Early Christian writings along with the NT...

[Andrew]

...seem to point to the Septuagint as a more accurate and proper vorlage of an earlier original Hebrew text in opposition to the common Masoretic Hebrew text used today in most modern bibles..

Knowing that the council of Jamnia in 90 AD was the first ever assembly and establishment in regards to Hebrew canon (for unknown reasons by unbelieving Jewish high priests) leads me to believe without a doubt that God intended a translation for the gentiles and Jews of that era, meaning that the "canon" was settled by God through the Septuagint and every book it included -as inspired and not to be neglected.

How does one counter these facts to the contrary?

Why do protestants follow the tradition of the RCC with Jerome's advice from the unbelieving Jews he studied under -that certain books in the Septuagint were neither of any importance nor were they translated correctly..?

 

[JRT]

John Dominic Crossan has provided a detailed classification of our sources for the historical Jesus according to the chronological stratification of the traditions. For a brief discussion of each source, including the reasons for its proposed dating, see John Dominic Crossan, The Historical Jesus (HarperCollins, 1991) Appendix 1, pp. 427-50. All dates shown are C.E. (Common Era).


First Stratum [30 to 60 C.E.]
1. First Letter of Paul to the Thessalonians (late 40s)
2. Letter of Paul to the Galatians (winter of 52/53)
3. First Letter of Paul to the Corinthians (winter of 53/54.)
4. Letter of Paul to the Romans (winter of 55/56)
5. Gospel of Thomas I (earliest layer of Thomas, composed in 50s)
6. Egerton Gospel (50s)
7. Papyrus Vienna G. 2325 (50s)
8. Papyrus Oxyrhynchus 1224 (50s)
9. Gospel of the Hebrews (Egypt, 50s)
10. Sayings Gospel Q (50s)
11. Miracles Collection (50s)
12. Apocalyptic Scenario (50s)
13. Cross Gospel (50s)

Second Stratum [60 to 80 C.E.]
14. Gospel of the Egyptians (60s)
15. Secret Gospel of Mark (early 70s)
16. Gospel of Mark (late 70s)
17. P. Oxyrhynchus 840 (?80s)
18. Gospel of Thomas II (later layers, 70s)
19. Dialogue Collection (70s)
20. Signs Gospel, or Book of Signs (70s)
21. Letter to the Colossians (70s)

Third Stratum [80 to 120 C.E.]
22. Gospel of Matthew (90)
23. Gospel of Luke (90s)
24. Revelation/Apocalypse of John (late 90s)
25. First Letter of Clement (late 90s)
26. Epistle of Barnabas (end first century)
27. Didache (other than 1:3b2:1, 16:35) (end first century)
28. Shepherd of Hermas (100)
29. Letter of James (100)
30. Gospel of John I (early second century)
31. Letter of Ignatius, To the Ephesians (110)
32. Letter of Ignatius, To the Magnesians (110)
33. Letter of Ignatius, To the Trallians (110)
34. Letter of Ignatius, To the Romans (110)
35. Letter of Ignatius, To the Philadelphians (110)
36. Letter of Ignatius, To the Smyrneans (110)
37. Letter of Ignatius, To Polycarp (110)
38. First Letter of Peter (112)
39. Letter of Polycarp, To the Philippians, 1314 (115)
40. First Letter of John (115)

Fourth Stratum [120 to 150 C.E.]
41. Gospel of John II (after 120)
42. Acts of the Apostles (after 120)
43. Apocryphon of James (before 150)
44. First Letter to Timothy (after 120)
45. Second Letter to Timothy (after 120)
46. Letter to Titus (after 120)
47. Second Letter of Peter (between 125 and 150)
48. Letter of Polycarp, To the Philippians, 112 (140)
49. Second Letter of Clement (150)
50. Gospel of the Nazoreans (middle second century)
51. Gospel of the Ebionites (middle second century)
52. Didache, 1:3b2:1 (middle second century)
53. Gospel of Peter (middle second century)

 

[Josiah]

Knowing that the council of Jamnia in 90 AD was the first ever assembly and establishment in regards to Hebrew canon (for unknown reasons by unbelieving Jewish high priests) leads me to believe without a doubt that God intended a translation for the gentiles and Jews of that era, meaning that the "canon" was settled by God through the Septuagint and every book it included -as inspired and not to be neglected.

