Something is Bothering me

[Thinkingstuff]

I agree, plus the beginning of the quote starts as:...."it follows that we do not possess myriads of inconsistent books, conflicting with each other. Our books..."


Another quote from Josephus:

"We have given practical proof of our reverence for our own Scriptures. For, although such long ages have now passed, no one has ventured either to add, or to remove, or to alter a syllable; and it is an instinct with every Jew, from the day of his birth, to regard them as decrees of God, to abide by them, and if need be, cheerfully die for them."

Again you are wrong here 22 books do not correlate perfectly to the 39 books of the bible OT we use. 24 books of the Tanakh do perfectly correlate. So Josephus considers even fewer books than the protestant OT. And note Jospehus was a Jew who allegance is clearly with the struggling people against christianity.

 

[Steven2006]

Lead by a pharisee who had to be taken out of a seiged city in a coffin!!! These people were still persecuting Christians. They even selected to erradicate as many messianic prophesies as they could changing scriptures to meet their need such as Isaiah mentioning a virgin birth rather than a birth by a young girl. And Jamnia didn't settle all the issues because they had to instill mishna and latter gamatra to ensure the partial books they chose were interpreted to reject christ you should see what Talmud says about our savior. All thanks to Jamnia. It doesn't change the fact of the early church use of apocryphal works as can be seen in cave writings from alexandria to Ethiopia, Rome to Istanbul.
Essenes show several other apocryphal works as well in their collection of "canon".

Your spinning off in another direction in order to distract from the issue. The question was whether or not the Jews had long settled on their OT, and the answer is yes, It had long been settled.

 

[annsni]

Actually, The Council of Laodicea, c. 360, produced a list of books similar to today's canon. This was one of the Church's earliest decisions on a canon.

By 'today's canon', I mean the longer Old Testament canon, 46 books, from the Greek Septuagint (LXX) translation of the Alexandrian Canon.

This is incorrect:

THESE are all the books of Old Testament appointed to be read: 1, Genesis of the world; 2, The Exodus from Egypt; 3, Leviticus; 4, Numbers; 5, Deuteronomy; 6, Joshua, the son of Nun; 7, Judges, Ruth; 8, Esther; 9, Of the Kings, First and Second; 10, Of the Kings, Third and Fourth; 11, Chronicles, First and Second; 12, Esdras, First and Second; 13, The Book of Psalms; 14, The Proverbs of Solomon; 15, Ecclesiastes; 16, The Song of Songs;17, Job; 18, The Twelve Prophets; 19, Isaiah; 20, Jeremiah, and Baruch, the Lamentations, and the Epistle; 21, Ezekiel; 22, Daniel.

And these are the books of the New Testament: Four Gospels, according to Matthew, Mark, Luke and John; The Acts of the Apostles; Seven Catholic Epistles, to wit, one of James, two of Peter, three of John, one of Jude; Fourteen Epistles of Paul, one to the Romans, two to the Corinthians, one to the Galatians, one to the Ephesians, one to the Philippians, one to the Colossians, two to the Thessalonians, one to the Hebrews, two to Timothy, one to Titus, and one to Philemon.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

Your spinning off in another direction in order to distract from the issue. The question was whether or not the Jews had long settled on their OT, and the answer is yes, It had long been settled.

Where? Show me you claim Jamnia which is speculative at best. When we see from Qumran that apocryphal works were included in their canon. We see Christian writers using other works. Show me one diffinative area that our 39 books of the OT was settled long before Jesus? The fact is you can't. Even your josephus quote reduces the number of OT books.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

This is incorrect:

THESE are all the books of Old Testament appointed to be read: 1, Genesis of the world; 2, The Exodus from Egypt; 3, Leviticus; 4, Numbers; 5, Deuteronomy; 6, Joshua, the son of Nun; 7, Judges, Ruth; 8, Esther; 9, Of the Kings, First and Second; 10, Of the Kings, Third and Fourth; 11, Chronicles, First and Second; 12, Esdras, First and Second; 13, The Book of Psalms; 14, The Proverbs of Solomon; 15, Ecclesiastes; 16, The Song of Songs;17, Job; 18, The Twelve Prophets; 19, Isaiah; 20, Jeremiah, and Baruch, the Lamentations, and the Epistle; 21, Ezekiel; 22, Daniel.

