"The doctrine by which the church stands or falls."

[Agnus_Dei]

The Evangelical side of this issue sounds awful fishy to me.

First the post-Resurrection Jews waited until some 60 years after Jesus’ Resurrection to finally address this Greek Septuagint w/ Apocrypha issue. Why didn’t the Jewish authorities nip this in the bud before? Why wait until Jews were converting to Christianity?

Second, the early Reformation era didn’t seem to have much of a problem with the Greek Septuagint either, since many of the early translations of the Bible by the Reformers contained the Apocrypha. So apparently the Apocrypha in the Greek Septuagint was quite common in the Church. If this were an issue in the early Church, the Ecumenical Councils would have said so, but instead these ‘disputed’ books were confirmed.

The Apocrypha wasn’t an issue for the early Christians, only the post-Resurrection Jews. The Apocrypha wasn’t an issue in the Church, not even the Early Reformers had much of a problem at first, since the Apocrypha appears in many early Bible translations of the Reformers.

So what was it about the Apocrypha that scared the post-Resurrection Jews and the Reformers?

ICXC NIKA
-

 

[Matt Black]

Matt,

What I point out is this. At each time there was the perfect Bible for that era.
Before Cross, OT was the perfect Bible. During the apostles time, still OT was the perfect Bible. After the completion of the Bible NT, OT+NT was the perfect Bible before the Roman religion was established.

Sounds like dispensationalism to me - to which I don't subscribe. If the OT was the 'perfect Bible', why then did Jesus need to come and demonstrate that it wasn't?

 

[Matt Black]

You can spin quite a yarn when you want to.

Again, I would ask you not to make accusations of dishonesty against me.

Actually it is your take on Christian history and Jewish history that has run afoul. The destruction of the Temple in 70 AD was a destruction that indeed was a judgement of God upon the Jews, and foretold in the Bible. The Jews knew that it was coming, albeit not the exact time. They had rejected their Messiah. Judgement was coming. They had been warned about this many times.

Oh, yes, I agree from our perspective as Christians. But that's the point - they weren't Christians, and in order to understand their actions, you have to get inside their mindset - which I have done. And, btw, this is not my 'take' on history but that of Biblical scholars.

During the early centuries of Christianity the Jews were one of the groups that persecuted Christians most, as is seen in Saul before he became Paul. Any Jew who converted to Christianity disgraced his family and was consequently persecuted by them. What therefore would the Jews have in common with the Christians--NOTHING!!

Au contraire; whilst some Jews (eg: Herod Agrippa I) persecuted the Christians prior to 70AD, others tolerated them (eg: Herod Agrippa II) and even allowed them to worship in their synagogues with them.

They don't cooperate with each other. There Scriptures were kept apart from each other. The Jews always held to the Masoretic Text and always rejected the Apocrypha.

Not until Jamnia, they didn't and, as I have already stated, the MT did not exist until the 7th century AD at the earliest.

The always rejected the various "Catholic Councils," of whom they despised. They had no reason to be part of these "heretical sects."

Yes, after Jamnia.

I believe it is not too far fetched to compare it to today's Muslim who will adamantly declare that the official Scriptures of Islam are in Arabic, and every faithful Muslim will do his best to learn the Arabic language that he may read the Koran in the original. Every copy of the Koran that is printed is never printed without the Arabic even if it is in English, Spanish or whatever. The Arabic is always there beside it. And Muslims are urged to learn it. They are required to confess "Kalmah" the confession that Allah is great and that Mohammed is the only prophet, in Arabic, when they become a Muslim. They teach it in "their" schools.

And every Jewish child learned Hebrew growing up in the schools of the synagogues.

A better comparison would be the pre-Vatican II Catholic attitude towards Latin, both in liturgy and in their Scriptures; although the Scriptures in other languages (eg: the Douai-Rheims English translation) were used and regarded as inspired, a higher reverence was given to the Vulgate. In much the same way, some Protestants give a higher reverence to the KJV. But that doesn't mean the Jews were the equivalent of KJVOists today...

IF the Apocrypha was a problem for the early Christians, then you would have expected the NT writers to warn them off it. But no: you don't get eg: Paul warning Timothy not to allow the LXX to be read in his congregations.

 

[Eliyahu]

Sounds like dispensationalism to me - to which I don't subscribe. If the OT was the 'perfect Bible', why then did Jesus need to come and demonstrate that it wasn't?

OT teaches the coming of Jesus and death of Jesus and His resurrection. You misunderstand quite a lot.