How does one counter these facts to the contrary?

Why do protestants follow the tradition of the RCC with Jerome's advice from the unbelieving Jews he studied under -that certain books in the Septuagint were neither of any importance nor were they translated correctly..?

1. The Council of Jamnia in 90 AD was a JEWISH event that completely and universally SETTLED a controversy of just what is and is not "Scripture." There had NEVER (not once, not in ANY sense) been an official declaration on that question. When Jesus walked the earth, there was NOT a universal, formal embrace of what was and was not Scripture - it was a completely OPEN question. By TRADITION, the Pentetuch was accepted by all Jews but beyond that, there was no firm consensus. The JEWS decided to settle this, once and for all, precisely because there was no consensus (Beyond "The Books of Moses"). This was not binding for Christians although obviously they all knew about it.


2. No. I find nothing in Scripture or history that suggests God ordered a translation of His Scripture from Hebrew. NOTHING that remotely suggests God ordered this or prohibited this. Translations developed instead for one reason: Lay persons wanted to read the Scriptures and often did not know Hebrew (as the rabbi's did). It was more convenient for them to have a translation. Yes, some EARLY Christians read the Old Testament in Greek (because they didn't know Hebrew) and thus USED Greek translations, but that has nothing whatsoever to do with them accepting some translation as normative or some collection as THE definitive definition of what is or is not Scripture, they simply used a translation because they didn't know Hebrew. Just that simple.... nothing more. And just because they quoted from books doesn't mean they held them as Scripture (they quoted Greek philosophers, too).


3. No. I find nothing whatsoever that suggests that GOD did any translation. Not that He mandated such or that He did such. Translations are the works of people and certainly can be flawed. All translation involves subjective interpretation and such can be wrong. Translations are for LAITY who do not know ancient Hebrew and koine Greek. They are never used by theologians or at Councils. NONE. Not the LXX, not the KJV. None. My Lutheran pastor never uses one, he brings his GREEK NT and/or HEBREW OT to Bible class.... when he reads from it, he just does a running translation for US (we lay people who don't know Hebrew and Greek). I've been in his office several times, he has some translations but they are on the top shelf, obviously not used. Only the RCC and LDS permit a translation to be used normatively (although the RCC no longer does).


4. There has NEVER been a definitive, official declaration by Christians of what is and is not Scripture. We've NEVER followed the example of the Jews. It's never happened. Not one Ecumenical Council has addressed this issue. Like the TRADITION of the Jews of universal acceptance of the Books of Moses (the Pentetuch) before 90 AD, we have a TRADITION around 66 books (maybe 73 or 74) that's quite universal BUT not official. There's at least two dozen additional books that SOME Christians accept in SOME way (usually NOT equal to the 66) but there is no consensus here and nothing official here. Sorry Andrew, that's just the reality;. And SOME of those couple of dozen books never appeared in any LXX collection.


5. The RCC (since 1551) has a UNIQUE set of canonical books - no other church agrees with it on that. The Greek Orthodox Church has a UNIQUE set of canonical books (although by TRADITION, not official declaration) - no other church agrees with it on that. The Syrian Orthodox and the Coptic Orthodox Church have UNIQUE sets of canonical books (although again only by tradition) = they don't agree with each other or with any other church on that. The Anglican Church as a UNIQUE set of canonical books (declared in the 39 Articles) - no other church agrees with it on this issue. Calvin declared a set of canonical books (now in the Westminister Confession) that MOST Protestants agree with but not most Christians. There is no consensus today because there has NEVER been a Christian declaration on this. But why is this not much of an issue? Why is this not much of a divisive issue? Because those couple of dozen books just doesn't make much difference.....Read Psalm 151 and the Letter to the Leodiceans and the point will be clear. For the Orthodox and Anglicans and Catholics, not one doctrine is formed or normed by ANY WORD in any of them (the Catholics like to use a verse for Purgatory but pretty much everyone agrees it's irrelevant).

Knowing that the council of Jamnia in 90 AD was the first ever assembly and establishment in regards to Hebrew canon leads me to believe without a doubt that God intended a translation

The Council of Jamnia didn't approve a translation. Any translation. Of anything. For anything. It formally, officially and (as it turned out) completely definitively declared the books to be regarded as canonical within Judaism. The Council had nothing to do with translation. Of anything.




- Josiah




.

