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

[DHK]

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.

The word liberal has more than one meaning depending on how it is used.
You were using it as an adjective, correctly, as in--your outlook is more liberal than mine--very conservative.
When used as a noun--A liberal is what I defined above: one who denies the fundamentals of the faith and tries to discredit the Bible and everything that is supernatural.
It was a play on words--no offence meant.
DHK

 

[Matt Black]

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

I'm after the authorities which state that Jesus and the Apostles didn't accept the DCs. Please stop dodging the question.

 

[Taufgesinnter]

Good for me

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

I haven't noticed a source say that any of them were written within the apostles' lifetimes, but I'll go so far as to say that books written between 150 and 50 B.C. would not have been accepted by any Jews who rejected books written after 400 B.C. (which may include some you consider canonical). The final Jewish canon was not settled until as late as A.D. 200. The Alexandrian canon was essentially identical to the Christian canon of the first millennium and a half. The Samaritan canon consisted of the Pentateuch and Joshua. The Ethiopian canon included the Book of Jubilees and Sirach. The Sadducees' canon consisted of the Pentateuch. The Essenes' canon differed from others somewhat. The Pharisees, the ultimate surviving Jewish sect after the unsuccessful revolts against Rome, decided on a canon identical to that of modern Protestants. The Jews were not a monolith. There were several competing canons for Jews before the destruction of the temple; the one that survived was that of the Pharisees. Some parts of the Pharisees' canon were not written in Hebrew, but Aramaic. And, no, not all of the deutercanonical books were written in Greek; some were translated into Greek--Tobit in Aramaic and Sirach in Hebrew were found among the Dead Sea Scrolls, for example.

 

[tragic_pizza]

For a summary of the books and an approximate date of many of them look here:
http://scriptures.lds.org/bd/a/100

Sorry, I won't read the link posted. I don't consider the opinion of Mormons to be in any way valid.

 

[Darron Steele]

Sorry, I won't read the link posted. I don't consider the opinion of Mormons to be in any way valid.

If you only read information from people with whom you agree, and only listen to people with whom you agree, you will probably not learn very much.

Further, you will risk mischaracterization. Too many Christians accuse other Christians of `believing this because they want this' when the real reason is something entirely different. I believe that the Lord will hold us accountable for judging others falsely when accurate information was easily available but we did not care enough to bother to research or ask.

As for the link, after the first paragraph, there was nothing distinctively pro-Mormon that I noticed.

 

[tragic_pizza]

If you only read information from people with whom you agree, and only listen to people with whom you agree, you will probably not learn very much.

I don't have that problem, thanks.

As for the link, after the first paragraph, there was nothing distinctively pro-Mormon that I noticed.

Yet there is also nothing to recommend the link as having any reliability at all.

I could put up a webpage claiming that aliens had landed in Nashville and established TBM and Liberty University. This would have as much reliability as an account of golden tablets and magic spectacles. Once someone makes such a claim, their further assertions are suspect.

 

[Eric B]

The Pharisees, the ultimate surviving Jewish sect after the unsuccessful revolts against Rome, decided on a canon identical to that of modern Protestants. The Jews were not a monolith. There were several competing canons for Jews before the destruction of the temple; the one that survived was that of the Pharisees.

And that's another strong support for that canon. Jesus said that the Pharisees sat in Moses' seat. They carried the official authority, as recognized by Jesus, (even though the Sadducees gained power sometimes). So even though they rejected Jesus, and thus spiritually they were evil, they still had the right knowlege on the matters of knowledge of the Law, so this whole Jamnia council argument that keeps getting thrown up doesn't prove that everything else they belived was automatically wrong.

 

[Taufgesinnter]

And that's another strong support for that canon. Jesus said that the Pharisees sat in Moses' seat. They carried the official authority, as recognized by Jesus, (even though the Sadducees gained power sometimes). So even though they rejected Jesus, and thus spiritually they were evil, they still had the right knowlege on the matters of knowledge of the Law, so this whole Jamnia council argument that keeps getting thrown up doesn't prove that everything else they belived was automatically wrong.

What spiritually evil people knew about the Law doesn't sway me very strongly. The Sadducees were the temple party. The Pharisees were the synagogue party, and their rabbis often sat in the chair in the synagogue called Moses' seat. They had authority over much of OT Jewry, to be sure. But I find decisive the determination of God's people, having the Holy Spirit; the decision of the Church of God, the pillar and foundation of the truth, which was promised by the Lord Jesus Christ to be guided into all truth by the Holy Spirit, to recognize the deuterocanonical books, is sufficient for me.

