Posted on 06/25/2015 9:38:54 AM PDT by wagglebee
The Lord nonetheless oversaw a role in their being stewards of the oracles of God which are fine in their original languages. If the “deuterocanonical” books had arisen as New Testament books that would have been a different matter. But they never were elevated to that status. So calling them part of the Old Testament is just wrong.
It's not completely certain in terms of names and dates, but it was definitely Talmud-Judaism, not Temple-Judaism, which rejected these seven books.
The Talmud relates that Rabbi Yohanan ben Zakkai relocated to the city of Yavne/Jamnia, where he received permission from the Romans to found a school of halakha (Jewish religious law). The Mishnah describes a debate over the status of some books of Ketuvim (the Wisdom literature, or "Writings"). Since all of the synagogues of Jerusalem (the center of Temple-Judaism) were destroyed with the Temple, Yavneh/Jamnia became the temporary intellectual and cultural center of the Jewish nation. It was at this time that the Hebrew canon was apparently debated, reworked and settled in the form that eventually came down through the centuries as the Masoretic Hebrew text, resolutely rejecting all Christian and Christian-leaning books: that is to say, rejecting all the 27 books of the NT as well as the 7 now called Deuterocanonicals.
Very clearly, for the authority to recognize or to remove canonical books, we have to look either to the Councils of Talmud-Judaism (post-Temple, rabbinical Judaism) or to the Councils of the Christian Church.
I think any Christian would have strong reason to adhere to the Christian councils and their canon, rather than the Rabbinical councils and their canon.
According to Evangelical scripture scholars, the early church had extremely high standards for what books were judged to be authentic and therefore included in the Bible. A book had to conform to basic Christian faith and had to be in widespread use among many churches. This was a careful process of "the people of God in many different places, coming to recognize what other believers elsewhere found to be true"; these writings were truly God’s word. (I'm quoting from G.J. Wenham, J.A. Motyer, D.A. Carson and R.T. France, The New Bible Commentary.
I can't help thinking we ought to be in agreement on this.
Might I remind everyone that this is what political activism and voting by conservatives has accomplished.
In any case, the important distinction between marriage and the consensual sodomy license sold by caesar needs to be drawn. You don’t need the license issued by caesar to get married in a church unless the church chooses to require it. Churches are currently caesars unpaid agents in executing the license. There is a solution at hand...churches can stop agreeing to be caesar’s agent.
Well as far as Christian faith, the cat was already out of the bag with Isaiah.
There are some Roman/Orthodox doctrines that depend on these books. The idea of praying a departed soul into heaven is more Talmudic than Temple in flavor, with other scripture avoiding the subject or hinting that it was not a valid idea.
That's what you think. That's what I think. That's what 20 centuries of continuous and coherent Christian hermeneutics thinks. (If I can use the verb that way.) But it's not what Talmudic Jews think.
"There are some Roman/Orthodox doctrines that depend on these books. The idea of praying a departed soul into heaven is more Talmudic than Temple in flavor, with other scripture avoiding the subject or hinting that it was not a valid idea."
As I understand it, Jewish teachings on the subject of "the world to come" are sparse: The Torah, the most important Jewish text, has no clear reference to afterlife at all. Olam haBa (afterlife) is rarely discussed in Jewish life even today, be it among Reform, Conservative, or Orthodox Jews.
Many Jews think of it as a kind of silent shadow-life:
Job 7:9
"As the cloud is consumed and vanisheth away: so he that goeth down to the grave shall come up no more."Psalm 6:5
"For in death there is no remembrance of thee: in the grave who shall give thee thanks?"Psalm 88:5
"Forsaken among the dead, Like the slain who lie in the grave, Whom You remember no more, And they are cut off from Your hand."
Before late-antiquity Judaism (200 - 100 BC), Jews tended to see the death of the believer, not as "going to be with the Lord," but as being forgotten, "remembered by the Lord no more".
An upsurge of teaching about heaven and hell, angels, the "world to come," the resurrection of the just, eternal life, occurred in "late antiquity" Judaism, at the very time when the inspired Deuterocanonicals were written. And the new Christian movement grew directly out of this "late antiquity" Jewish thinking.and made a BIG DEAL out of the life to come, the life that never ends.
It's what devout Jews raised on the Septuagint were constantly asking Jesus about: "Master, what must I do to gain eternal life?"
This thirst for knowledge about Olam haBa arose very much at the time of the writing of the Deuterocanon:
Wisdom 15:3Which aroused questions which could only be answered by Christ:
“For to know thee is complete righteousness, and to know thy power is the root of immortality.”
John 17:3Likewise the accounts of the deaths of the Jewish martyrs in Maccabees are full of consolation that they had attained eternal life: an new thirst, a new hope, an new emphasis which comes to real fruition only with Christ.
“Now this is eternal life, that they should know you, the only true God, and the one whom you sent, Jesus Christ.”
Contrary to what many people think, first century Jews did not speak Hebrew: they spoke Aramaic and read the Scriptures in Greek. Hebrew was not a spoken language anymore except in Jerusalem itself, and mainly as a liturgical language. The translation of the Scripture which was accepted by the authors of the NT (Gospels/Epistles) themselves, as well as ALL the Jewish communities of the Mediterranean --- northern Africa, southern Europe, Galilee and the Levant --- was the Septuagint.
It stands to reason that the Christian synods said "Yes" to the Deuterocanonicals, which had long been read in their synagogues, and then, when they became Christians, were read in their churches (since they accepted the whole LXX), whereas the anti-Jesus-Movement Jews, the Torah-Talmud Jews, rejected the LXX, the Deuteros, AND the entire New Testament which was so nourished by these sources.
That's the explanation Jerome gave, when he was asked why, after some controversy, he included them:
"What sin have I committed in following the judgment of the churches?"
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.