 

[Andrew]

1. The Council of Jamnia in 90 AD was a JEWISH event that completely and universally SETTLED a controversy of just what is and is not "Scripture." There had NEVER (not once, not in ANY sense) been an official declaration on that question. When Jesus walked the earth, there was NOT a universal, formal embrace of what was and was not Scripture - it was a completely OPEN question. By TRADITION, the Pentetuch was accepted by all Jews but beyond that, there was no firm consensus. The JEWS decided to settle this, once and for all, precisely because there was no consensus (Beyond "The Books of Moses"). This was not binding for Christians although obviously they all knew about it.


2. No. I find nothing in Scripture or history that suggests God ordered a translation of His Scripture from Hebrew. NOTHING that remotely suggests God ordered this or prohibited this. Translations developed instead for one reason: Lay persons wanted to read the Scriptures and often did not know Hebrew (as the rabbi's did). It was more convenient for them to have a translation. Yes, some EARLY Christians read the Old Testament in Greek (because they didn't know Hebrew) and thus USED Greek translations, but that has nothing whatsoever to do with them accepting some translation as normative or some collection as THE definitive definition of what is or is not Scripture, they simply used a translation because they didn't know Hebrew. Just that simple.... nothing more. And just because they quoted from books doesn't mean they held them as Scripture (they quoted Greek philosophers, too).


3. No. I find nothing whatsoever that suggests that GOD did any translation. Not that He mandated such or that He did such. Translations are the works of people and certainly can be flawed. All translation involves subjective interpretation and such can be wrong. Translations are for LAITY who do not know ancient Hebrew and koine Greek. They are never used by theologians or at Councils. NONE. Not the LXX, not the KJV. None. My Lutheran pastor never uses one, he brings his GREEK NT and/or HEBREW OT to Bible class.... when he reads from it, he just does a running translation for US (we lay people who don't know Hebrew and Greek). I've been in his office several times, he has some translations but they are on the top shelf, obviously not used. Only the RCC and LDS permit a translation to be used normatively (although the RCC no longer does).


4. There has NEVER been a definitive, official declaration by Christians of what is and is not Scripture. We've NEVER followed the example of the Jews. It's never happened. Not one Ecumenical Council has addressed this issue. Like the TRADITION of the Jews of universal acceptance of the Books of Moses (the Pentetuch) before 90 AD, we have a TRADITION around 66 books (maybe 73 or 74) that's quite universal BUT not official. There's at least two dozen additional books that SOME Christians accept in SOME way (usually NOT equal to the 66) but there is no consensus here and nothing official here. Sorry Andrew, that's just the reality;. And SOME of those couple of dozen books never appeared in any LXX collection.


5. The RCC (since 1551) has a UNIQUE set of canonical books - no other church agrees with it on that. The Greek Orthodox Church has a UNIQUE set of canonical books (although by TRADITION, not official declaration) - no other church agrees with it on that. The Syrian Orthodox and the Coptic Orthodox Church have UNIQUE sets of canonical books (although again only by tradition) = they don't agree with each other or with any other church on that. The Anglican Church as a UNIQUE set of canonical books (declared in the 39 Articles) - no other church agrees with it on this issue. Calvin declared a set of canonical books (now in the Westminister Confession) that MOST Protestants agree with but not most Christians. There is no consensus today because there has NEVER been a Christian declaration on this. But why is this not much of an issue? Why is this not much of a divisive issue? Because those couple of dozen books just doesn't make much difference.....Read Psalm 151 and the Letter to the Leodiceans and the point will be clear. For the Orthodox and Anglicans and Catholics, not one doctrine is formed or normed by ANY WORD in any of them (the Catholics like to use a verse for Purgatory but pretty much everyone agrees it's irrelevant).




- Josiah




.

You do know that the council of Jamnia in 90 AD was conducted by unbelievers right?

Ironic isn't it that from the time of Moses up to 90 AD there was never any reason to "canonize" Jewish scripture?

Also likewise is it just a very convenient coincidence that the library of sacred Jewish Holy scripture was transcribed to the major tongue of the common Jew and gentile just in time for the advent of Christianity and right before the birth of our Lord Jesus Christ?

What a tragedy it would have been had we gentiles been expected to learn and know Hebrew and what a shame it would have been had our Greek NT writings been uninspired.

