THE CANON OF SCRIPTURE

[tragic_pizza]

Originally posted by Jarthur001:
The OT is the same as the Jewish Bible. Link below

http://www.new-life.net/tanakh.htm

Not exactly. The Hebrew Bible, which took its final form following the Exile, is arranged differently.

Also, as stated earlier, the "apocrypha" or deuterocanonical books, were included in the first known translation of Scripture, when Hebrew scholars in Alexandria translated from Hebrew to Greek (the Septuagint, or LXX) sometime around 250 BC.

 

[Jarthur001]

Originally posted by tragic_pizza:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Jarthur001:
The OT is the same as the Jewish Bible. Link below

http://www.new-life.net/tanakh.htm

Not exactly. The Hebrew Bible, which took its final form following the Exile, is arranged differently.

Also, as stated earlier, the "apocrypha" or deuterocanonical books, were included in the first known translation of Scripture, when Hebrew scholars in Alexandria translated from Hebrew to Greek (the Septuagint, or LXX) sometime around 250 BC. </font>[/QUOTE]And as I stated before...this was part of the MSS, yet not part of the Bible.

 

[tragic_pizza]

Originally posted by Jarthur001:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by tragic_pizza:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Jarthur001:
The OT is the same as the Jewish Bible. Link below

http://www.new-life.net/tanakh.htm

Not exactly. The Hebrew Bible, which took its final form following the Exile, is arranged differently.

Also, as stated earlier, the "apocrypha" or deuterocanonical books, were included in the first known translation of Scripture, when Hebrew scholars in Alexandria translated from Hebrew to Greek (the Septuagint, or LXX) sometime around 250 BC. </font>[/QUOTE]And as I stated before...this was part of the MSS, yet not part of the Bible. </font>[/QUOTE]Ummmm... what?

The LXX was the Bible the writers of the New Testament used when quoting Scripture, so I'd have to disagree. To the New Testament church, the LXX was the Bible.

 

[Jarthur001]

The Apocypha Books Historical Testimony of Their Exclusion.

Philo, Alexandrian Jewish philosopher (20BC – 40AD) quoted the Old Testament prolifically and even recognized the threefold division, but he NEVER quoted from the Apocrypha as ((inspired)).

Josephus (AD 30-100), Jewish historian, explicitly excludes the Apocrypha, …


The Jewish scholars of Jamnia (AD 90) did not recognize the Apocrypha.

No canon or council of the Christian church of the first 4 centuries recognized the Apocrypha as inspired.

Many of the great fathers of the early church spoke out against the Apocrypha, for example, Origen, Cyril of Jerusalem, Athanasius.

As stated before..Jerome translator of the Vulgate, rejected the Apocrypha as part of the cannon. Yes the Apocrypha was placed in with the Vulgate, but it was Jerome that labled if "hidden" meaning closed to cannon.

A year later Coverdale's Bible was published with the Apocrypha placed between the two Testaments under this statement:

"Apocrypha, the books and treatises which among the fathers of old are not to be reckoned of like authority with other books of the Bible neither are they found in the canon of the Hebrew."

Many Roman Catholic scholars through the Reformation period rejected the Apocrypha.

Luther and the Reformers rejected the canonicity of the Apocrypha.

Not until Ad 1546, in a polemical action at the Counter Reformation Council of Trent, did the Apocryphal books receive full canonical status by the RCC.
***************************

It is here ...that the Roman Catholic Church finds Scriptural authority for the doctrine of Purgatory and for prayers and Masses for the dead
(II Macc. 12:43-45)

For... the efficacy of good works
(Tobit 12:9; Ecclesiasticus 8:33).

Westminster Confession of Faith says...

"The books commonly called Apocrypha, not being of divine inspiration are no part of the Canon of Scripture, and therefore are of no authority in the Church of God, nor to be otherwise approved, or made use of, than other human writings."

 

[Living_stone]

Westminster Confession of Faith says...

"The books commonly called Apocrypha, not being of divine inspiration are no part of the Canon of Scripture, and therefore are of no authority in the Church of God, nor to be otherwise approved, or made use of, than other human writings."

And did God give this an inerrant blessing?

 

[Jarthur001]

The WCF was posted at the end of a long list claiming the Apocrypha was never meant to be look at as inspired. I find it funny that this is the only group you reply to. This shows alot.

Being that as it may...let me address your statement.

According to church early history, according to church fathers, according to publishing notes placed in the Bible...the Apocryphic was NEVER part of the Canon. And this is where many of you are getting mixxed up. They WERE placed with the Canon, with the understanding they were NEVER to be looked at as having divine inspiration. YET..we see that many has not followed this warning giving by those they came before them. This was just one of the few down falls of the RCC, for false doctrine was built on books not in the Bible. If only they had listened.

