Ecclesiasticals VS Canonical

[Andrew]

I already have.


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


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.


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


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.


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.




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.

"To the Jew first"

The first Christians were Jews, they did not take these books out of the churches.

THAT IS FACT.

Had the book of mormon been floating around the church I highly doubt they would let it slide into the church and ultimately into the Bible.

I mean really Patrick!

 

[Origen]

The first Christians were Jews, they did not take these books out of the churches.

THAT IS FACT.

Again your point is moot because I never claimed they did. Nevertheless that does not change the objective evidence. 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.

 

[NathanH83]

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).

The Maccabees happened in 160 BC. That’s BEFORE Christ. It didn’t happen in the 4th century AD. It’s not a Catholic invention.

So what are you claiming exactly? The Maccabees obviously existed before the 4th century AD. Why would anyone suspect that? That’s silly.

 

[Andrew]

Again your point is moot because I never claimed they did. Nevertheless that does not change the objective evidence. 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 point is moot? These books made it passed The Christian Church, this FACT alone is undeniable PROOF that Jews and Christians accepted them from early on BECAUSE THEY HANDED THOSE BOOKS DOWN TO US OBVIOUSLY.

There is NO mention at all by any Church Father before Jerome that these books were ever called Apocrypha, in FACT Rufinus and Athanasius LIST "Ecclesiastical" books SEPARATE from the true Apocrypha (heretical books completely banned from the church), The "Ecclesiastical" book of Wisdom is even quoted by ORIGEN as coming from THE LOGOS! The Majority of the ECF quote and refer to these "Ecclesiastical" books as DIVINE SCRIPTURE.

 

[NathanH83]

Again your point is moot because I never claimed they did. Nevertheless that does not change the objective evidence. 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.

Since when did Andrew or I claim that the apocrypha was a part of the ORIGINAL Septuagint?

The Septuagint was translated about 250 BC. But Maccabees didn’t happen until 160 BC. So obviously the books of the Maccabees couldn’t have been a part of the ORIGINAL Septuagint that existed in 250 BC, since the Maccabean revolt didn’t happen until about a century later.

But, after the events of Maccabees happened, the Jews added it to the Septuagint.

Therefore, the Gentile believers who came to Christ, in various cities around the world, accepted the books of the Maccabees as part of the Bible, because the Jews had included them in their Greek translation of the Bible, the Septuagint.

And yet, you think that there might be reason to suspect that the Jews actually did NOT add Maccabees to the Septuagint. But instead it was actually Gentile Christians who added this Jewish history into the Bible, hundreds of years after the time of Christ, when the Jews had never done so.

Why would there be any reason to suspect that Gentile Christians would do that?

What’s the story? Why would anyone reasonably suspect that?

Why would Gentile Christians add extra books into their Bibles that the Jewish Christians didn’t have? Why would the Gentile Christians depart from the tradition that the Jewish Christians handed down to them?

What reason is there to suspect that?

 

[Origen]

Since when did Andrew or I claim that the apocrypha was a part of the ORIGINAL Septuagint?

I never said you did. I was simply pointing out important facts.

The Septuagint was translated about 250 BC. But Maccabees didn’t happen until 160 BC. So obviously the books of the Maccabees couldn’t have been a part of the ORIGINAL Septuagint that existed in 250 BC, since the Maccabean revolt didn’t happen until about a century later.

The sequence of events in this conversation went like this.

You stated in post 82:

The Jews who lived before the time of Christ accepted these books. The unbelieving Jews who lived after the time of Christ rejected them.

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

Then in reference to that comment Andrew posted this in reply to my comment.

LXX

Clearly that claim is false and the evidence proves it. I was making an all inclusive statement concerning any book of the Apocrypha. However, if it make you feel better I will reword it, no problem.

But, after the events of Maccabees happened, the Jews added it to the Septuagint.

Pure fantsy. You are making it up as you go. You have no objective evidence, NONE.

 

[Origen]

My point is moot?

Yes it is because I has never claimed otherwise (regard to what you said in post 121) and it has no bearing on the facts I presented. 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. See I reworded it.

These books made it passed The Christian Church, this FACT alone is undeniable PROOF that Jews and Christians accepted them from early on BECAUSE THEY HANDED THOSE BOOKS DOWN TO US OBVIOUSLY.

The fact is some accept them and others did not. The historical records proves it.

There is NO mention at all by any Church Father before Jerome that these books were ever called Apocrypha

I used that terms merely as a convenient designation and nothing more. What Jerome or anyone else calls them means nothing to me.

The Majority of the ECF quote and refer to these "Ecclesiastical" books as DIVINE SCRIPTURE.

You and I have already been down that road before and you know you cannot provide necessary evidence to support your claim about the majority. The fact is some accept them and others did not. The historical records proves it.

 

[Origen]

The Maccabees happened in 160 BC. That’s BEFORE Christ. It didn’t happen in the 4th century AD. It’s not a Catholic invention.

I never said it was nor do I believe that.