The line of prophets do NOT end with John the baptist according to Judaism, yet you accept their council in 90 AD as 'just' opposed to the truth of "scripture alone" back in the first century according to the first century Christians.

There was no reason even for bipartisan in the first century advent so why does the Septuagint seem so repulsive to you in the first place?

 

[Josiah]

You do know that the council of Jamnia in 90 AD was conducted by unbelievers right?

I stated it was a JEWISH meeting.

Ironic isn't it that from the time of Moses up to 90 AD there was never any reason to "canonize" Jewish scripture?

I don't know about "need" but there was no official declaration of any canon until 90 AD, and that was by the JEWS for the JEWISH Scriptures.

You might feel it more ironic that up to the present day, there has never been any "canonization" of Christian scripture. Some individual denominations have done so (the RCC being the first one to do that in the 16th Century) but nothing by the whole of Christianity.

What a tragedy it would have been had we gentiles been expected to learn and know Hebrew and what a shame it would have been had our Greek NT writings been uninspired.

The Translation IS uninspirerd. All translations are uninspired. Only the LDS holds that there's a TRANSLATION that is inspired. The Jews never held (and still don't) that any Greek translation of anything is "inspired" by God. There have been hundreds of thousands of translations - of the OT and also of the NT - and none of these have been inspire by the Holy Spirit. And all of them were translation for one and only one reason: People who can't read Hebrew or Greek desire to read these books.

you accept their council in 90 AD as 'just'

Quote me where I stated that.

why does the Septuagint seem so repulsive to you in the first place?

Quote me saying the LXX is "repulsive?"


What I shared is that It was not the official declaration of unbelievers as to what is and is not Scripture, it was a TRANSLATION (as was the KVJ and Luther's and the ESV) done by errant PEOPLE (not the Holy Spirit) so that a people who could not read Hebrew but could read Greek therefore had access to the texts (although obviously in translation). That's it. That's all. Just like Luther translating the Bible into German nearly 2000 years later.

There have been hundreds of thousands of translations of the OT and also the NT. None of them are used by theologians (my pastor never uses any of them; likely your pastor doesn't either).


Blessings to you in this Advent season...


- Josiah



.

 

[Cassia]

That’s because Origen was the norm for a very long time before being replaced by todays canon.

 

[harmonicat]

Josiah said

The Translation IS uninspirerd. All translations are uninspired. Only the LDS holds that there's a TRANSLATION that is inspired. The Jews never held (and still don't) that any Greek translation of anything is "inspired" by God. There have been hundreds of thousands of translations - of the OT and also of the NT - and none of these have been inspire by the Holy Spirit. And all of them were translation for one and only one reason: People who can't read Hebrew or Greek desire to read these books.

 

[Andrew]

I stated it was a JEWISH meeting.





I don't know about "need" but there was no official declaration of any canon until 90 AD, and that was by the JEWS for the JEWISH Scriptures.



.

Jews for the Jewish Scripture? You mean our OT? In 90 AD? ...and you trust these unbelievers when it was already recorded via the Septuagint (which is based on an earlier Hebrew text opposed to the Masoretic)..
You know what else was in their list of prophets?? Not John the baptist.. so you take the same Jews who had Jesus crucified as ordained and/or qualified to produce OUR OT canon?

 

[JRT]

Jew are not unbelievers.

 

[Andrew]

Jew are not unbelievers.

Do they believe in Jesus?

 

[JRT]

Do they believe in Jesus?

Yes, they certainly do believe in Jesus. Just not the same as you.

 

[Andrew]

Yes, they certainly do believe in Jesus. Just not the same as you.

Im talking about the belief in His divinity, they don't believe He is/was divine thus aren't believers because they have rejected their Messiah.

So why do we care what unbelievers want Christians to read?

The chosen Jews believed in the Messiah 2000 years ago.. all of the OT patriarchs and prophets would have believed unto the Messiah Christ Jesus.. Moses and Elijah for example were seen speaking with Jesus, they were God's chosen, foreigners in a strange land, 100% Christian.. they never "converted" to anything they just remained observant and recognized their Messiah, the Jews who rejected Him are the same Jews that held the council at Jamnia in 90 AD and cherry picked which books to rule in as standard and which ones to rule out.

Was John the Baptist not a prophet?

