I don't think so. What we have is passed down from the Apostles. The apostolic age ended with the death of the last apostle.
Posted on 01/29/2005 6:12:28 AM PST by NYer
Hamilton, Ontario, Jan. 28, 2005 (CNA) - Canadian archaeologist Russell Adams, a professor at McMaster University has recently unearthed evidence, which helps to show the historical accuracy of the Bible.
Professor Adams and his team of colleagues have found information that points to the existence of the Biblical Kingdom of Edom existing at precisely the time Scripture claims it existed.
The evidence flies in the face of a common belief that Edom actually came into existence at least 200 years later.
According to the Canadian Globe and Mail, the group’s findings “mean that those scholars convinced that the Hebrew Old Testament is at best a compendium of revisionist, fragmented history, mixed with folklore and theology, and at worst a piece of outright propaganda, likely will have to apply the brakes to their thinking.”
The Kingdom of Edom, mentioned throughout the Old Testament, and a continuous source of hostility for Biblical Israel, is thought to have existed in what is now southern Jordan.
The group made their discovery while investigating a copper mining site called Khirbat en-Nahas.
According to the Globe and Mail, radiocarbon dating of their finds, “firmly established that occupation of the site began in the 11th century BC and a monumental fortress was built in the 10th century BC, supporting the argument for existence of an Edomite state at least 200 years earlier than had been assumed.”
The evidence is also said to suggest that the Kingdom existed at the same time David, who scripture recounts as warring with Edom, was king over Israel.
You aren't a careful reader.
Read it again:
You stated your personal opinion, thus: "Epilepsy and seizures are a conduit to the Divine."
To which I responded with my own personal opinion: "One of the more hilarious "just so" statements I've ever seen outside of the ravings of some others in the man-centered religion -- like Benny Hinn and some of the other sheep-shearing TBN / CBN grifters. Hahahaha
I can't apologize for your misperceptions about what I wrote. I equated your statement to the ravings of certain people who themselves are the grifters (in my opinion).
By the way! I am SURE that there is a religious kook market out there that would gladly embrace your special "revelations" and fund your "ministry". You might want to check with TBN, etal., and see if they have a time-slot open. LOL
You'll have to excuse me, but I'll take a pass. I don't consider anyone who believes that "Epilepsy and seizures are a conduit to the Divine" to be someone I can take seriously.
As a Catholic I would ask how anyone can read and understand the Bible w/o Tradition passed down from the apostles.
"It sure is a powerful hand, the hand of the successor of Peter." ~ Dominick
When one studies the history of New Testament "church government", one can
readily see that the bottom-up, checks and balances, Republican form of
limited government that America's Calvinist Framers gave us, is based
straight out of the New Testament CHURCH GOVERNMENT example. [Acts 6:3;
1:15, 22, 23, 25; 2Cor.8:19, etc.] And Paul, Barnabus and Titus are shown
as installing the elders that were chosen by the congregations [Acts 6:3-6;
14:23 and Titus 1:5].
Paul says to the whole church congregation: "Pick out from among you seven
men of good repute, full of the Spirit and of wisdom whom we may appoint to
this duty." (of servant aka deacon)
The apostles had the *unique authority* to found and govern the early
church, and they could speak and write the words of God. Many of their
written words became the NT Scripture.
In order to qualify as an apostle someone had to had seen Christ with his
own eyes after he rose from the dead **and** had to have been specifically
installed/appointed by Christ as an apostle.
In place of living apostles present in the church to teach and govern it,
we have instead the writings of the apostles in the books of the NT.
Those New Testament Scriptures fulfill for the church today the absolute
authoritative teaching and governing functions which were fulfilled by the
apostles themselves during the early years of the church.
Because of that, there is no need for any direct "succession" or "physical
descent" from the apostles. [1 John 2:27]
*
At the Reformation, the Reformers revived the biblical doctrine of the priesthood of the believer. Once the common people understood this doctrine, the power of Rome was broken. The people realized that:
They were the church
They were priests
Christ was the only mediator between God and man
They should confess their sins to God alone
Only God can forgive sins
Purgatory was a myth
Indulgences were a congame
Only God decides who goes into Heaven or Hell
The Catholic priests could no longer rule by fear and intimidation. The people rose up and drove them out of the church!
The Roman Catholic Church Is Structured According To O. T. Judaism Instead Of N. T. Christianity
A. Judaism --- B. Roman Catholic Church
A. The High Priest --- B. The Pope
A. Jewish Priests --- B. Catholic Priests
A. Continuous Sacrifices (Animal) --- B. Continuous Sacrifices (The Mass)
A. The Temple --- B. The Cathedral
A. The Holy City (Jerusalem) --- B. The Holy City (Rome)
A. Physical Discipline Even Unto Death --- B. Physical Discipline Even Unto Death
A. Passive Laity --- B. Passive Laity
A. Under Law/Good Works --- B. Under Law/Good Works
A. O.T. Worship with Incense, altar, etc. --- B. Worship with incense, Altars, etc.
A. Church/State As One --- B. Church/State As One
It's a free country but why should anyone want to follow an old covenant of law/works when Christ has established a New Covenant of grace/faith?
