A P O C R Y P H A : Included in every Holy Bible from the 4th century AD to the 19th Century AD

[MoreCoffee]

the post-Christ Hebrew Canon became the OT canon for Christians

I would agree if the words "did not become" replaced "became" in that fragment. Jewish tradition regarding their canon of holy books arose after the time of Christ and was not received by Christians as the canon of the Christian old testament. Christians framed their own old testament canon which drew from the LXX rather than from Hebrew texts. The deciding factors in defining the Christian canon were the use of the books in the churches' liturgies, reception as holy scripture by Christians, and in the case of new testament writings apostolicity of the writings - meaning an apostle was either author or source of the contents. Other factors also played a role in the Church's selection of books for the Christian canon.

 

[Josiah]

all of those books

@Andy


WHAT books?

Those specifically mentioned by name in the OT?
Those in the LXX?
Those in the Coptic Orthodox Church?
Those in the Syrian Orthodox Church?
Those in the Greek Orthodox Church?
Those in the medieval Catholic tomes?
Those in listed in Article 6 of the 39 Articles (and thus the 1611 KJV)?
Those in Luther's translation?
Those listed in the RCC meeting at Trent in 1546?
Those listed by Marcion?
Those listed by Clement of Alexandra?
Those listed by Origen as homoogoumena?
Those listed by Origen as antilegomena?
Those listed by Cyril of Jerusalem?

None of the above are the same list... the same books.

were considered Holy

Quote at least a dozen Christians calling the "those" "holy." Just 12 will do.

Then show that "holy" mean "inerrant, fully canonical, divinely-inscripturated" and "must appear in any tome printed, published or sold that has the word "BIBLE" on the cover.

You won't.... and we know why. It's not ONLY because you can't (and we all know that) but also because, as you put it, "I could not care less."



.

by the Church

Give the date and place of the authoritative, ecumenical Council where "the Church" did this. Then quote the decision, with the list of books it declared are inerrant, fully canonical, divinely-inscripturated words of God, each equal in every way to all the rest.

Can't? Well, because it never happened. I know that, you know that. But as you say "I could not care less."





.

 

[MoreCoffee]

WHAT books?

1. Tobit,
2. Judith,
3. Esther (as in the LXX),
4. 1 Maccabees,
5. 2 Maccabees,
6. Wisdom of Solomon,
7. Sirach,
8. Baruch,
9. Daniel (as in the LXX).

 

[Andrew]

I would agree if the words "did not become" replaced "became" in that fragment. Jewish tradition regarding their canon of holy books arose after the time of Christ and was not received by Christians as the canon of the Christian old testament. Christians framed their own old testament canon which drew from the LXX rather than from Hebrew texts. The deciding factors in defining the Christian canon were the use of the books in the churches' liturgies, reception as holy scripture by Christians, and in the case of new testament writings apostolicity of the writings - meaning an apostle was either author or source of the contents. Other factors also played a role in the Church's selection of books for the Christian canon.

It's fuzzy, what I meant was Jerome dismissing what the Hebrew left out of canon and then labeling the rest of the OT of the Greek as Apocrypha
Even though I don't believe Jerome ever said that they were no longer canon, he just said that they are not to be found among the Hebrew.
Perhaps Rufinus was talking strickly about the books such as the additions to Daniel, that were listed separately by Jerome as Aporcryphal?

From what I have read, the church was just as upset as Rufinus was because they were used for Doctrine and even celebrated in Church. You cant add canon such as the deuterocanon at a later time UNLESS they were in fact Canon used for doctrine, which I believe is the case. OT books can be used for canon to establish doctrine and the Ecclesiasticals books can also be used as evidence or testimony of established doctrine. Just how Paul used Maccabees to establish a doctrine of living Faith, as in the faithful martyrs, and Tobit of the Humble who gave alms to a stranger hence "some of even entertained angels unaware.

They were also used to defend doctrine by examples of Holy Living... but it really is equally canon having different roles. At least thats how I view it. Certainly not just "merely" read or "good to read".

 

[MoreCoffee]

The 7 books in question along with Esther and Daniel (as in the LXX) are canonical and the word deuterocanon is a late introduction for the sake of conversation with those who rejected the 7 books and parts of Esther and Daniel.