And these are the books of the New Testament: Four Gospels, according to Matthew, Mark, Luke and John; The Acts of the Apostles; Seven Catholic Epistles, to wit, one of James, two of Peter, three of John, one of Jude; Fourteen Epistles of Paul, one to the Romans, two to the Corinthians, one to the Galatians, one to the Ephesians, one to the Philippians, one to the Colossians, two to the Thessalonians, one to the Hebrews, two to Timothy, one to Titus, and one to Philemon.

Note the bold. Apocryphal books.

 

[Jerome]

What? I thought that:

Never was the apocryphal books considered canon. Ever.

 

[lori4dogs]

This is incorrect:

THESE are all the books of Old Testament appointed to be read: 1, Genesis of the world; 2, The Exodus from Egypt; 3, Leviticus; 4, Numbers; 5, Deuteronomy; 6, Joshua, the son of Nun; 7, Judges, Ruth; 8, Esther; 9, Of the Kings, First and Second; 10, Of the Kings, Third and Fourth; 11, Chronicles, First and Second; 12, Esdras, First and Second; 13, The Book of Psalms; 14, The Proverbs of Solomon; 15, Ecclesiastes; 16, The Song of Songs;17, Job; 18, The Twelve Prophets; 19, Isaiah; 20, Jeremiah, and Baruch, the Lamentations, and the Epistle; 21, Ezekiel; 22, Daniel.

And these are the books of the New Testament: Four Gospels, according to Matthew, Mark, Luke and John; The Acts of the Apostles; Seven Catholic Epistles, to wit, one of James, two of Peter, three of John, one of Jude; Fourteen Epistles of Paul, one to the Romans, two to the Corinthians, one to the Galatians, one to the Ephesians, one to the Philippians, one to the Colossians, two to the Thessalonians, one to the Hebrews, two to Timothy, one to Titus, and one to Philemon.

Ann, I believe A local council of the church, the Council of Laodicea, in union with Rome produced a list of books of the Bible similar to the Council of Trent's canon. As I said, it was one of the Church's earliest decisions on a canon.

And then you have, Council of Rome (382)
A local church council under the authority of Pope Damasus, (366-384) gave a complete list of canonical books of the OT and NT which is identical with the list later approved by the Council of Trent.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

What? I thought that:

Yes exactly my point. Annsi was wrong. Not that Annsi is without good intentions. Its just that on that point Annsi was wrong.

 

[webdog]

Note the bold. Apocryphal books.

Wrong, Esdras first and second was Ezra and Nehemiah...and Baruch was in the title of Jeremiah. Those three correspond to Ezra, Nehemiah and Jeremiah.

 

[webdog]

What? I thought that:

You thought right.

 

[Steven2006]

"And he said unto them, These [are] the words which I spake unto you, while I was yet with you, that all things must be fulfilled, which were written in the law of Moses, and [in] the prophets, and [in] the psalms, concerning me." Luke 24:44

The five books of Moses

The thirteen books of the prophets: Joshua, Judges/Ruth, Samuel (1 & 2), Kings (1 &2), Chronicles (1&2), Ezra/Nehemiah, Esther, Isaiah, Jeremiah/Lamentations, Ezekiel, Daniel, the Twelve Minor Prophets, and Song of Solomon.

Four books of hymns/psalms: Psalms, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, and Job

Total 22

 

[lori4dogs]

Wrong, Esdras first and second was Ezra and Nehemiah...and Baruch was in the title of Jeremiah. Those three correspond to Ezra, Nehemiah and Jeremiah.

