Ecclesiasticals VS Canonical

[Andrew]

Trying to change the subject by deflect attention to something else.

"Then Judas and his brothers and all the assembly of Israel determined that every year at that season the days of dedication of the altar should be observed with joy and gladness for eight days, beginning with the twenty-fifth day of the month of Chislev"
1 Maccabees 4:59

"And it was at Jerusalem the feat of dedication, and it was winter"
John 10:24

Now Origen, did this Festival have it's origins before or after Christ? Or are you just going to try to convince me that the account of the dedication written of in 1 Maccabees was authored by a none Jew as well as rejected by the Jewish community.. even IF Jesus truly did NOT have any connection whatsoever with the feast of dedication, what does that say about all the Jews who DID attend? Remember what the feast was about, the Maccabean revolt, so again, before or after Christ?

 

[Origen]

Now Origen, did this Festival have it's origins before or after Christ? Or are you just going to try to convince me that the account of the dedication written of in 1 Maccabees was authored by a none Jew as well as rejected by the Jewish community.. even IF Jesus truly did NOT have any connection whatsoever with the feast of dedication, what does that say about all the Jews who DID attend? Remember what the feast was about, the Maccabean revolt, so again, before or after Christ?

First, that does not address my comment. Cite any primary source before the time of Christ which states they accepted these books.

Second, I am not trying to convince you of anything. I am addressing the many sweeping generalizations, errors, and down right false claims.

Third, Natan said:

The Jews who lived before the time of Christ accepted these books.

So again I say, cite any primary source before the time of Christ which states they accepted these books.

 

[NathanH83]

The Babylonian Talmud dates to 6th centuries A.D.


We have no evidence the Apocrypha was part of the original Septuagint.


Irrelevant. We know at least some of them existed before the 1st century. That in no way prove they believe they were Scripture.


New Testament authors may quote a source without believing it to be Scripture. We have many exmaples.

Cite any primary source before the time of Christ which states they accepted these books.

Septuagint was made 250 BC.
You should know that.

 

[Origen]

Septuagint was made 250 BC.

We have no manuscript that date back to that time. All the Greek manuscripts of the LXX which contain at least some books of the Apocrypha date to the 4th century A.D. or latter. Moreover there is no evidence that any book of the Apocrypha was part of the original Septuagint.

You should know that.

And you ought to make yourself aware of the facts.

 

[Andrew]

.

 

[Andrew]

We have no manuscript that date back to that time. All the Greek manuscripts of the LXX which contain at least some books of the Apocrypha date to the 4th century A.D. or latter. Moreover there is no evidence that the Apocrypha was part of the original Septuagint.


And you ought to make yourself aware of the facts.

And we have no full Hebrew text from that time either.. ??

 

[Origen]

And we have no full Hebrew text from that time either.. ??

Which does nothing to support your false claims.

 

[Andrew]

Which does nothing to support your false claims.

Yet it exposes your hypocrisy greatly!

 

[Origen]

Yet it exposes your hypocrisy greatly!

 

[Andrew]

Wake up already!

 

[Andrew]

.

 

[Andrew]

We have no manuscript that date back to that time. All the Greek manuscripts of the LXX which contain at least some books of the Apocrypha date to the 4th century A.D. or latter. Moreover there is no evidence that the Apocrypha was part of the original Septuagint.


And you ought to make yourself aware of the facts.

Oh so I guess the LXX was created in the 4th century AD then

 

[Josiah]

Oh so I guess the LXX was created in the 4th century AD then

Here's what he said:

"We have no manuscript that date back to that time. All the Greek manuscripts of the LXX which contain at least some books of the Apocrypha date to the 4th century A.D. or latter. Moreover there is no evidence that the Apocrypha was part of the original Septuagint."

Friend, I don't think your "guess" has any relation or relevance to what Origen posted.....


My info confirms what our brother Origen here wrote. Furthermore, we have no evidence whatsoever that the LXX was in any sense a reflection of canonicity... it may well have been nothing more than books Jews wanted to read. EVEN IF we knew exactly what books were in the LXX in the third century BC (and we have no clue).

Now, you may also "guess" that the LXX did not change one iota in 800 years but that's quite a 'guess' and you have zero evidence of that.

IMO, we need to keep this discussion honest and truthful... void of fundamental premises are are just guesses. I'm sure you agree.


Blessings...


Josiah




.

 

[Andrew]

Here's what he said:

"We have no manuscript that date back to that time. All the Greek manuscripts of the LXX which contain at least some books of the Apocrypha date to the 4th century A.D. or latter. Moreover there is no evidence that the Apocrypha was part of the original Septuagint."

My info confirms that.


I don't think your "guess" has any relation or relevance to what Origen posted..... Now, you may also "guess" that the LXX did not change one iota in 800 years but that's quite a 'guess' and you have zero evidence of that. IMO, we need to keep this discussion honest and truthful... void of fundamental premises are are just guesses. I'm sure you agree.



.