They weeded out the Christians from their synagogues by setting a standard/rule "canon" to segregate, as long as they did not touch the Torah they were fine with tossing out the newer and short lived books (from the past 400 years).. The Ketuvim is the 3rd section of the Tanakh (our OT), Ketuvim simply means "other writings", the so called "Apocrypha" that were once part of the Septuagint are considered "other writings" today (good to read but not inspired).. go figure

Jesus was reading in the synagogue a scroll that was closer to an earlier and more authentic Hebrew text, the Septuagint was preserved through the LXX and proves that Jesus indeed was not misquoting the line from Isaiah "..and recovery of site to the blind".. So either Jesus was misquoting the Hebrew text and thus the Masoretic is correct OR Jesus wasn't misquoting from the Hebrew text and thus the Septuagint is correct.

Judge for yourself

 

[Josiah]

Jews for the Jewish Scripture? You mean our OT? In 90 AD? ...and you trust these unbelievers when it was already recorded via the Septuagint (which is based on an earlier Hebrew text opposed to the Masoretic)..

1. The JEWS .... for the FIRST and ONLY time since the Creation.... officially declared what is and is not JEWISH Scripture in 90 AD. No Jewish person or company or organization or publishing house or translators did that before or after. Christianity never signed onto this.... Christianity has never done anything in regard to this. But the JEWS did... and it had nothing, absolutely nothing, nothing whatsoever to do with some translation. Into Greek or Latin or German or English or Japanese or any other language.


2. Christians have never followed the example of the Jews and their Council of Jamnia in 90AD. Christianity has NEVER officially, formally declared what is and is not Scripture. It was NEVER a subject of ANY of the Seven Ecumenical Councils. A small handful of individual denomination have done that since the 15th Century (many different collections) but Christianity has never done that. Not by Council. Not by declaration. Not by endorsing some publishing house's collection of stuff in some tome.


3. Translations are not official declarations of what is and is not Scripture. The LXX was a TRANSLATION of some books that some people wanted to be able to read, but they could not read Hebrew, they could read Greek. Similarly, St Jerome translated some books into Latin as the "Latin Vulgate" because there was a market for people who wanted to read some books but could only read Latin. Years later, Martin Luther would translate some books into German because there were people who wanted to read those books but only could read German. Years later, King James authorized a translation into English because there were lots of people in England who could only read English. NONE OF THESE WERE OFFICIAL DECLARATIONS BY JEWS OR CHRISTIANS AS TO WHAT IS AND IS NOT SCRIPTURE, they were translations. Nothing more. The LXX was no different.





.

 

[Lamb]

Jew are not unbelievers.

There are Jews who are Christians (and that's because they see being Jewish as a race and not a religion) but for the most part Jews deny that Jesus died on the cross for the forgiveness of their sins making them unbelievers and they damn themselves. They are still holding out for the Savior to come and rejecting the Savior who did come.

 

[Andrew]

1. The JEWS .... for the FIRST and ONLY time since the Creation.... officially declared what is and is not JEWISH Scripture in 90 AD. No Jewish person or company or organization or publishing house or translators did that before or after. Christianity never signed onto this.... Christianity has never done anything in regard to this. But the JEWS did... and it had nothing, absolutely nothing, nothing whatsoever to do with some translation. Into Greek or Latin or German or English or Japanese or any other language.


2. Christians have never followed the example of the Jews and their Council of Jamnia in 90AD. Christianity has NEVER officially, formally declared what is and is not Scripture. It was NEVER a subject of ANY of the Seven Ecumenical Councils. A small handful of individual denomination have done that since the 15th Century (many different collections) but Christianity has never done that. Not by Council. Not by declaration. Not by endorsing some publishing house's collection of stuff in some tome.


3 Translations are not official declarations of what is and is not Scripture. The LXX was a TRANSLATION of some books that some people wanted to be able to read, but they could not read Hebrew, they could read Greek. Similarly, St Jerome translated some books into Latin as the "Latin Vulgate" because there was a market for people who wanted to read some books but could only read Latin. Years later, Martin Luther would translate some books into German because there were people who wanted to read those books but only could read German. Years later, King James authorized a translation into English because there were lots of people in England who could only read English. NONE OF THESE WERE OFFICIAL DECLARATIONS BY JEWS OR CHRISTIANS AS TO WHAT IS AND IS NOT SCRIPTURE, they were translations. Nothing more. The LXX was no different.





