.D. in history, and have several years experience teaching college history. If you submitted the above as the answer to an essay question on this topic, your grade would not be very good, regardless of my own viewpoint being opposed to yours. Why? Never in an argument should one simply assert that something "is an established historical fact," but rather, should cite relevant scholarship and primary sources. The rest of the problem lies in blatant, repeated circular reasoning. You assume your "facts" a priori, without proof or with insubstantial proof. For example, you assume certain books are uninspired, then write that Jesus would not accept uninspired books. But you have not proven that the books in question are uninspired or that Jesus regarded them so. II Peter. 3:2 is no evidence whatsoever, since it does not identify the books that were written by the holy prophets. So far, throughout this entire thread, you have offered no "devastating" evidence or arguments to overturn the early Christians' reliance on the Deuterocanonical books, or on the Church's decisions to include them in the canon before the Masoretes even began to assemble their current text.

 

[Matt Black]

Thanks, Tauf. Exactly what I was trying to say, but put many times better.

 

[DHK]

I rarely expose any of my personally identifying information on the Internet, but let me say at least this: I was trained as a professional historian, have completed all the course work for a Ph.D. in history,.

Good for you. The please explain how books written between 150 B.C. and 50 A.D. can be considered Scripture by the Jews who:
1. would accept only books that were written before 400 B.C.
2. Their entire canon was complete by 400 B.C. and in fact translated into Greek by 250 B.C. at which time there was no Apocrypha. Only in later editions, after the time of Christ was the Apocrypha inserted in the LXX.
3. The Jews never accepted any book that was not written in Hebrew into their canon of Scripture. All of the apocryphal books were written in Greek.
There is no possible way that the Jews would have accepted these books into their canon.

If the Jews would not have accepted them, then neither would have Jesus being brought up in orthodox Jewish schools, such as the synagogues, and neither would have the Apostles having acquired the same education.
DHK

 

[Matt Black]

And your sources for these assertions are...?

 

[DHK]

You can do your own homework this time.
I have listed in previous posts every book of the apocrypha and the dates that they were written.
You can check the dates of the books of the 39 books of the OT and see what the time of their writing was. You won't find any later than 450 B.C.
Check history for the LXX. The approximate date that most scholars set for its translation is 250 B.C.

Do you also want me to cite the authorities who deny the supernatural in the Bible?
DHK

 

[tragic_pizza]

You can do your own homework this time.
I have listed in previous posts every book of the apocrypha and the dates that they were written.
You can check the dates of the books of the 39 books of the OT and see what the time of their writing was. You won't find any later than 450 B.C.
Check history for the LXX. The approximate date that most scholars set for its translation is 250 B.C.

Do you also want me to cite the authorities who deny the supernatural in the Bible?
DHK

But the LXX had the deuterocanonical books in it. The LXX was the OT source for the Latin translation of the Bible. The Masoretic text was the source for the OT translation for the German and later English translations, because Luther and Calvin (et al) supported the Masoretic over the LXX.

 

[DHK]

But the LXX had the deuterocanonical books in it. The LXX was the OT source for the Latin translation of the Bible. The Masoretic text was the source for the OT translation for the German and later English translations, because Luther and Calvin (et al) supported the Masoretic over the LXX.

This is a common mistaken belief among many. The original LXX did not have the apocrypha in it, nor could it have. That obviously would have been an impossibility since the oldest of the apocryphal books were written at least one hundred years after that, and others were still written another one hundred years after that. The apocryphal books were inserted in copies of the LXX sometime in the first century, not in any copy of the OT before Christ was born. They weren't even complete by that time.
DHK

 

[tragic_pizza]

This is a common mistaken belief among many. The original LXX did not have the apocrypha in it, nor could it have. That obviously would have been an impossibility since the oldest of the apocryphal books were written at least one hundred years after that, and others were still written another one hundred years after that. The apocryphal books were inserted in copies of the LXX sometime in the first century, not in any copy of the OT before Christ was born. They weren't even complete by that time.
DHK

What's your source for this?

Mine is scholarly writings, albiet from a theologically liberal standpoint.

 

[DHK]

But the LXX had the deuterocanonical books in it. The LXX was the OT source for the Latin translation of the Bible. The Masoretic text was the source for the OT translation for the German and later English translations, because Luther and Calvin (et al) supported the Masoretic over the LXX.

Any Bible that is going to have any authority at all will be translated from the original languages--Hebrew and Greek. The LXX is a translation. It is not inspired, it is only a translation, and a poor one at that. It is like any other translation in the world. When one goes from one language to another meaning is lost. State your reference why you believe that Jerome translated from the LXX and not the Hebrew. Jerome was against putting the Apocrypha into the Vulgate but was pressured to under the influence of the RCC. But that does't mean he translated from the LXX.