Dear Josiah,

Cite sources from a proto-Masoretic/Masoretic/Hebrew Text dated before the 4th Century AD that doesn't contain any "Apocrypha"... I'll wait.

 

[NathanH83]

Dear Josiah,

Cite sources from a proto-Masoretic/Masoretic/Hebrew Text dated before the 4th Century AD that doesn't contain any "Apocrypha"... I'll wait.

I think you’re going to be waiting a LONG time.

 

[NathanH83]

.

It’s good to read.
But it’s dangerous, so don’t read it.
But it’s historically useful, so read it.
But it has historical mistakes, so don’t read it.

 

[NathanH83]

Here's what he said:

"We have no manuscript that date back to that time. All the Greek manuscripts of the LXX which contain at least some books of the Apocrypha date to the 4th century A.D. or latter. Moreover there is no evidence that the Apocrypha was part of the original Septuagint."

Friend, I don't think your "guess" has any relation or relevance to what Origen posted.....


My info confirms what our brother Origen here wrote. Furthermore, we have no evidence whatsoever that the LXX was in any sense a reflection of canonicity... it may well have been nothing more than books Jews wanted to read. EVEN IF we knew exactly what books were in the LXX in the third century BC (and we have no clue).

Now, you may also "guess" that the LXX did not change one iota in 800 years but that's quite a 'guess' and you have zero evidence of that.

IMO, we need to keep this discussion honest and truthful... void of fundamental premises are are just guesses. I'm sure you agree.


Blessings...


Josiah




.

Is there a reason to suspect that the Greek Septuagint didn’t contain any of the apocryphal books before the 4th century AD, and then after the 4th century *POOF!* it just magically appeared because Christians decided to add them for no reason?

I mean, what’s the story here? Why would one suspect that they weren’t in the Septuagint before the time of Christ?

 

[Origen]

Oh so I guess the LXX was created in the 4th century AD then

I never made that claim, nor do I believe that. I only pointed out the evidence (i.e. what we have verses what we don't have).

 

[Andrew]

I never made that claim, nor do I believe that. I only pointed out the evidence (i.e. what we have verses what we don't have).

So you want me to show evidence for something that you already believe as fact, your response to my posts is evidence to me that you do not believe the LXX was written in the 4th century AD but earlier.
We can both gather that the so called "Apocrypha" came from an LXX that no longer exists yet was copied and translated to a version we have dated to the 4th century AD.

We can gather that these were not books authored by greek pagans or atheists, but likely Jews, who apparently preserved them or else they wouldn't have made it into the hands of the Church fathers.
It would not make much sense for any of the books to be written by non Jewish authors and it wouldn't make much sense to suggest that Jews would have brought into the Library of Alexandria books that weren't originally in their possession to translate, therefore being in Jewish possession, we can logically establish that they likewise must have accepted them.

Yet my claims are false because I cannot cite that any Jew wrote any Jewish book without citing from the books themselves.

If my claim is false and the Jews always rejected these specific books which ended up in the early churches, then why didn't the early Christian Jews take the books out of the churches and trash them or DESTROY them?

 

[Origen]

So you want me to show evidence for something that you already believe as fact,

I already have.

your response to my posts is evidence to me that you do not believe the LXX was written in the 4th century AD but earlier.

You are welcome to your opinion, however, I fully believe it was written before the 4th century A.D.

We can both gather that the so called "Apocrypha" came from an LXX that no longer exists yet was copied and translated to a version we have dated to the 4th century AD.

It is pure speculation with zero objective evidence. Again, we have no manuscript that date back to that time. All the Greek manuscripts of the LXX which contain at least some books of the Apocrypha date to the 4th century A.D. or latter. Moreover there is no evidence that any book of the Apocrypha was part of the original Septuagint.

We can gather that these were not books authored by greek pagans or atheists, but likely Jews, who apparently preserved them or else they wouldn't have made it into the hands of the Church father.

The point is moot since I have never claimed they were written by pagans or atheists.

It would not make much sense for any of the books to be written by non Jewish authors and it wouldn't make much sense to suggest that Jews would have brought into the Library of Alexandria books that weren't originally in their possession to translate, therefore being in Jewish possession, we can logically establish that they likewise must have accepted them.

Again, it is pure speculation with zero objective evidence. Again, we have no manuscript that date back to that time. All the Greek manuscripts of the LXX which contain at least some books of the Apocrypha date to the 4th century A.D. or latter. Moreover there is no evidence that the Apocrypha was part of the original Septuagint.

Yet my claims are false because I cannot cite that any Jew wrote any Jewish book if I cannot cite the books themselves.

Nathan made the claim below and for some reason you jumped on the band wagon. I simply asked for a source in order to confirm the truthfulness of the claim. My advice to anyone reading this is to not make claims for which there is zero evidence.

The Jews who lived before the time of Christ accepted these books.

If my claim is false and the Jews always rejected these specific books which ended up in the early churches

Again, I never said that. As I pointed out above, I simply asked for a source in order to confirm the truthfulness of the claim. The truth is I am going to challenge claims which have zero evidence to support them, and I know are false.