 

[DHK]

What spiritually evil people knew about the Law doesn't sway me very strongly. The Sadducees were the temple party. The Pharisees were the synagogue party, and their rabbis often sat in the chair in the synagogue called Moses' seat. They had authority over much of OT Jewry, to be sure. But I find decisive the determination of God's people, having the Holy Spirit; the decision of the Church of God, the pillar and foundation of the truth, which was promised by the Lord Jesus Christ to be guided into all truth by the Holy Spirit, to recognize the deuterocanonical books, is sufficient for me.

To call all the prophets of the OT, the authors of each and every book of the OT, and all the unnamed prophets of the OT as well as the many Godly indiviiduals of the Jewish nation, (i.e. God's Chosen People) to call them evil people and infer that they knew nothing about the law is as about as anti-Semitic as you can get. These were God's chosen people, and you dismiss them as wicked. You ought to be ashamed of yourself, and realize that such anti-semitism is not tolerated on this board.

The fact of the matter is that Catholics did not choose our Bible for us. That is a myth. The Jewish nation had a canon and knew what that canon was 400 years before Christ. In Acts 17:11 the people of Berea took that canon and searched it to see whether the things that Paul was saying were true. The Ethiopian eunuch was reading from the book of Isaiah from that canon. They had a completed canon of Scripture by 400 B.C. No other book was permitted into the canon beyond that date. Why are you calling these people evil? Why the anti-semitism?
DHK

 

[tragic_pizza]

While agreeing that antiSemitism is evil and unconscionable, I note, DHK, that the examples you cited were individuals and groups who would have been using the Greek translation of the Old Terstament... The LXX.

Just a thought.

 

[Eric B]

What spiritually evil people knew about the Law doesn't sway me very strongly. The Sadducees were the temple party. The Pharisees were the synagogue party, and their rabbis often sat in the chair in the synagogue called Moses' seat. They had authority over much of OT Jewry, to be sure. But I find decisive the determination of God's people, having the Holy Spirit; the decision of the Church of God, the pillar and foundation of the truth, which was promised by the Lord Jesus Christ to be guided into all truth by the Holy Spirit, to recognize the deuterocanonical books, is sufficient for me.

Well, it was Jesus who said they sat in Moses' seat depite their evil. They may have shortly been replaced as the Mosaic dispensation ended, but the Church did not sit in Moses' seat under that Old Covenant. The Church produced and compiled NT books for the New Covenant, but the OT canon was already established by God's OT authority, corrupt is it may have become by then.

 

[DHK]

While agreeing that antiSemitism is evil and unconscionable, I note, DHK, that the examples you cited were individuals and groups who would have been using the Greek translation of the Old Terstament... The LXX.

Just a thought.

The LXX was not doubt in use at that time for the Hellenized Greeks. That was the purpose for its translation--to make study easier. It would be akin to us using the NASB (or any other MV) rather than the KJV. In the Synagogue the Sacred Text would always be read out of the Hebrew (just as in most Baptist churches the KJV is still read). It is a poor illustration, I know. The difference is that the masoretic text of the Hebrew was a copy of the actual inspired transcript written in the language of the people who wrote it. It was far more accurate that a Greek translation. It was the original. All the nation of Israel had to know Hebrew. It was taught in their synagogues. They were even fluent in it. But for the Hellenized Greeks, it was no longer their mother tongue, and Greek was easier for them to understand, therefore Greek was more preferable. A French-Canadian would rather read from a French Bible though he is fluent in English. The same concept.

However,
The original LXX never contained the apocrypha. Date wise it was impossible for it was written well before the apocrypha was ever written--more than 150 years the earliest books were written, and more than 250 years the latter books were written. Therefore how could it have included the apocrypha. The apocrypha was included well after most of the NT books were written. Sometime in the latter part of the first century the apocrypha was inserted into one of the editions of the LXX.