Deuterocanonical is a term coined in 1566 by the theologian Sixtus of Siena, who had converted to Catholicism from Judaism, to describe scriptural texts considered canonical by the Catholic Church, but which recognition was considered "secondary". For Sixtus, this term included portions of both Old and New Testaments (Sixtus considers the final chapter of the Gospel of Mark as 'deuterocanonical'); and he also applies the term to the Book of Esther from the canon of the Hebrew Bible. The term was then taken up by other writers to apply specifically to those books of the Old Testament which had been recognised as canonical by the Councils of Rome (382 AD), Hippo (393 AD), Carthage (397 AD and 419 AD), Florence (1442) and Trent (1546), but which were not in the Hebrew canon. (Wikipedia)

 

[NathanH83]

Sorry. I was referring to the one immediately prior to yours--post #268.

I also explained the point in an earlier reply to you. See the second section of post #260.

Your posts 260 and 268 say absolutely nothing about Clement or Judith.

Huh???

 

[NathanH83]

Anthanasius was telling us what he (probably the most respected Christian Bishop at the time) considered to be canonical and non-canonical. He wasn't telling us what the Jews thought.

Anthanasius wrote the Festal letter in 367. Jerome didn't start translating the Scripture into Latin until 382.

Jerome was following the lead of Anthanasius and the tradition of many in the church. Not just some unbelieving Jews.

Athanasius lived in Alexandria, Egypt.
Alexandria at the time was the largest concentration of Jews in the world. Just like New York City today is the largest urban population of Jews in the world within a city proper, Alexandria was, in a way, the New York City of the ancient world. No other city had more Jews than Alexandria. They even had a section of the city called “The Jewish Quarter.” It was probably the city Joseph took Mary and baby Jesus when he fled from Herod.

And you mean to say that Athanasius was not influenced by Jews? That’s like someone in New York claiming they’ve never rubbed shoulders with Jewish people or did business with them.

As for Jerome, he spent 30 years learning Hebrew from the unbelieving Jews in Bethlehem. He was greatly influenced by Jewish thought. And his opinion that the Apocrypha doesn’t belong was based on the fact that the Jews didn’t accept them, even though the church authorities required him to include the Apocrypha (though they didn’t call it Apocrypha -they called it divine canonical scripture).

 

[NathanH83]

4. There are, then, of the Old Testament, twenty-two books in number; for, as I have heard, it is handed down that this is the number of the letters among the Hebrews; their respective order and names being as follows. The first is Genesis, then Exodus, next Leviticus, after that Numbers, and then Deuteronomy. Following these there is Joshua the son of Nun, then Judges, then Ruth. And again, after these four books of Kings, the first and second 1 being reckoned as one book, and so likewise the third and fourth 2 as one book. And again, the first and second of the Chronicles are reckoned as one book. Again Ezra, the first and second 3 are similarly one book. After these there is the book of Psalms, then the Proverbs, next Ecclesiastes, and the Song of Songs. Job follows, then the Prophets, the Twelve [minor prophets] being reckoned as one book. Then Isaiah, one book, then Jeremiah with Baruch, Lamentations and the Epistle, one book; afterwards Ezekiel and Daniel, each one book. Thus far constitutes the Old Testament.

5. Is about the New Testament

6. These are the fountains of salvation, that he who thirsts may be satisfied with the living words they contain. In these alone the teaching of godliness is proclaimed. Let no one add to these; let nothing be taken away from them. For concerning these the Lord put to shame the Sadducees, and said, Ye do err, not knowing the Scriptures. And he reproved the Jews, saying, Search the Scriptures, for these are they that testify of me.

7. But for the sake of greater exactness I add this also, writing under obligation, as it were. There are other books besides these, indeed not received as canonical but having been appointed by our fathers to be read to those just approaching and wishing to be instructed in the word of godliness: Wisdom of Solomon, Wisdom of Sirach, Esther, Judith, Tobit, and that which is called the Teaching of the Apostles, and the Shepherd. But the former, my brethren, are included in the Canon, the latter being merely read; nor is there any place a mention of secret writings. But such are the invention of heretics, who indeed write them whenever they wish, bestowing upon them their approval, and assigning to them a date, that so, using them as if they were ancient writings, they find a means by which to lead astray the simple-minded.

It is clear that he differentiates between the "Old Testament" and "other books". And that these other books are not included in the Canon but to be "merely read" for instruction in godliness.

Notice how Athanasius does NOT include Esther in the canonical list. But then he DOES include Esther in the NON-canonical list.

Do you agree with Athanasius? If so, then you better open up your Bible and rip out the book of Esther and throw that in the trash right along with Tobit and Judith!

Obviously, Athanasius is in error, and you do NOT agree with his lists in their entirety.

So what’s going on? Why does Athanasius not include Esther in the canon?

Well, the JEWS at this time had rejected the book of Esther along with the other books they deemed apocryphal. For whatever reason, at a LATER point in time, the Jews decided they needed Esther, changed their minds, and put her back into the canon (while removing some chapters and changing the name of the king she was married to, from Artaxerxes to Ahasuerus).