So what are you claiming exactly? The Maccabees obviously existed before the 4th century AD. Why would anyone suspect that? That’s silly.

I was making an all inclusive statement concerning any book of the Apocrypha. If it make you feel better I will reword it no problem.

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.

There is no evidence that any book of the Apocrypha was part of the original Septuagint.


By the way it was you in post 90 who brought up the LXX without any kind of qualification in regard to my comment.
I said:
"Cite any primary source before the time of Christ which states they accepted these books."
Then you posted:

LXX

 

[Andrew]

I never said you did. I was simply pointing out importance facts.


The sequence of events in this conversation went like this.

You stated in post 82:

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

Then in reference to that comment Andrew posted this in reply to my comment.

Clearly that claim is false and the evidence proves it.


Pure fantsy. You are making it up as you go. You have no objective evidence, NONE.

So... non Jews added the book of Maccabees?
Evidence? Oh that's right you never claimed that non Jews added the book of Maccabees... i'm sorry

The LXX does not prove that Jews accepted the Apocrypha because the earliest manuscript we have dates no earlier than the 4th Century?.. I can say the same for the Hebrew Text OH OH but but (oops! Sorry again!) somehow THATS a "moot point" because I am dodging the original matter concerning the LXX.

Origen, you aren't being fair, you are basically making a case against the OT as not being so trustworthy since we don't know if the Jews even authored them because our current manuscripts only go back so far, yet all the OT era books survived up to our day being copied and translated from earlier and more original texts, which means that your call for evidence is superfluous and you are just trolling because YOU can't even tell us YOUR position nor do you offer any information to support whatever it is you believe.

At least pick a side and state your case

 

[Origen]

So... non Jews added the book of Maccabees?

It would be pure speculation on my part.

Evidence? Oh that's right you never claimed that non Jews added the book of Maccabees... i'm sorry

That's right. Now you are getting it. Don't make claims for which you have no evidence.

The LXX does not prove that Jews accepted the Apocrypha because the earliest manuscript we have dates no earlier than the 4th Century?.. I can say the same for the Hebrew Text OH OH but but (oops! Sorry again!) somehow THATS a "moot point" because I am dodging the original matter concerning the LXX.

You could but it does not help your case in any way. And that's what make it moot.

Origen, you aren't being fair

Asking for objective evidence is not unfair. It is requirement.

you are basically making a case against the OT as not being so trustworthy

I disagree.

At least pick a side and state your case

I have. My side is accuracy, honesty, objective evidence, not making claims which cannot be supported, not making sweeping generalizations, tracking down sources and checking them for myself.

 

[Andrew]

Yes it is because I has never claimed otherwise (regard to what you said in post 121) and it has no bearing on the facts I presented. 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. See I reword it.


The fact is some accept them and others did not. The historical records proves it.


I used that terms merely as a convenient designation and nothing more. What Jerome or anyone else calls them means nothing to me.


You and I have already been down that road before and you know you cannot provide necessary evidence to support your claim about the majority. The fact is some accept them and others did not. The historical records proves it.

So the very few who sided with the unbelieving Jews must be correct because why?

What makes the majority who accepted the ecclesiasticals so wrong?

Seriously the least you could do is state your case instead of just poking at us from the ether

 

[Origen]

So the very few who sided with the unbelieving Jews must be correct because why?

I did not say anyone was correct.

What makes the majority who accepted the ecclesiasticals so wrong?

That is an example of the fallacy argumentum ad populum. The truth of a matter does not depends on a majority.

Seriously the least you could do is state your case

I have. My case is accuracy, honesty, objective evidence, not making claims which cannot be supported, not making sweeping generalizations, tracking down sources and checking them for myself.

instead of just poking at us from the ether

I promise that I in no way meant to poke fun at you.

If I gave you that impression I sincerely apologize and humbly ask for your forgiveness.

 

[Andrew]

I have. My side is accuracy, honesty, objective evidence, not making claims which cannot be supported, not making sweeping generalizations, tracking down sources and checking them for myself.

That's pure hogwash, I have provided recorded testimony from two ECFs that agree as to what "Canon" means and what it is and what "Ecclesiasticals"mean and what they are, and what IS and ISNT considered actual "Apocrypha".
I cited before (in this thread or perhaps another) a lengthy track record of many of the ECF appropriately quoting from the "Ecclesiastical" books as "Divine Scripture", I cited the records stating that Apocrypha books are completely forbidden in the churches and also in the ECF writings you will never find them quoting from the gnostic heretical texts (true Apocrypha), yet they DO quote from the protestants so called "Apocrypha" because they were and are actually "Ecclesiastical" as recorded as being handed down by tradition of the fathers.

This is honest, earnest and accurate research I have laid out for you but you dare claim that I have produced only baseless claims and speculations.

You are just so anti-Catholic (it seems) that you falsely claim I have provided nothing even remotely considerable as credible citation nor have you any decent manner toward my efforts to answer all that you ask of me, and for these reasons I bid you a good day.