As time went on there were many early translations: not just the LXX. Early translations included the Syriac, the Peshitta, the Itala. But like the LXX they were all translations. Every translation is inferior to the source (Hebrew and Greek) from which it is translated from.
DHK

 

[tragic_pizza]

However,
The original LXX never contained the apocrypha. Date wise it was impossible for it was written well before the apocrypha was ever written--more than 150 years the earliest books were written, and more than 250 years the latter books were written. Therefore how could it have included the apocrypha. The apocrypha was included well after most of the NT books were written. Sometime in the latter part of the first century the apocrypha was inserted into one of the editions of the LXX.

Cite your source. And not the Mormons this time.

 

[DHK]

Cite your source. And not the Mormons this time.

Here is some information to help you along:

This brief survey of the relationship of the Bible and the Church has covered much ground, and should now be summarized as succintly as possible.

We saw that the claims of Catholic apologists to the effect that Scripture cannot be the sole infallible rule of faith for the Church because the Church preceded the Scripture and had to infallibly define its canon are false for three reasons.

First, such claims are circular. They begin by asserting that nobody can know what the Scriptures are until the Church tells them, but then they proceed to "prove" the Church by a string of evidences that includes passages of the very Scriptures that are said to be in doubt outside of the "say-so" of the Church!

Second, these claims confuse two different senses of the word "Bible". The Church preceded the "Bible" where that term denotes the completed collection of canonical books (as in the leather-bound books we carry today), but the "Bible" preceded the Church where the term denotes the God-breathed revelation given through the apostles and prophets--some of which was initially oral and only later inscripturated, and some of which was written from the very start.

Third, such claims prove too much, for they amount to saying that nobody in the first four centuries of the Church knew with any certainty which of the many books in circulation were God's Word. We saw that such an idea is utterly false historically, for only six of the New Testament books we know today were ever disputed, and of these, not all were disputed at the same times or by all Christians. Additionally, the canonicity of the Apocryphal books was never universally accepted by all Christians, even after the supposedly "infallible" definitions of the canon given by the councils of Hippo (393) and Carthage (397).
http://www.gracesermons.com/hisbygrace/Homepage.html

If we were to take the principle that such apologists apply exclusively against Sola Scriptura and make it into a general principle, it would be this: infallible external confirmation is a prerequisite for any claim to "know for sure" that a chosen ultimate authority is the correct one. Very well. If this principle is true, we should rightly expect Catholics to jump at the chance to show us such an infallible external proof for their Church, especially if they are going to parade through the town square proclaiming that Sola Scriptura is invalid because it has no infallible external proof. It seems obvious that if the identity and supreme authority of Scripture must be "proven" by means of an infallible external authority, then so must the identity and supreme authority of "the Catholic Church".

Oddly, this challenge goes unanswered. Though Catholic apologists often like to point out that even heretics quote the Bible in support of their errors, I have yet to find even one Catholic apologist who honestly attempts to grapple with the fact that many heretics (both past and present) also claim to be "the Catholic Church". 6 With tongue in cheek, I must ask these apologists how they can "know for sure" that the particular organization they are defending is the real "Catholic Church". How do they "know for sure" that the Protestant Reformers--or for that matter, the Mormons or Jehovah's Witnesses--weren't right after all?

Never ones to follow the supposedly Mormon-esque "I know its true because I feel it in my heart" tactic they wrongly attribute to classical Protestants, these heroically "objective" warriors tell us they have an answer to our query. They ask us to wait patiently while they zealously weld into place beam after beam of historical data, following a blueprint only they can see. Soon, they point proudly to the veritable skyscraper they have built, and note with triumph that its shadow overwhelms the pitiful shack of Protestant "novelties" that were seemingly spun from whole cloth barely five centuries ago.
http://www.gracesermons.com/hisbygrace/Homepage.html

DHK

 

[CarpentersApprentice]

Every King James Version bible up to 1827 had the missing books.

This may have been true for the KJV, but it was not exactly true across the board.

The British and Foreign Bible Society (founded in 1804) included the LXX in it's editions printed for Lutherans, Greek Orthodox, and English (Anglican's); but did not include the LXX in editions going to Scotland.

This dual standard, however, had always been a point of contention for the Society and, as you point out (beginning in 1826 per the ref.), the Society no longer published the LXX in any of it's versions.

It is, nevertheless, interesting to note that the LXX did survive in much of the Protestant world until the early 1800's.

Reference: The Cambridge History of the Bible, Volume 3.