This is why early Christians such as Athanasius and Mileto did NOT include Esther in their lists of canonical books…. BECAUSE THEY WERE INFLUENCED BY JEWS!

But Clement of Rome, who knew Paul personally, referenced BOTH Judith and Esther as scripture in his letter of 1 Clement.

Athanasius and Mileto didn’t have the privilege of knowing Paul personally, due to being born too long after the disciples died, which is why it was easy for them to get led astray by the unbelieving Jewish community. That’s why their lists are so bonkers, and inconsistent with the official beliefs of church authorities.

 

[NathanH83]

Yet, you can't tell us when or where (or even what) "The Church" did this. We've asked you for this for MONTHS (years?) and you've always ignored it (and we all know why).

YES, there were 3 tiny, regional, western, Latin, synods... none authoritative, none ecumenical, none "the Church." Just 3 dioceses of the Western Latin church (by no means the whole church) declaring an issue of the lectionary for that particular western Latin diocese. Other dioceses would not be interested and OBVIOUSLY no diocese of the East paid any attention to it at all. Nathan admits these were not meetings of the church.

And this claim - yet another, still another, one in a LONG, LONG list - is entirely unsubstantiated. You've already stated, "I could care less." But for those of us who think truth matters, it's noted that this claim - like SO MANY OTHERS you've made on this point - is not shown to be true. But as you say, "I could care less."

And it creates a problem for you.... you claim the books that must be included in any tome with the word BIBLE on the cover MUST include the books numerated in Article 6 of the 39 Articles of the Church of England (and in the 1611 KJV authorized by the King and leader of the Church of England). But NONE of those 3 regional, diocesan, non-authoritative, non-ecumenical meetings numerated the exact set of books you insist must be numerated and mandated to appear in any and all books called "BIBLES."




.

Yea, those church councils were tiny. Oh so tiny. Microscopic, in fact. You wouldn’t even be able to observe those church councils without a high powered microscope. Nobody should pay attention to what 3 different church authorities said. Forget the principle of 2 or 3 witnesses. That’s such a tiny principle. So tiny. Like mustard seed tiny.

 

[NathanH83]

Mustard seeds are so tiny.

 

[NathanH83]

Mustard seeds under a high powered microscope. They’re so tiny and insignificant. We should probably pay them no heed. They probably have little significance in the Kingdom of God. Don’t mind them. Tiny little seeds. Pay no attention to the men behind the curtain.

 

[NathanH83]

“We’re looking at mustard seeds now, quite frankly. We call them mustard seeds. I don’t know what you call them, but we call them mustard seeds. But we’re looking at them. And we’re looking at them very closely. In fact, I think we’re looking at them closer than anyone has ever looked at them before. And believe me when I tell you that these things are tiny. So tiny. That’s what a lot of people are saying. And I kid you not. You can barely see them. They could be 1 millimeter, could be 2 millimeters. But we’re looking at them quite frankly. I told my secretary, I said, “Can you believe how tiny these things are?” She couldn’t believe it. I think they set an all time record on how small they are. Of course the fake news will lie about how small they are. Ah, fake news. They don’t want to show how small they are. Radical left Democrats will try to convince you that they’re bigger than they are. I wonder why. But mustard seeds are tiny. And they’re fabulous, quite frankly. Mine grew into a tree. Such a large tree. Probably the largest tree in the garden quite frankly. And the birds, we call them birds, they perched on the branches. That’s what lot of people are saying. And that’s a wonderful thing, believe me.”

 

[Lanman87]

Notice how Athanasius does NOT include Esther in the canonical list. But then he DOES include Esther in the NON-canonical list.

Do you agree with Athanasius? If so, then you better open up your Bible and rip out the book of Esther and throw that in the trash right along with Tobit and Judith!

Obviously, Athanasius is in error, and you do NOT agree with his lists in their entirety.

So what’s going on? Why does Athanasius not include Esther in the canon?

Well, the JEWS at this time had rejected the book of Esther along with the other books they deemed apocryphal. For whatever reason, at a LATER point in time, the Jews decided they needed Esther, changed their minds, and put her back into the canon (while removing some chapters and changing the name of the king she was married to, from Artaxerxes to Ahasuerus).

This is why early Christians such as Athanasius and Mileto did NOT include Esther in their lists of canonical books…. BECAUSE THEY WERE INFLUENCED BY JEWS!

But Clement of Rome, who knew Paul personally, referenced BOTH Judith and Esther as scripture in his letter of 1 Clement.

