Apocrypha?

[Josiah]

The Assyrians and Babylonians are interchangeable, the word "Babylon" in scripture always refers to "worldly" fellowship.. So far the only claim I heard against these books was "see it says Nebuchadnezzar was the king of Assyria and not Babylon as cannon scripture suggest", but it's a fact that other OT scriptures has just as many or even more inconsistencies with historically accurate accounts, that's mainly due to the author not being an historian himself.. in fact even the NT authors are inconsistent at times, for good reason

Sorry, my friend... I have absolutely NO CLUE whatsoever how your reply has anything to do with anything written by anyone in post # 18 above. Or the topic here. Sorry!

 

[Andrew]

Sorry, my friend... I have absolutely NO CLUE whatsoever how your reply has anything to do with anything written by anyone in post # 18 above. Or the topic here. Sorry!

Historical accuracy/accounts in Maccabees, sorry must have read your post wrong

 

[Josiah]

Historical accuracy/accounts in Maccabees, sorry must have read your post wrong

MY point is just because a book may contain an accurate report of history does not ergo mean the book is thus the inscripturated, inerrant, words of God.... the norma normans for theology (canonical). I took a few history classes in college and had a few books for each class; I'm SURE something accurate could be found in all of them, but that per se does not make them equal books in the Bible. "This book has something about history correctly" is not the basis to determine what books are and are not the Rule/Canon/norma normans IMO. Well, that's my perspective, anyway.

 

[Andrew]

MY point is just because a book may contain an accurate report of history does not ergo mean the book is thus the inscripturated, inerrant, words of God.... the norma normans for theology (canonical). I took a few history classes in college and had a few books for each class; I'm SURE something accurate could be found in all of them, but that per se does not make them equal books in the Bible. "This book has something about history correctly" is not the basis to determine what books are and are not the Rule/Canon/norma normans IMO. Well, that's my perspective, anyway.

Well maybe the fact that the Masoretic was canon for Christ rejecting Jews, and that Jesus was reading from scrolls that the Septuagint hebrew sources were grounded in, and that early Christians and pre messianic Jews read them, maybe that's enough to see that they were inspired before churches started meddling with them

 

[Josiah]

Well maybe the fact that the Masoretic was canon for Christ

We don't know that. Nowhere do we find a list of the Books JESUS specifically regarded as the inscripturated words of God, the inerrant verbally inspired words of God, the norma normans/rule/canon. Nowhere did Jesus even mention First Maccabees or Psalm 151 nor specifically state, this specific Book is divine Scripture.

But my point was/is that just because a book may contain a statement about history that is accurate does not mean ergo that book is ergo the inscripturated words of God, the inerrant and verbally inspired words of God, the norma normans - Rule - Canon.

MY understanding is that this thread is about whether some 100 books that some but not all Christians have - at some point in time and space - regarded as important are Scripture (and if so, equal in every sense with others (such as the Pentetuch or the Synoptics).





.

 

[Andrew]

We don't know that. It's not "fact." Nowhere do we find a list of the Books JESUS specifically regarded as the inscripturated words of God, the inerrant verbally inspired words of God, the norma normans/rule/canon. Nowhere did Jesus even mention First Maccabees or Psalm 151 nor specifically state, this specific Book is divine Scripture.

But my point was/is that just because a book may contain a statement about history that is accurate does not mean ergo that book is ergo the inscripturated words of God, the inerrant and verbally inspired words of God, the norma normans - Rule - Canon.

MY understanding is that this thread is about whether some 100 books that some but not all Christians have - at some point in time and space - regarded as important are Scripture (and if so, equal in every sense with others (such as the Pentetuch or the Synoptics).

We DO know that Jesus quotes Isaiah "and recovery of site to the blind" which is not found in the masoretic OT BUT IS found in the Septuagint Hebrew sources! We DO know that the Masoretic also says Jacobs household was 70 instead of 75 which is both in the Septuagint AND the NT.. We also know that Jesus celebrated the feast of dedication which is rooted in Maccabees victory..

 

[Josiah]

IMO....


1. Determining what Books are and are not THE inscripturated, written, verbally inspired words of God - the norma normans/Rule/Canon - based on whether Jesus UNDENIABLY quoted from it and specifically labeled the book "Thus says the LORD..." is not a good rubric. We'd have to reject the entire New Testament and likely nearly every book in the OT, too.