CA

 

[DHK]

Here is some information to help you along:

DHK

2. The Eastern Church:

Christianity itself has nothing corresponding to the idea of a doctrine for the initiated or a literature for a select few. The gospel was preached in its first days to the poor and ignorant, and the reading and studying of the sacred Scriptures have been urged by the churches (with some exceptions) upon the public at large.

(1) "Esoteric" Literature (Clement of Alexandria, etc.).

The rise of this conception in the eastern church is easily understood. When devotees of Greek philosophy accepted the Christian faith it was natural for them to look at the new religion through the medium of the old philosophy. Many of them read into the canonical writings mystic meanings, and embodied those meanings in special books, these last becoming esoteric literature in themselves: and as in the case of apocalyptic writings, this esoteric literature was more revered than the Bible itself. In a similar way there grew up among the Jews side by side with the written law an oral law containing the teaching of the rabbis and regarded as more sacred and authoritative than the writings they profess to expound. One may find some analogy in the fact that among many Christians the official literature of the denomination to which they belong has more commanding force than the Bible itself. This movement among Greek Christians was greatly aided by Gnostic sects and the esoteric literature to which they gave rise. These Gnostics had been themselves influenced deeply by Babylonian and Persian mysticism and the corresponding literature. Clement of Alexandria (died 220) distinctly mentions esoteric books belonging to the Zoroastrian (Mazdean) religion.

Oriental and especially Greek Christianity tended to give to philosophy the place which the New Testament and western Christianity assign the Old Testament. The preparation for the religion of Jesus was said to be in philosophy much more than in the religion of the Old Testament. It will be remembered that Marcian (died end of 2nd century AD), Thomas Morgan, the Welsh 18th-century deist (died 1743) and Friedrich Schleiermacher (died 1834) taught this very same thing.

Clement of Alexandria (see above) recognized 4 (2) Esdras (to be hereafter called the Apocalypse of Ezra), the Assumption of Moses, etc., as fully canonical. In addition to this he upheld the authority and value of esoterical books, Jewish, Christian, and even heathen. But he is of most importance for our present purpose because he is probably the earliest Greek writer to use the word apocrypha as the equivalent of esoterika, for he describes the esoteric books of Zoroastrianism as apocryphal.

But the idea of esoteric religious literature existed at an earlier time among the Jews, and was borrowed from them by Christians. It is clearly taught in the Apocalyptic Esdras (2 or 4 Esd) chapter 14, where it is said that Ezra aided by five amanuenses produced under Divine inspiration 94 sacred books, the writings of Moses and the prophets having been lost when Jerusalem and the temple were destroyed. Of this large number of sacred books 24 were to be published openly, for the unworthy as well as the worthy, these 24 books representing undoubtedly the books of the Hebrew Old Testament. The remaining 70 were to be kept for the exclusive use of the "wise among the people": i.e. they were of an esoteric character. Perhaps if the Greek original of this book had been preserved the word "apocrypha" would have been found as an epithetic attached to the 70 books. Our English versions are made from a Latin original (see 2(4) EZRA or the APOCALYPTIC ESDRAS. Modern scholars agree that in its present form this book arose in the reign of Domitian 81-96 AD. So that the conception of esoteric literature existed among the Jews in the 1st century of our era, and probably still earlier.

It is significant of the original character of the religion of Israel that no one has been able to point to a Hebrew word corresponding to esoteric (see below). When among the Jews there arose a literature of oral tradition it was natural to apply to this last the Greek notion of esoteric, especially as this class of literature was more highly esteemed in many Jewish circles than the Old Testament Scriptures themselves.

(2) Change to "Religious" Books (Origen, etc.).

The next step in the history of the word "apocrypha" is that by which it came to denote religious books inferior in authority and worth to the Scriptures of the Old Testament and New Testament. This change of attitude toward noncanonical writings took place under the influence of two principles: (1) that no writer could be inspired who lived subsequent to the apostolic age; (2) that no writing could be recognized as canonical unless it was accepted as such by the churches in general (in Latin the principle was--quod ubique, quod semper, quod ab omnibus). Now it was felt that many if not most of the religious writings which came in the end of the 2nd century to be called "apocryphal" in a disparaging sense had their origin among heretical sects like the Gnostics, and that they had never commanded the approval of the great bulk of the churches. Origen (died 253) held that we ought to discriminate between books called "apocryphal," some such having to be firmly rejected as teaching what is contrary to the Scriptures. More and more from the end of the 2nd century, the word "apocrypha" came to stand for what is spurious and untrustworthy, and especially for writings ascribed to authors who did not write them: i.e. the so-called "Pseudepigraphical books."