Even during OT, the whole OT was not written in one day. At the time of Moses, only Torah was complete. This is not the matter of Dispensationalism. One thing very clear is that the Bible has been the only criteria which all the human beings could refer to as the basis of all the teachings.

 

[Agnus_Dei]

IF the Apocrypha was a problem for the early Christians, then you would have expected the NT writers to warn them off it. But no: you don't get eg: Paul warning Timothy not to allow the LXX to be read in his congregations.

Good point Matt!!!

The Apocrypha wasn't an issue to the early Christians, b/c that's what they were brought up in. The Apocrypha was only an issue to the post-Resurrection Jewish authorities.

ICXC NIKA
-

 

[Eliyahu]

The Evangelical side of this issue sounds awful fishy to me.

First the post-Resurrection Jews waited until some 60 years after Jesus’ Resurrection to finally address this Greek Septuagint w/ Apocrypha issue. Why didn’t the Jewish authorities nip this in the bud before? Why wait until Jews were converting to Christianity?

Second, the early Reformation era didn’t seem to have much of a problem with the Greek Septuagint either, since many of the early translations of the Bible by the Reformers contained the Apocrypha. So apparently the Apocrypha in the Greek Septuagint was quite common in the Church. If this were an issue in the early Church, the Ecumenical Councils would have said so, but instead these ‘disputed’ books were confirmed.

The Apocrypha wasn’t an issue for the early Christians, only the post-Resurrection Jews. The Apocrypha wasn’t an issue in the Church, not even the Early Reformers had much of a problem at first, since the Apocrypha appears in many early Bible translations of the Reformers.

So what was it about the Apocrypha that scared the post-Resurrection Jews and the Reformers?

ICXC NIKA
-

We must realize that the Reformers had a long way to go departing from Catholicism, and they learned quite a lot from Waldensians and other believers outside RCC. Had Apocrypha not been contradicting the Bible scriptures, why would they have eventually deleted them from the Bible?

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Matt Black: But no: you don't get eg: Paul warning Timothy not to allow the LXX to be read in his congregations.

HP: Careful with the logic Matt. You are arguing from that no-no….i,e., silence.
Neither do you find warnings not to read from numerous false gospels that did indeed abound either.

I am not arguing one way or another. I am just trying to point out the trail of logic you are leading us down is not a proper one as I understand your argumenl.

We might need the logicical input of some of those more versed in logic that myself:thumbs:

 

[Eliyahu]

Originally Posted by Matt Black
IF the Apocrypha was a problem for the early Christians, then you would have expected the NT writers to warn them off it. But no: you don't get eg: Paul warning Timothy not to allow the LXX to be read in his congregations.
Good point Matt!!!

The Apocrypha wasn't an issue to the early Christians, b/c that's what they were brought up in. The Apocrypha was only an issue to the post-Resurrection Jewish authorities.

ICXC NIKA

At the time of Paul, there was no pagan believers who tried to bring the prayer to the dead leaning on the LXX, because LXX was virtually promoted since Origen and Eusebius etc. hundreds of years later. The original LXX was just for the Jews in Egypt, only for the Pentateuch. Nobody knows when the rest of the OT was translated. The story of Aristea was a hoax evidently which was fabricated hundreds of years after the Early Church, and therefore there is no mentioning about LXX in NT.

 

[Doubting Thomas]

HP: Careful with the logic Matt. You are arguing from that no-no….i,e., silence.
Neither do you find warnings not to read from numerous false gospels that did indeed abound either.

(Forgive me for jumping in)
I guess the difference is that the LXX Deuterocanonical books (ie "the extra ones") were already in existence, while the false, spurious "gospels" (based on consensus of scholarly dating) weren't yet written when Paul wrote his letter to Timothy

 

[Agnus_Dei]

Careful with the logic Matt. You are arguing from that no-no….i,e., silence.

Not so fast HP. We know the Septuagint w/ Apocrypha was widely used in the early Church for the Council of Jamnia confirms the fact. The Council of Jamnia conveyed in 60AD. If the Apostles likewise saw an issue, they would have written against it. If by chance the Apostles overlooked this issue, or there was no issue whatsoever, the Apostolic Church fathers would’ve written against it. Instead we see the Ecumenical councils reaffirming the Apocrypha books of the OT.

ICXC NIKA
-

 

[Doubting Thomas]

At the time of Paul, there was no pagan believers who tried to bring the prayer to the dead leaning on the LXX, because LXX was virtually promoted since Origen and Eusebius etc. hundreds of years later. The original LXX was just for the Jews in Egypt, only for the Pentateuch. Nobody knows when the rest of the OT was translated. The story of Aristea was a hoax evidently which was fabricated hundreds of years after the Early Church, and therefore there is no mentioning about LXX in NT.