Baruch that was accepted by this council was not the Book of Baruch in the LXX? I thought Baruch was the disciple of Jeremiah and the author of the book that bears his name.

 

[Jerome]

Oh no, they weren't referring to the Book of Baruch in the list of books. When they wrote "Jeremiah, and Baruch" what they really meant was "Jeremiah." Yeah, that's the ticket:thumbs:

Jeremiah, and Baruch, the Lamentations, and the Epistle

Now the Epistle of Jeremiah on the other hand...what's that?

 

[lori4dogs]

Oh no, they weren't referring to the Book of Baruch in the list of books. When they wrote "Jeremiah, and Baruch" what they really meant was "Jeremiah." Yeah, that's the ticket:thumbs:

Now the Epistle of Jeremiah on the other hand...what's that?

That's it! :laugh:

In the Roman Church canon the Epistle of Jeremiah actually became the sixth chapter of Baruch. In the Orthodox Catholic Church it follows Lamentations on it's own.

 

[webdog]

Oh no, they weren't referring to the Book of Baruch in the list of books. When they wrote "Jeremiah, and Baruch" what they really meant was "Jeremiah." Yeah, that's the ticket:thumbs:

Now the Epistle of Jeremiah on the other hand...what's that?

I'm glad to see you accept the truth now.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

Wrong, Esdras first and second was Ezra and Nehemiah...and Baruch was in the title of Jeremiah. Those three correspond to Ezra, Nehemiah and Jeremiah.

You are again wrong. Ezra is inclusive of Nehemiah in the Tanakh. Esdras 1 &2 are apocryphal books by that name Baruch is not Jeremiah because the Tanakh clearly has Jeremiah. Jeremiah has always been known as Jeremiah or in Hebrew Yir'mi'yahu which is nothing like Baruch. Even the LXX distinguishes between the two. The Letter of Jeremiah is also an apocryphal work.

 

[lori4dogs]

You are again wrong. Ezra is inclusive of Nehemiah in the Tanakh. Esdras 1 &2 are apocryphal books by that name Baruch is not Jeremiah because the Tanakh clearly has Jeremiah. Jeremiah has always been known as Jeremiah or in Hebrew Yir'mi'yahu which is nothing like Baruch. Even the LXX distinguishes between the two. The Letter of Jeremiah is also an apocryphal work.

Surely there is proof to the contrary! Anyone?

 

[webdog]

Surely there is proof to the contrary! Anyone?

It can be found simply by going to wikipedia or googling Esdras and Baruch. Esdras (not greek esdras) means Ezra which was originally 2 books (our Ezra and Nehemiah). Josephus knew this.

 

[lori4dogs]

Here is what wikipedia says about Baruch:

"The Book of Baruch, occasionally referred to as 1 Baruch, is called a deuterocanonical book of the Bible. Although not in the Hebrew Bible, it is found in the Septuagint and in the Vulgate Bible, and also in Theodotion's version.[1] There it is found among the prophetical books which also include Isaiah, Jeremiah, Lamentations, Ezekiel, Daniel, and the twelve minor prophets. It is named after Baruch ben Neriah, Jeremiah's scribe."

It doesn't sound like Baruch was Jeremiah. What am I missing?

 

[webdog]

Here is what wikipedia says about Baruch:

"The Book of Baruch, occasionally referred to as 1 Baruch, is called a deuterocanonical book of the Bible. Although not in the Hebrew Bible, it is found in the Septuagint and in the Vulgate Bible, and also in Theodotion's version.[1] There it is found among the prophetical books which also include Isaiah, Jeremiah, Lamentations, Ezekiel, Daniel, and the twelve minor prophets. It is named after Baruch ben Neriah, Jeremiah's scribe."

It doesn't sound like Baruch was Jeremiah. What am I missing?

Greek Baruch was dated by many scholars in the first century. It is clear Baruch penned the book of Jeremiah with the latter 300 - 400 BC.

http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/view.jsp?artid=225&letter=J