2. Determining what Books are and are not THE inscripturated, written, verbally inspired words of God - the norma normans/Rule/Canon - based on whether something from it is simply quoted is also a poor rubric. A couple of weeks ago, my pastor quoted a book about Mellinnels; he actually held the book and quoted from it (verbatim). Does THAT prove that ergo that book is specifically SCRIPTURE? No. Truth is truth - WHEREVER such may be stated; just because something states it doesn't make it the Rule/Canon/Norma normans... it just means something true is recorded somewhere. All truth comes from God but that doesn't mean every document that states it comes from God. Even the Devil can say something correct, lol.... Even the Koran is right here and there, doesn't mean we must include the Koran in every Christian biblical tome. Probably 99% of books contain something in them that's true.... does THAT per se mean ERGO that books is Scripture and should be included in our Christian Bible? IMO, no.


3. Determining what Books are and are not THE inscripturated, written, verbally inspired words of God - the norma normans/Rule/Canon - based on whether some JEWS read the book is also, IMO, really bad rubrics. Jews aren't Christians. And of course, the Jews officially embraced only 39 books (by our count), they did so OFFICIALLY at the Council of Jamnia in 90 AD, so if we are to accept the Books the JEWS did then all Christians would have 39 books in our Bible, essentially what Calvin defined as the "Old Testament." But do we ask Muslims to determine our Bible? Why ask Jews?


4. For some, there is an uncomfortable reality here: Christians have always accepted the Authority of "Scripture." Christians have looked to "Scripture" as the Rule/Canon/Norma normans. We see this boldly with the ECF and it's certainly implied by Jesus Himself. "The Rule of Scripture" (today often known as "Sola Scriptura") is solid in Christian history. But, unlike the Jews, Christians have NEVER ecumenically, officially and formally determined what (exactly) IS and IS NOT that "Scripture." Sorry if that makes some uncomfortable but that's just history. Beginning around the 4th Century, there have been some very limited, local, unauthoritative synods that have spoken and beginning in the 15th century, a few individual denominations that have spoken, but nothing ecumenical or formal or binding or even determining. Sorry, just historical fact. There are 66 books (by our count) that have had wide, historic embrace as to the inscripturated, written, verbally inspired words of God - the norma normans/Rule/Canon, but even here, NOT always as EQUALS (the OT often seen as subject to the NT.... some NT books regarded as less authoritative than others, ie "spoken against). Those are the Books Calvin declared are Scripture and the ones the Anglican 39 Artlicles suggest are canonical/norma normans. There are an additional half dozen or so books that have LESS consensus and generally have been given LESS authority/function.... another dozen or so even less.... another two dozen or so even less.... another 50 or so even less.





.

 

[Josiah]

We DO know that Jesus quotes psalms "and recovery of site to the blind" which is not found in the masoretic OT BUT IS found in the Septuagint Hebrew sources!

Sorry, I fail to see how that determines what Books are and are not the inscripturated, verbally inspired, written words of God and thus the Rule/Canon/Norma normans.

We also know that Jesus celebrated the feast of dedication which is rooted in Maccabees victory..

We also celebrated Columbus Day on Monday.... that doesn't mean that some individual history book that states the history there is ERGO the inscripturated, verballly inspired, inerrant, words of God... and thus the Rule/Canon/Norma Normans. IMO,that's an entirely unreasonable leap. See post 27.

 

[Andrew]

Sorry, I fail to see how that determines what Books are and are not the inscripturated, verbally inspired, written words of God and thus the Rule/Canon/Norma normans.






We also celebrated Columbus Day on Monday.... that doesn't mean that some individual history book that states the history there is ERGO the inscripturated, verballly inspired, inerrant, words of God... and thus the Rule/Canon/Norma Normans. IMO,that's an entirely unreasonable leap. See post 27.

Here's what I posted in another thread that supports how the NT agrees with the Septuagint over the Masoretic..

In Luke 4:18 Jesus quotes Isaiah 61

"The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he hath anointed me to preach the gospel to the poor; he hath sent me to heal the brokenhearted, to preach deliverance to the captives, and recovering of sight to the blind, to set at liberty them that are bruised" Luke 4:18

But when I look up Isaiah 61 in my KJV bible which uses the revised hebrew Masoretic text, the phrase "and recovery of sight to the blind" does not appear in the verse.

"The Spirit of the Lord GOD is upon me; because the LORD hath anointed me to preach good tidings unto the meek; he hath sent me to bind up the brokenhearted, to proclaim liberty to the captives, and the opening of the prison to them that are bound;" Isaiah 61:1 (KJV)

Did Jesus misquote the passage?

I own a non-Masoretic Hebrew to Greek translation OT copy of the Septuagint that was used during the time of Jesus and the Apostles, and when I looked up Isaiah 61 in this greek translation I found that missing sentence "and recovery of sight to the blind" that Jesus quotes!