.

Jerome moved to Bethlehem and studied under the unbelieving Rabbis living there and they convinced him that Christians didn't even have the right books to begin with and not only that but they also had a very lousy translation of "their" hebrew text, so Jerome made a hybrid of proto Masoretic text along with the LXX, keeping the more recognized translations of words and verses that Christians would notice if changed (against the advice of the Jews) while demoting whole entire books that the Jews completely dismissed as "sacred/obscure/hidden" writings (against the wishes of the Pope).. His mission was originally to translate the Hebrew straight to Latin and bypass the Greek middle man, he ended up with a mess of problems and confusion...
Josiah you claim that Christians never followed the example of a post Church - Jewish canon established in 90 AD at the council of Jamnia, if that is the case then why did Jerome follow any Jewish canon in the first place?
The Jews never told him that Christians made up those extra books, they told him they were sacred Hebrew text that are not part of their Jewish canon, a canon that was first established at the council of Jamnia 90 AD.
They dropped those books at their council and eventually lead to Christians dropping them from the printing press almost entirely despite the fact that the first Christians held them as scripture quoting them over 300 times as recorded by ante Nicene Church leaders.

 

[Josiah]

Jerome moved to Bethlehem

So what? Jerome (like THOUSANDS of others, including Martin Luther) did a translation of books people wanted to read (but could not in the original language). Jerome was a single individual man, not the church catholic, and so what books he choose to translated for his customers has nothing whatsoever to do with Christianity officially declaring what writings are and are not divine scripture. Any more than the Watchtower Society making a translation some centuries later.

Josiah you claim that Christians never followed the example of a post Church - Jewish canon established in 90 AD at the council of Jamnia, if that is the case then why did Jerome follow any Jewish canon in the first place?

I never said that Christians did not follow the example of a post church (I don't even have a clue what that means).

I said Christianity never has followed the example of Judaism in officially/formally declaring what IS and IS NOT divine Scripture. JEWS did that (in a formal and definitive way) at THEIR Council of Jamnia in 90 AD. There has been no pan-Christian, catholic, ecumenical Council of CHRISTIANS that did so for Christians.

And there is zero evidence that the Jewish Council of Jamnia gave a rip about any translation of anyone of anything to any language.



Blessings on your Advent...



.

 

[Andrew]

I never said that Christians did not follow the example of a post church (I don't even have a clue what that means).


.

"Post church" was a description of the UNBELIEVING Jews of Jamnia, that's what THAT meant fyi... and you said that no Christians follow THEIR example, which is untruthful on your part as I explained

 

[pinacled]

So what? Jerome (like THOUSANDS of others, including Martin Luther) did a translation of books people wanted to read (but could not in the original language). Jerome was a single individual man, not the church catholic, and so what books he choose to translated for his customers has nothing whatsoever to do with Christianity officially declaring what writings are and are not divine scripture. Any more than the Watchtower Society making a translation some centuries later.





I never said that Christians did not follow the example of a post church (I don't even have a clue what that means).

I said Christianity never has followed the example of Judaism in officially/formally declaring what IS and IS NOT divine Scripture. JEWS did that (in a formal and definitive way) at THEIR Council of Jamnia in 90 AD. There has been no pan-Christian, catholic, ecumenical Council of CHRISTIANS that did so for Christians.

And there is zero evidence that the Jewish Council of Jamnia gave a rip about any translation of anyone of anything to any language.



Blessings on your Advent...



.

The hebrew tanakh has been known for thousands of yrs by many a generation.

And the torah has been considered holy even longer.

I very much doubt the council of "jamnia" has any prominence amongst the jewish community.
Remember always that sorcerers lie about history.

 

[pinacled]

1. The Council of Jamnia in 90 AD was a JEWISH event that completely and universally SETTLED a controversy of just what is and is not "Scripture." There had NEVER (not once, not in ANY sense) been an official declaration on that question. When Jesus walked the earth, there was NOT a universal, formal embrace of what was and was not Scripture - it was a completely OPEN question. By TRADITION, the Pentetuch was accepted by all Jews but beyond that, there was no firm consensus. The JEWS decided to settle this, once and for all, precisely because there was no consensus (Beyond "The Books of Moses"). This was not binding for Christians although obviously they all knew about it.