Your logic in stating that other Bibles came from the LXX is as good as saying that if I should want to go to a nation that still doesn't have a Bible, I should simply endeavour to take the KJV or even the Living Bible, and translate that into their native language. The KJV is only a translation. It is not perfect. One must translate from the originals into the native languages. There are still organizations around that do that worthy work. They don't translate from one translation to another; but from the original (i.e. Greek and Hebrew) to the native language. If any person translated from the LXX then the resulting translation would be a very poor one indeed because they started with a poor translation in the first place and not the original language.
DHK

 

[DHK]

What's your source for this?

Mine is scholarly writings, albiet from a theologically liberal standpoint.

That is the problem isn't it? The liberals deny the supernatural in the Bible.
They deny the miracles of Christ.
They deny the inspiration of the Bible.
They deny the fundamentals of the faith such as the deity of Christ.
They deny a literal creation.
When it comes to the Word they are in denial of many things.
DHK

 

[tragic_pizza]

Any Bible that is going to have any authority at all will be translated from the original languages--Hebrew and Greek. The LXX is a translation. It is not inspired, it is only a translation, and a poor one at that. It is like any other translation in the world. When one goes from one language to another meaning is lost. State your reference why you believe that Jerome translated from the LXX and not the Hebrew. Jerome was against putting the Apocrypha into the Vulgate but was pressured to under the influence of the RCC. But that does't mean he translated from the LXX.

Your logic in stating that other Bibles came from the LXX is as good as saying that if I should want to go to a nation that still doesn't have a Bible, I should simply endeavour to take the KJV or even the Living Bible, and translate that into their native language. The KJV is only a translation. It is not perfect. One must translate from the originals into the native languages. There are still organizations around that do that worthy work. They don't translate from one translation to another; but from the original (i.e. Greek and Hebrew) to the native language. If any person translated from the LXX then the resulting translation would be a very poor one indeed because they started with a poor translation in the first place and not the original language.
DHK

So you're saying "yes, the LXX contained the Deuterocanonicals, but..."

I didn't realize this was a conversation about anything other than whether the earliest Christians considered the Deuterocanonicals to be inspired. My answer, again, is that it would depend upon where those earliest Christians lived. Those that read and understood Hebrew? Perhaps not; Those that preferred Greek or who could not read Hebrew? Perhaps so.

Whether or not the Deuterocanonicals are inspired is another discussion entirely. I think not, others think so.

 

[tragic_pizza]

That is the problem isn't it? The liberals deny the supernatural in the Bible.
They deny the miracles of Christ.
They deny the inspiration of the Bible.
They deny the fundamentals of the faith such as the deity of Christ.
They deny a literal creation.
When it comes to the Word they are in denial of many things.

That's a lot like saying "all Frenchmen smell funny." Generalities are rarely true.

I know plentiful Liberals who do not deny the miracles of Christ, the inspiration of Scripture, the deity of Christ, or God as Creator.

Expand your vocabulary, my friend.

 

[DHK]

So you're saying "yes, the LXX contained the Deuterocanonicals, but..."

I didn't realize this was a conversation about anything other than whether the earliest Christians considered the Deuterocanonicals to be inspired. My answer, again, is that it would depend upon where those earliest Christians lived. Those that read and understood Hebrew? Perhaps not; Those that preferred Greek or who could not read Hebrew? Perhaps so.

Whether or not the Deuterocanonicals are inspired is another discussion entirely. I think not, others think so.

The topic of the thread is: "Did the early Christians accept non-canonized books?"
One of the requirements for a book to be included in the canon of Scripture was that it be inspired Scripture. Thus inspiration plays a very important role here. No Jew, Apostle, or early Christian would accept books of the quality and nature of the apocrypha as inspired. Their fairy-story nature, marked with heretical doctrine and fanciful and made up tales that could never be verified in history, would be anything but inspired. For example, it can be demonstrated through other sources that Daniel was in the lion's den. But to demonstrate that he was in the lion's den twice is another matter, and to verify that an obstinate prophet called Obadiah was carried through the air by an angel holding him by his hair in order to deliver Daniel's lunch to him is both impossible to verify and ludicrous to believe. It is a fairy tale and nothing more. It has nothing to do with Scripture. Not even the early Christians would accept such "trash" as inspired. The only books, out of all those 14 that had any value was I Maccabees. It has great historical value. But so does Josephus, and we don't count that as inspired either.
For a summary of the books and an approximate date of many of them look here:
http://scriptures.lds.org/bd/a/100