 

[NathanH83]

My point is moot? These books made it passed The Christian Church, this FACT alone is undeniable PROOF that Jews and Christians accepted them from early on BECAUSE THEY HANDED THOSE BOOKS DOWN TO US OBVIOUSLY.

There is NO mention at all by any Church Father before Jerome that these books were ever called Apocrypha, in FACT Rufinus and Athanasius LIST "Ecclesiastical" books SEPARATE from the true Apocrypha (heretical books completely banned from the church), The "Ecclesiastical" book of Wisdom is even quoted by ORIGEN as coming from THE LOGOS! The Majority of the ECF quote and refer to these "Ecclesiastical" books as DIVINE SCRIPTURE.

The fact that the Jews wouldn’t even have the books of Maccabees if it wasn’t for the church preserving them. That’s big.

 

[Origen]

I have provided recorded testimony from two ECFs that agree as to what "Canon" means and what it is and what "Ecclesiasticals"mean and what they are, and what IS and ISNT considered actual "Apocrypha".

I never disputed the terms used. Moreover I said in post 127 I used the term Apocrypha merely as a convenient designation and nothing more. What Jerome or anyone else calls them means nothing to me. You are arguing against something I have never claimed.

I cited the records stating that Apocrypha books are completely forbidden in the churches and also in the ECF writings you will never find them quoting from the gnostic heretical texts (true Apocrypha), yet they DO quote from the protestants so called "Apocrypha" because they were and are actually "Ecclesiastical" as recorded as being handed down by tradition of the fathers.

Again I point out DOZENS of time some believe that some of those books were canonical and other did not. We have the historical witness of Melito of Sardis, Cyril of Jerusalem, Athanasius of Alexandria, Gregory of Nazianzus, Amphilochius of Iconium, Epiphanius of Salamis, Hilary of Poitiers, Rufinus of Aquileia which proves the point.

This is honest, earnest and accurate research I have laid out for you but you dare claim that I have produced only baseless claims and speculations.

Same as above, I have pointed more than once some believe that some of those books were canonical and other did not, and the historical record proves it. I have never deny that some did.

You are just so anti-Catholic (it seems) that

I have never said anything about Catholicism.

you falsely claim I have provided nothing even remotely considerable as credible citation nor have you any decent manner toward my efforts to answer all that you ask of me,

Untrue! I never claimed you provide nothing.

and for these reasons I bid you a good day.

See ya

 

[Josiah]

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.

You'll wait a long time because there is NOTHING from before the 4th Century either way. Are you dodging the point? That we just don't KNOW? You don't, I don't, no one does.

Now, IF I claimed that the LXX never contained anything more than the 39 books Jews recognize by our count since 90 AD, then you'd have a point that I'd need to substantiate that. But I'm not the one making an enormous plethora of remarkable claims about this, am I? You and Nathan are. It's absurd to even try to toss the ball into my court.... I have nothing to substantiate since I've not made any claims about this.

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.

Nail on head.


I see that as the fundamental flaw in all these MANY threads and hundreds of posts from our brother, Nathan. It seems he appoints himself to "connect the dots" (with an overriding appreciation of his own knowledge and logic).... problem is, the "dots" are just wild speculation and pure guesses - they are phantoms, figments of his imagination. POSSIBLE (in some cases) but then it's possible that there are flying purple people living on Venus, too. It's just absurd to follow the rabbit hole threads when the fundamental premise is entirely unsubstantiated at best (and often just plain wrong). And of course, then there's the employment of circular reasoning and silly assumptions and still more guessing, speculating and the substitution of opinions with reality.



.

 

[Origen]

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.

Now that is a VERY interesting point. The thing that pretty much changed the game was the advent of the codex, and it was the Christian who preferred the codex over scrolls. Given the portability, ease of use, and the fact one could get so much more into a codex than on a scroll the reason why is clear.

If we examine the content of Codex Alexandrinus, we find some surprising things. Not only do we find the Scriptures but other works as well.

For example:
Athanasius' Letter to Marcellinus on the Interpretation of the Psalms
Hypothesis of Eusebius of Pamphilli
Canon Tables of the Psalms
1 Clement
2 Clement
The Odes (There are 14 in the collection, and while some of them are taken from the Biblical text others are not).
Psalms of Soloman

Another example is Codex Ambrosianus. It is in the Syriac language. This codex contains the Apocalypse of Baruch (not to be confuse with the Baruch in the Apocrypha). Now while that is interesting there is something that is indeed startling. Ambrosianus, a Syriac language Christian codex, contains Josephus' The Jewish War, book 6.

The idea that codices ONLY contain canonical works is demonstrably false.

 

[NathanH83]

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

Do you know why Catholics claim the Talmud they’re referencing dated back to the 5th century BC?

Here’s the quote from a Catholic Apologist:

 

[Andrew]

Hello! I am NOT even arguing CANON! Read the OP, read the thread title!

 

[Origen]

Do you know why Catholics claim the Talmud they’re referencing dated back to the 5th century BC?

I am sorry but he is wrong concerning the date being B.C. Track down the sources and see for yourself.