Now let me ask you. Why did the RCC add this to the canon in the 1500s, when in the past these books were NEVER looked as inerrant? I think it had all to do with the reformers showing the false teaching of the church, so they had to make them canon to save face. The sad part, even after all these years, when information flows freely, and the church can no longer TELL the people what to think and MUST believe, and history can be found at the end of our fingers, though the net, and ANYONE can find the truth if they wish to know, there are some that will face the wrong doing by the RCC.

 

[Living_stone]

The crux of the issue to me: why do you accept Revelation, James, Hebrews and others which some doubted as canonical? Why don't you accept Hermas, Clement, Barnabas and others which some felt were canonical?

Some books received universal accord (though that doesn't necessarily mean "inspired"). Some were obviously false for they contradicted what the Church was teaching.

But some there was no clear agreement. Why do you accept some of those books and not others? How did God make his will known?

 

[Living_stone]

According to church early history, according to church fathers, according to publishing notes placed in the Bible...the Apocryphic was NEVER part of the Canon.

Um, no.

Irenaeus blatantly quoted sections of Daniel you don't have in your bible:

"Those, however, who are believed to be presbyters by many, but serve their own lusts, and, do not place the fear of God supreme in their hearts, but conduct themselves with contempt towards others, and are puffed up with the pride of holding the chief seat, and work evil deeds in secret, saying, 'No man sees us,' shall be convicted by the Word, who does not judge after outward appearance (secundum gloriam), nor looks upon the countenance, but the heart; and they shall hear those words, to be found in Daniel the prophet: 'O thou seed of Canaan, and not of Judah, beauty hath deceived thee, and lust perverted thy heart'[Daniel 13:56-Susanna]. Thou that art waxen old in wicked days, now thy sins which thou hast committed aforetime are come to light; for thou hast pronounced false judgments, and hast been accustomed to condemn the innocent, and to let the guilty go free, albeit the Lord saith, The innocent and the righteous shalt thou not slay' [Daniel 13:52-53-Susanna]. Of whom also did the Lord say: "But if the evil servant shall say in his heart, My lord delayeth his coming, and shall begin to smite the man-servants and maidens, and to eat and drink and be drunken; the lord of that servant shall come in a day that he looketh not for him, and in an hour that he is not aware of, and shall cut him asunder, and appoint him his portion with the unbelievers.' [Matt 24:48]." Against Heresies, IV:26:3 (A.D. 180).

A century before him, the Didache, a 1st century liturgical manuel, cites sirach:

"'Be just in your judgement' [Deut 1:16,17 Prov 31:9] make no distinction between man and man when correcting transgressions. Do not waver in your decision. 'Do not be one that opens his hands to receive, but shuts them when it comes to giving' [Sirach 4:31]." Didache, 4:3-5 (A.D. 90).

Even earlier, Clement, the Bishop of Rome, wrote:

By the word of His might He established all things, and by His word He can overthrow them. 'Who shall say unto Him, What hast thou done ? Or, who shall resist the power of His strength?' [Wisdom 12:12,ll:22]

, quoteing the Wisdom of Solomon.

And claiming that the Catholi Church "added" them in the 16th century jsut doesn't add up, for the Orthodox Church (which split from them in 1054) had these books well established in her canon too.

 

[Eliyahu]

Originally posted by gekko:

1. The First Book of Esdras
2. The Second Book of Esdras
[/QB]

Have you ever checked Esdras II ? It is intersting you list Esdras first, because I understand they condemn the Idolatry, Prayer to the Dead vehemently.
Roman Catholic is quite tricky because they don't include these Esdras in their canon while they include Maccabees I, II.
We need to study a little more about these Esdras.

 

[Eliyahu]

Originally posted by Jarthur001:


The Jewish scholars of Jamnia (AD 90) did not recognize the Apocrypha.
." [/QB]

Your listing is quite useful, thanks!
Do you have some more details on the Jamneah meeting?

 

[Eliyahu]

Originally posted by tragic_pizza:
The LXX was the Bible the writers of the New Testament used when quoting Scripture, so I'd have to disagree. To the New Testament church, the LXX was the Bible. [/QB]

Wrong!
Why LXX differs from NT in the most of the verses quoted in NT?

Check these verses for example:

1) Matt 1:23
2) Luke 4:19
3) Acts 8:32-33
4) Hebrews 10:5

All the time 1-3 words are different in each verse. If I check all the other verses, they will clearly show NT didn't quote LXX, which is misunderstood by many people.

 

[Jim1999]

Eliyahu,,,,Which translation of an English Bible?
They are just translations you know; the opinions of men in translation from.?????????

Cheers,

Jim