"The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he has anointed me; he has sent me to preach glad tidings to the poor, to heal the broken in heart, to proclaim liberty to the captives, and recovery of sight to the blind;" Isaiah 61:1 (LXX)

Anyone else find it interesting that the later 'revised' Hebrew text (Masoretic) that we use is missing a line from Isaiah that Jesus quotes in the NT?

Is your bible missing that line too?

I found some other anomalies where the NT quotes the OT but again is not found in my standard bible but is found in the hebrew to greek translation (Septuagint), so let's figure this out one at a time.

Regardless of possible "translation error" which do you believe to be correct? Jesus in the New Testament canon or the Masoretic Hebrew OT canon?

If Jesus just added this in spontaneously then is it just a coincidence that the non revised Hebrew Text (Septuagint) that was around at the time of Jesus and the Apostles say the same thing?

Now for my next question concerning the house of Jacob. Is it 75 or 70?

"Then sent Joseph, and called his father Jacob to him, and all his kindred, threescore and fifteen souls." Acts 7:14
Acts clearly says "75" but...

"And the sons of Joseph, which were born him in Egypt, were two souls: all the souls of the house of Jacob, which came into Egypt, were threescore and ten" Genesis 46:27 (KJV Masoretic)

"And all the souls that came out of the loins of Jacob were seventy souls: for Joseph was in Egypt already" Exodus 1:5 (KJV Masoretic)

My KJV bible keeps saying "70" disagreeing with the books of Acts!

But the Hebrew source that the Septuagint was translated from and as we noted before, is very likely the text that Jesus read, says this..

"And the sons of Joseph, who were born to him in the land of Egypt, were nine souls; all the souls of the house of Jacob who came with Joseph into Egypt, were seventy-five souls." Genesis 46:27 LXX

"But Joseph was in Egypt. And all the souls of Jacob were seventy-five." Exodus 1:5 LXX

The Dead sea scrolls also agrees with the LXX Exodus 1:5 that there were 75 souls total

The Septuagint agrees with Acts that Jacobs house contained 75 total!

So the information and quotes from Acts and of Jesus seems to have been based on an earlier Hebrew text from which the greek Septuagint was founded on.

Is there any other explanation for why the Masoretic Hebrew source doesn't agree with Acts and the Hebrew text that Jesus was reading from?

 

[Josiah]

Here's what I posted in another thread that supports how the NT agrees with the Septuagint over the Masoretic..

... assuming you made that case, sorry, but I'm absolutely lost as to what that has to do with which books are and are not the inscripturated, verbally-inspired, written words of God and thus the Rule/Canon/norma normans.

 

[Andrew]

... assuming you made that case, sorry, but I'm absolutely lost as to what that has to do with which books are and are not the inscripturated, verbally-inspired, written words of God and thus the Rule/Canon/norma normans.

Simple, the Septuagint books is the OT, the Masoretic is post Christian canon thus is what caused our churches to "canon" the OT (which was fine the way it was)..
I find it sad that post Christian gentiles knew better than what pre Christian hebrews knew.. we should have never paid any attention to what post Christ judaism believes (that the New Testament gospels were unworthy and uninspired) :/

 

[Albion]

I find it sad that post Christian gentiles knew better than what pre Christian hebrews knew.. we should have never paid any attention to what post Christ judaism believes (that the New Testament gospels were unworthy and uninspired) :/

As far as I'm concerned, you can read whatever you want and believe whatever you want, but we must at least correct the mistaken idea that the "pre Christian Hebrews" knew what you are saying they knew. In reality, they were split down the middle on the Apocrypha, which is why Christians had to make their own decision about those books.

 

[Andrew]

As far as I'm concerned, you can read whatever you want and believe whatever you want, but we must at least correct the mistaken idea that the "pre Christian Hebrews" knew what you are saying they knew. In reality, they were split down the middle on the Apocrypha, which is why Christians had to make their own decision about those books.

They weren't split until after Christ earthly ministry though.. before that there is no sources that cite that there was any split as you claim, if you have any sources please share so I may stand corrected.
Josephus, a Pharisee, even praised the Septuagint

 

[Albion]

They weren't split until after Christ earthly ministry though.

That's untrue. Most authorities seem to feel, as a matter of fact, that most of the Hebrews of that time rejected these books (for many reasons that were evident also to the Christians later on).

 

[Andrew]

That's untrue. Most authorities seem to feel, as a matter of fact, that most of the Hebrews of that time rejected these books (for many reasons that were evident also to the Christians later on).

What authorities? I stated before that an apologetic letter was written to the Jews concerning the Sabbath and cited Judas Maccabee as gathering troops on the Sabbath, why would the apologist cite a book if they weren't even accepting it as scripture? Point being is they DID accept it as scripture.