Irenaeus (died 202) in opposition to Clement of Alexandria denies that esoteric writings have any claims to credence or even respect, and he uses the Greek word for "apocryphal" to describe all Jewish and Christian canons. To him, as later to Jerome (died 420), "canonical" and "apocryphal" were antithetic terms.

Tertullian (died 230) took the same view: "apocryphal" to him denoted non-canonical. But both Irenaeus and Tertullian meant by apocrypha in particular the apocalyptic writings. During the Nicene period, and even earlier, sacred books were divided by Christian teachers into three classes: (1) books that could be read in church; (2) books that could be read privately, but not in public; (3) books that were not to be read at all. This classification is implied in the writings of Origen, Clement of Alexandria, Athanasius (died 373), and in the Muratorian Fragments (about 200 AD).

http://net.bible.org/dictionary.php?word=Apocrypha



The majority of the church fathers rejected them.
DHK

 

[Taufgesinnter]

This may have been true for the KJV, but it was not exactly true across the board.

The British and Foreign Bible Society (founded in 1804) included the LXX in it's editions printed for Lutherans, Greek Orthodox, and English (Anglican's); but did not include the LXX in editions going to Scotland.

This dual standard, however, had always been a point of contention for the Society and, as you point out (beginning in 1826 per the ref.), the Society no longer published the LXX in any of it's versions.

It is, nevertheless, interesting to note that the LXX did survive in much of the Protestant world until the early 1800's.

Reference: The Cambridge History of the Bible, Volume 3.

CA

'LXX' is not an abbreviation for the deuterocanonical books. 'LXX' is the abbreviation for the Greek OT used by Christ, the apostles, and the early Church. They are not synonymous.

 

[CarpentersApprentice]

'LXX' is not an abbreviation for the deuterocanonical books. 'LXX' is the abbreviation for the Greek OT used by Christ, the apostles, and the early Church. They are not synonymous.

You are, of course, correct. My short hand was a little too short. Thanks for catching that.

 

[Taufgesinnter]

You are, of course, correct. My short hand was a little too short. Thanks for catching that.

No problem!

 

[Eliyahu]

'LXX' is not an abbreviation for the deuterocanonical books. 'LXX' is the abbreviation for the Greek OT used by Christ, the apostles, and the early Church. They are not synonymous.

Wrong!

There is no proof that Jesus used LXX.
The quotations of OT used in NT are similar to LXX, but they contain different words all the time.



1) Matthew 1:23 quoted from Isaiah 7:14

Greek NT/ KJV

Ιδου, ηπαρθενοςενγαστριεξεικαιτεξεταιθιον, καικαλεσουσιτοονομααυτουΕμμανουηλ

Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel

LXX

His name shall be called

Masoretic Text ( Isaiah 7:14)
You (feminine You) shall call his name


All 3 are different, because they translated the meaning instead of word to word.

2) Luke 4:19 quoted from Isaiah 61:1

Greek NT
Κηρυξαι (Preach)

LXX

Καλεσαι(call )

Masoretic Text

קרא

KRA ( Proclaim)

Greek NT is nearer to Masoretic Text than to LXX

3) Acts 8:32-33 quoted from Isaiah 53:7-8

Greek NT
Καιωςαμνοςεναντιοντουκειραντοςαυτοναφωνοςουτωςουκανοιγειτοστομα….. αυτου

LXX

Καιωςαμνοςεμπρσθεντουκειραντος
αυτοναφωνοςουτωςουκανοιγειτοστομα (

Masoretic Text

He is brought as a lamb to the slaughter, and as a sheep before her shearer

LXX used the synonym, but different word.

4) Hebrews 10:5 quoted from Psalm 40:6


Greek NT

Ευδοκησας
(delight in, pleasure)

LXX

Εζητησας

(seek, pursue)

Masoretic Text

Chaphatsta

(pleased to do, delight in)

Masoretic Text is nearer to Greek NT than LXX is


The Dead Sea Scrolls and other documents suggest us that there might have been a certain Hebrew underlying texts before LXX, and NT may have quoted such Hebrew Vorlage Text, not the Greek LXX

The claim that NT quoted LXX is a non-sense created by the people who try to advocate the Apocrypha, prayer to the dead. It is a Hoax.