Athanasius and Mileto didn’t have the privilege of knowing Paul personally, due to being born too long after the disciples died, which is why it was easy for them to get led astray by the unbelieving Jewish community. That’s why their lists are so bonkers, and inconsistent with the official beliefs of church authorities.

I'm not trying to show that Athanasius is right or wrong. What I am trying to show is that The New Catholic Encyclopedia is correct. There were two "threads" or "traditions" in the history of the church concerning those particular books. One thread was "for them being in the canon" and one thread was "they are great devotional/historical edifying books" but are not part of the canon. Holding either position was perfectly acceptable for Catholics up until Trent chose one "tradition" over the other.


Do you disagree with the New Catholic Encyclopedia?

 

[Lanman87]

One recurring theme in anti-deuterocanon apologetics is how sermons, surviving ancient bibles, and church liturgical readings are skipped over or completely ignored when enquiring into what the early churches used as holy and inspired scripture.

If the early church fathers quoting things in their writing and being included in ancient Bibles is the measuring stick then you are going to have to add the Didache, Shepard of Hermas, and Epistle of Barnabas to your canon. All of them were considered by some, at one time or another as "Scripture".

The Codex Sinaiticus contains the Epistle of Barnabas and Shephard of Hermas.

 

[Albion]

Your posts 260 and 268 say absolutely nothing about Clement or Judith.

Huh???

But it corrected your mistake there and explained how the Christian church determined which writings/books were inspired of God and which--like the numerous Gnostic writings that had an entirely different understanding of salvation and God, etc--were of human origin and were not divinely inspired.

The fact that some individual person or a few people now and then had their own ideas about which books should be considered Holy Scripture has no effect on that process.

If it did, we'd be talking about dozens and dozens of books that conflict with Christian doctrine with some churches in parts of the Christian world accepting them while others had a totally different kind of Bible. This is what the Church has always taught--that the Church decides the canon, not a bishop or other prominent churchman here or there somewhere in the first three or four centuries of Church history. Indeed, the councils that codified the Scriptures had as their purpose to decide for the whole Church, which books belong and which do not, even though there were some Christians in the early years who favored some other lineup.

In addition, what has erroneously been labelled as "tradition" in some of these posts is emphatically NOT what the term means when used in a theological sense. A point of view that dates back to early times is not the definition of what constitutes "Sacred Tradition" which some (Catholic) churches use to establish doctrine (such as Purgatory) that is not affirmed by the Bible.

 

[Andrew]

If the early church fathers quoting things in their writing and being included in ancient Bibles is the measuring stick then you are going to have to add the Didache, Shepard of Hermas, and Epistle of Barnabas to your canon. All of them were considered by some, at one time or another as "Scripture".

The Codex Sinaiticus contains the Epistle of Barnabas and Shephard of Hermas.

Many believe it's a forgery

 

[Josiah]

The fact that some individual person or a few people now and then had their own ideas about which books should be considered Holy Scripture

Yes.

The absurdity is the persistent claim that "The Church", that "Christianity" declared some specific list of books as "Scripture". But when we ask where and when The Church did this.... crickets. And everyone knows why, it never happened.

Our friends seem to confuse the variant OPINIONS of one or two or three individuals with some authoritative, official declaration of The Ruling Body of Christianity (as silly, as absurd, as laughable as that is). Since our friends hold that claims are just unaccountable and are correct if stated, they seem to hold the same for others (if they agree with them). Amazing.

We're told "The Apostles" (12? 13? 14?) declared what are and are not to be included in every tome printed and sold that has the word "BIBLE" on the cover, but when we ask for that memo from the Apostles.... crickets. And everyone knows why.


Now Nathan's issue may not be evasion but he admits he doesn't always read posts to him so maybe he never saw the requests. Andrews is more simple: "I could care less."

Indeed, the councils that codified the Scriptures had as their purpose to decide for the whole Church, which books belong and which do not, even though there were some Christians in the early years who favored some other lineup.

Nathan at times has pointed us to 2 little regional diocesan meetings: At Hippo (393) and Carthage (397). But he admits these were NOT meetings of "the Church", not ecumenical, not binding. And the list these meetings adopted is not the same as that of Article 6 of the 39 Articles of the Church of England they have held up as the correct list (the constant reference to the content of the 1611 KJV).