 

[Josiah]

Simple, the Septuagint books is the OT[

An interesting claim, but you've presented nothing that shows that. In fact the ONLY thing official from the Jews here is the Council of Jamnia, the first time the Jews did ANYTHING official on this issue. And they rejected - wholly and completely- ALL the books that some regard as deutercanonical.

And I disagree that non-Christians are the determinant of what are to be regarded by Christians as the inscripturated, verbally-inspired, inerrent, written words of God and thus the Rule/Canon/norma normans. Why look to the JEWS or MUSLIMS for whether Paul's Epistle to the Romans is Scripture or not? Why look to Buddhist to determine if the Epistle to the Leodiceans should be in the CHRISTIAN collection of canonical SCRIPTURES?

And I disagree that if non-Christians quoted from a book (even if the words appear, "And to QUOTE the book of _____________" appears) ergo such book is therefore the inscripturated, verbally-inspired, inerrent, written words of God and thus the Rule/Canon/norma normans. That's untenable.

And I disagree that the Jews knew better what is and is not Scripture than Christians did/do. If I believed that, I'd have to reject the entire NT. I do not accept that God guided the Jews but not Christians; if I believed that, I'd have to be a Jew and reject Christ.



.

 

[Andrew]

An interesting claim, but you've presented nothing that shows that. In fact the ONLY thing official from the Jews here is the Council of Jamnia, the first time the Jews did ANYTHING official on this issue. And they rejected - wholly and completely- ALL the books that some regard as deutercanonical.

And I disagree that non-Christians are the determinant of what are to be regarded by Christians as the inscripturated, verbally-inspired, inerrent, written words of God and thus the Rule/Canon/norma normans. Why look to the JEWS or MUSLIMS for whether Paul's Epistle to the Romans is Scripture or not? Why look to Buddhist to determine if the Epistle to the Leodiceans should be in the CHRISTIAN collection of canonical SCRIPTURES?

And I disagree that if non-Christians quoted from a book (even if the words appear, "And to QUOTE the book of _____________" appears) ergo such book is therefore the inscripturated, verbally-inspired, inerrent, written words of God and thus the Rule/Canon/norma normans. That's untenable.

And I disagree that the Jews knew better what is and is not Scripture than Christians did/do. If I believed that, I'd have to reject the entire NT. I do not accept that God guided the Jews but not Christians; if I believed that, I'd have to be a Jew and reject Christ.



.

There is no evidence that they ever finalized any canon in Jamnia, even if this actually took place why was it right after Christ's ascension and not say.. a month before Jesus was born or toward the end of the "400 years of silence"? Very suspicious and not backed up too well when you look into it

 

[Albion]

An interesting claim, but you've presented nothing that shows that. In fact the ONLY thing official from the Jews here is the Council of Jamnia, the first time the Jews did ANYTHING official on this issue. And they rejected - wholly and completely- ALL the books that some regard as deutercanonical.

That's correct.

And I disagree that non-Christians are the determinant of what are to be regarded by Christians as the inscripturated, verbally-inspired, inerrent, written words of God and thus the Rule/Canon/norma normans.

Correct again. And the Hebrews did not even have a concept of inspired books vs uninspired books. Nor did the Septuagint come in only one version. But you are correct that they did dismiss the Apocryphal writings.

 

[Josiah]

There is no evidence that they ever finalized any canon in Jamnia, even if this actually took place why was it right after Christ's ascension and not say.. a month before Jesus was born or toward the end of the "400 years of silence"? Very suspicious and not backed up too well when you look into it

... so if the Jews never determined exactly which Books are and are not Scripture, why look to the Jews (or Hindus or Muslims or Buddhists) for that determination? And of course, if the JEWS or Muslims are the authoritative ones on this, how can we accept the New Testament since NO non-Christian religion accepts ANY of those Books - and never has?

 

[Andrew]

... so if the Jews never determined exactly which Books are and are not Scripture, why look to the Jews (or Hindus or Muslims or Buddhists) for that determination? And of course, if the JEWS or Muslims are the authoritative ones on this, how can we accept the New Testament since NO non-Christian religion accepts ANY of those Books - and never has?

Jews after Christ's ministry have no excuse, I do lean on what pre Christ's Jews held as scripture because unlike the printing press or even Wycliffes translation, the earlier Hebrew sources DID become canon in a way when they painstakingly translated their sacred Hebrew scrolls to Greek and distributed as the Jewish Holy books without distinctions of "lesser/2nd canon books" from "actual Holy books"... it was all one complete compilation and was a successful translation.
(Top that run on sentence! lol)