Actually early Church fathers well before Origen were quoting the Deuterocanonicals as Scripture without distinction.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Doubting Thomas: I guess the difference is that the LXX Deuterocanonical books (ie "the extra ones") were already in existence, while the false, spurious "gospels" (based on consensus of scholarly dating) weren't yet written when Paul wrote his letter to Timothy

HP: Who said that they were? :laugh: Just kidding. (I edited out my comments as to the false gospels. )

You may indeed be correct and I may indeed stand to be corrected in that.

OK. It is still arguing from silence, is it not?

 

[Doubting Thomas]

Now that this thread has morphed into a debate regarding the LXX, I'll add one more comment before the thread is (inevitably) locked:

The same council of Jamnia that opposed the LXX Deuterocanonicals also rejected the NT writings. (Just something to think about)

 

[Eliyahu]

Actually early Church fathers well before Origen were quoting the Deuterocanonicals as Scripture without distinction.

You should have paraphrased as this:

RCC fabricated the writings of the ECF's as if they well before Origen had been quoting the Deutrocanonicals as Scripture without distinction.

Also, the term ECF has its own meaning in RCC. They may include Augustine, but would exclude Donatus, Fabian, Novatian, Nestorius. for their convenience.

The fact that Jamnea Council rejected Apocrypha didn't come from themselves. Even the writings of Josephus support it. We know that both Jamnea Council ( around 90 AD) and Josephus were not Christian but rejected the Gospel, which is very much wicked. But as we often quote the records of RCC for their own contradiction, we can still see the overall recognition on the Bible. Would they have accepted Apocrypha if they had accepted Jesus as their Messiah? Did they reject Apocrypha because they rejected Jesus? NOPE !!!
We must realize that Jamnea Council and Josephus just confirmed what was believed already before their writings.

The dead sea scrolls show that the people quoted only the Bible, no Apocrypha, except Jubillee a little. Apparently the Bible canon coincides with DSS as well.

 

[Doubting Thomas]

You should have paraphrased as this:

RCC fabricated the writings of the ECF's as if they well before Origen had been quoting the Deutrocanonicals as Scripture without distinction.

Yikes!


(Now that I've recovered from that shocking revelation, your proof for that outlandish assertion is what exactly?) :tonofbricks:

 

[Eliyahu]

Yikes!


(Now that I've recovered from that shocking revelation, your proof for that outlandish assertion is what exactly?) :tonofbricks:

No one can prove or disprove any assertion without the Bible.

This is why the Bible is the only, sole criteria, Sola Scriptura :thumbs:

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Eliyahu? No one can prove or disprove any assertion without the Bible.

This is why the Bible is the only, sole criteria, Sola Scriptura

HP: What? I assert that the world is round. Prove it from Scripture. Does not Scripture speak of the four corners of the world? Prove that it is not square Sola Scriptura. :smilewinkgrin:

 

[Doubting Thomas]

HP: What? I assert that the world is round. Prove it from Scripture. Does not Scripture speak of the four corners of the world? Prove that it is not square Sola Scriptura. :smilewinkgrin:

Nice! :thumbs:

 

[Eliyahu]

HP: What? I assert that the world is round. Prove it from Scripture. Does not Scripture speak of the four corners of the world? Prove that it is not square Sola Scriptura. :smilewinkgrin:

Did you see the arguments that the NT quoted the LXX is absolutely wrong?

If anyone claim that NT quoted the Septuagint, then bring any verses which proves it, I can compare them.

You will see so many verses are different between NT Bible Scripture and LXX.

However, if anyone claim about the writings of ECF's, let say Polycarp ate the meals 4 times a day, nobody can disprove or prove it. We can prove or disprove anything in the light of the Bible Scriptures, that is why I believe Sola Scriptura is correct ! Absolutley !

If you don't believe in Sola Scriptura, you have a serious problem in your faith as the case with Sola Fide.

You must have known that I was talking about the Truth of Salvation, not the science and the Bible is not the Book of Science though it doesn't contradict the Bible at all.

 

[Eliyahu]

I can prove the Earth is the round globe, from the Bible too.

Read Job 26:7, and Luke 17:34-36 tells us the 3 times, night time, morning time ( Jews ground the corns in the morning) and daytime ( working in the field), but it was the same time, which cannot be understood without the presupposition of the round globe.

So, did I prove the Earth is a round globe?