2. No. I find nothing in Scripture or history that suggests God ordered a translation of His Scripture from Hebrew. NOTHING that remotely suggests God ordered this or prohibited this. Translations developed instead for one reason: Lay persons wanted to read the Scriptures and often did not know Hebrew (as the rabbi's did). It was more convenient for them to have a translation. Yes, some EARLY Christians read the Old Testament in Greek (because they didn't know Hebrew) and thus USED Greek translations, but that has nothing whatsoever to do with them accepting some translation as normative or some collection as THE definitive definition of what is or is not Scripture, they simply used a translation because they didn't know Hebrew. Just that simple.... nothing more. And just because they quoted from books doesn't mean they held them as Scripture (they quoted Greek philosophers, too).


3. No. I find nothing whatsoever that suggests that GOD did any translation. Not that He mandated such or that He did such. Translations are the works of people and certainly can be flawed. All translation involves subjective interpretation and such can be wrong. Translations are for LAITY who do not know ancient Hebrew and koine Greek. They are never used by theologians or at Councils. NONE. Not the LXX, not the KJV. None. My Lutheran pastor never uses one, he brings his GREEK NT and/or HEBREW OT to Bible class.... when he reads from it, he just does a running translation for US (we lay people who don't know Hebrew and Greek). I've been in his office several times, he has some translations but they are on the top shelf, obviously not used. Only the RCC and LDS permit a translation to be used normatively (although the RCC no longer does).


4. There has NEVER been a definitive, official declaration by Christians of what is and is not Scripture. We've NEVER followed the example of the Jews. It's never happened. Not one Ecumenical Council has addressed this issue. Like the TRADITION of the Jews of universal acceptance of the Books of Moses (the Pentetuch) before 90 AD, we have a TRADITION around 66 books (maybe 73 or 74) that's quite universal BUT not official. There's at least two dozen additional books that SOME Christians accept in SOME way (usually NOT equal to the 66) but there is no consensus here and nothing official here. Sorry Andrew, that's just the reality;. And SOME of those couple of dozen books never appeared in any LXX collection.


5. The RCC (since 1551) has a UNIQUE set of canonical books - no other church agrees with it on that. The Greek Orthodox Church has a UNIQUE set of canonical books (although by TRADITION, not official declaration) - no other church agrees with it on that. The Syrian Orthodox and the Coptic Orthodox Church have UNIQUE sets of canonical books (although again only by tradition) = they don't agree with each other or with any other church on that. The Anglican Church as a UNIQUE set of canonical books (declared in the 39 Articles) - no other church agrees with it on this issue. Calvin declared a set of canonical books (now in the Westminister Confession) that MOST Protestants agree with but not most Christians. There is no consensus today because there has NEVER been a Christian declaration on this. But why is this not much of an issue? Why is this not much of a divisive issue? Because those couple of dozen books just doesn't make much difference.....Read Psalm 151 and the Letter to the Leodiceans and the point will be clear. For the Orthodox and Anglicans and Catholics, not one doctrine is formed or normed by ANY WORD in any of them (the Catholics like to use a verse for Purgatory but pretty much everyone agrees it's irrelevant).




- Josiah




.

Please provide a link to your source information.
Copypasting without quotations or brackets is confusing and possibly illegal.

Otherwise readers will assume it is you who have written the above.

 

[pinacled]

You do know that the council of Jamnia in 90 AD was conducted by unbelievers right?

Ironic isn't it that from the time of Moses up to 90 AD there was never any reason to "canonize" Jewish scripture?

Also likewise is it just a very convenient coincidence that the library of sacred Jewish Holy scripture was transcribed to the major tongue of the common Jew and gentile just in time for the advent of Christianity and right before the birth of our Lord Jesus Christ?

What a tragedy it would have been had we gentiles been expected to learn and know Hebrew and what a shame it would have been had our Greek NT writings been uninspired.

The line of prophets do NOT end with John the baptist according to Judaism, yet you accept their council in 90 AD as 'just' opposed to the truth of "scripture alone" back in the first century according to the first century Christians.

There was no reason even for bipartisan in the first century advent so why does the Septuagint seem so repulsive to you in the first place?

Leave the hostility aside for a moment and use your facilities of reason with accuracy.

The septugugu is a farse recorded by the enemy of the jewish people to prove theirdd suppossed dominance over them.

Do you understand?