It IS true that a handful of denominations have officially declared specifically WHAT books it embraces and at times HOW they are are be embraced. Although I know of NONE that have declared that there must be some international law that all those books and only those books are to be found between the covers of every tome with BIBLE on the cover (the issue of our two friends). None of those did that before the 15th Century. And they aren't the same. The Anglican list, the 1546 Catholic list, the Reformed list, they aren't the same. Both points are evaded by our two friends. CHRISTIANITY, the CHURCH has never done this. And we have zero evidence that "The Apostles" did this.




.

 

[Josiah]

If the early church fathers quoting things in their writing and being included in ancient Bibles is the measuring stick then you are going to have to add the Didache, Shepard of Hermas, and Epistle of Barnabas to your canon. All of them were considered by some, at one time or another as "Scripture".

The Codex Sinaiticus contains the Epistle of Barnabas and Shephard of Hermas.

Yup.

So, if the rubric is: A person had an opinion that some book was Scripture, ergo some unidentified Ruling Body of Christianity declared it as inerrant, fully-canonical, divinely inspired and equal to all others, then yeah we do have to wonder why our two friends are contradicting themselves.

Clement of Alexandra (150-220) is the very first to give us an opinion here, and he INCLUDES the Epistle of Barnabas and the Revelation of Peter. So why aren't our two brothers insisting that there be some international law that every book sold with the word BIBLE on the cover have those 2 books in it???

Origen (185-255) is the first to actually give us a LIST. And it INCLUDES The Epistle of Barnabas, the Shepherd of Hermas, the Didache, and the Gospel of the Hebrews. So why aren't our two brothers insisting that there be some international law that every book sold with the word BIBLE on the cover have those 4 books in it???

Both of these are before Eusebius and LONG before those little regional diocesan meetings at Hippo and Carthage, long before the RCC's gathering of itself for itself at Florence or Trent or Article 6 of the 39 Articles of the Church of England.


The rubric that if a person seems to have a viewpoint, ERGO the authoritative, ruling body of all Christianity must have officially declared such is not only absurd but we don't find all have the same viewpoint on this - they differ. Here AGAIN, we find our friends rejection of their own apologetic.


Sorry, the reason why our friends refuse to give us the place and date where "The Church" decided what is and is not Scripture and what MUST be found between the covers of any book with the word "BIBLE" on the cover is that "The Church" never did that. And the reason why they refuse to present the memo from "the Apostles" with the list of such books is that such a memo doesn't exist and very likely never did. The reason they don't present any substantiation for all their many claims on this is simple: None exists.




.

 

[MoreCoffee]

If the early church fathers quoting things in their writing and being included in ancient Bibles is the measuring stick

But it isn't the measuring stick. The Church's bibles, councils, and canons from councils are far closer to being a measuring stick.

 

[Albion]

Our friends seem to confuse the variant OPINIONS of one or two or three individuals with some authoritative, official declaration of The Ruling Body of Christianity (as silly, as absurd, as laughable as that is). Since our friends hold that claims are just unaccountable and are correct if stated, they seem to hold the same for others (if they agree with them). Amazing.

Exactly. They're laying the groundwork for "lone wolf" Christianity.

No denomination that I am aware of, whether Catholic or Protestant, is silent on the matter of what books constitute the Bible.

We're told "The Apostles" (12? 13? 14?) declared what are and are not to be included in every tome printed and sold that has the word "BIBLE" on the cover, but when we ask for that memo from the Apostles.... crickets. And everyone knows why.

That's true. It's just a slogan ("were handed down from the Apostles.")

There is no evidence of that being so and they can cite nothing in support of that argument.

Nathan at times has pointed us to 2 little regional diocesan meetings: At Hippo (393) and Carthage (397). But he admits these were NOT meetings of "the Church", not ecumenical, not binding. And the list these meetings adopted is not the same as that of Article 6 of the 39 Articles of the Church of England they have held up as the correct list (the constant reference to the content of the 1611 KJV).

and Article VI very clearly states that the Apocrypha is not to be considered Holy Scripture and not to be used to determine any doctrine. In order that there be no doubt, the whole passage has been quoted to our friends, word for word.

It IS true that a handful of denominations have officially declared specifically WHAT books it embraces and at times HOW they are are be embraced. Although I know of NONE that have declared that there must be some international law that all those books and only those books are to be found between the covers of every tome with BIBLE on the cover (the issue of our two friends). None of those did that before the 15th Century. And they aren't the same. The Anglican list, the 1546 Catholic list, the Reformed list, they aren't the same. Both points are evaded by our two friends. CHRISTIANITY, the CHURCH has never done this. And we have zero evidence that "The Apostles" did this.

To compound their error, the claim has also been made that there was perfect unity concerning the Apocrypha, to include it as a collection of inspired writings equal to the other books of the OT and NT, all the way up until the 19th century!.