I don't think so. What we have is passed down from the Apostles. The apostolic age ended with the death of the last apostle.
Catholic and many Protestant scholars agree that of Jesus and the Apostles' 300 references to the OT in the NT, at least 200 are from the Septuagint, which contains the deuterocanonical books of the Bible. Some NT references to the deuterocanonical books here.
It is significant that the Council of Trent was the response of the Roman Catholic Church to the teachings of Martin Luther and the rapidly spreading Protestant Reformation, and the fact that the books of the Apocrypha contain support for the Roman Catholic Church's teaching of prayers for the dead and the justification by faith plus works, not by faith alone.
THE CANONS OF THE 217 BLESSED FATHERS WHO ASSEMBLED AT CARTHAGEThe canon of Scripture was settled following the Council of Carthage. No other canon was ever licitly used by Catholics thereafter. The final dogmatic definition by Trent was necessitated by Luther's rejection of the deuterocanonical books which contradicted his rejection of the doctrine of purgatory.
(A.D. 345-419)CANON XXIV (Greek. xxvii)
That nothing be read in church besides the Canonical Scripture.
ITEM, that besides the Canonical Scriptures nothing be read in church under the name of divine Scripture.
But the Canonical Scriptures are as follows:
Genesis.
Exodus.
Leviticus.
Numbers.
Deuteronomy.
Joshua the Son of Nun.
The Judges.
Ruth.
The Kings, iv. books.
The Chronicles, ij. books.
Job.
The Psalter.
The Five books of Solomon.
The Twelve Books of the Prophets.
Isaiah.
Jeremiah.
Ezechiel.
Daniel.
Tobit.
Judith.
Esther.
Ezra, ij. books.
Macchabees, ij. books.THE NEW TESTAMENT...
In spite of the fact that even Cardinal Cajetan, himself, Luther's famous opponent, rejected the canonicity of the Apocrypha, in 1546, at the time they affirmed the Apocrypha to be within the canon, the Roman Catholic Church said that they had the authority to constitute A LITERARY WORK to be "Scripture". ..." Wayne Grudem [paraphrased from Systematic Theology-Zondervan] See #246
The fact that these books were included by Jerome in his Latin Vulgate translation of the Bible (completed in A.D. 404) gave support to their inclusion, EVEN THOUGH JEROME HIMSELF SAID THEY WERE NOT "BOOKS OF THE CANON", but merely "books of the church" that were helpful and useful for believers.
Neither you nor I nor, most importantly, the Catholic Church, regards the teachings of Cardinal Cajetan or St. Jerome as infallible. So what does this prove?
The earliest Christian list of OT books that exists today is by Melito, bishop of Sardis, writing about A.D. 170. It is noteworthy that Melito names none of the books of the Apocrypha, but he includes all of our present Old Testament books except Esther.
You can add the bishop of Sardis to the list of non-infallible Catholics. More importantly, Jesus and the Apostles reference the Septuagint in the pages of the New Testament.
Septuagint quotes in the New Testament
Eusebius also quotes Origen as affirming most of the books of our present Old Testament canon (including Esther), but no book of the Apocrypha is affirmed as cononical, and the books of Maccabees are EXPLICITLY said to be "OUTSIDE OF THESE (canonical books]" ~ Ecclesiastical History 6.15.2 (Origen DIED about A.D. 254).
Origen is a particularly poor choice for a Bible-only Christian as an infallible authority since he tended to interpret Scripture allegorically.
These books were never accepted by the Jews as Scripture...
Do Jesus and the Apostles count? Who do you think was reading the Greek Old Testament? Roman pagans? It was written for Greek-speaking Jews who probably represented the greater number of Jews.
The so-called council of Jamnia rejected the Deuterocanon precisely because the Christians accepted it. The meeting of rabbis was held in the year 100 A.D., seventy years after Jesus' death --in the Church age. Christ's Church had the authority to determine the canon of Scripture, not a group of rabbis.
Matthew 18:17but the use of the Apocrypha gradually increased in some parts of the church UNTIL the time of the Reformation.If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if he refuses to listen even to the church, treat him as you would a pagan or a tax collector.
See the Council of Carthage above.
In A.D. 367 the Thirty-ninth Paschal Letter of Athanasius contained an exact list of the twenty-seven New Testament books we have today. This was the list of books accepted by the churches in the eastern part of the Mediterranean world.
Thirty years later, in A.D. 397, the Council of Carthage, representing the churches in the western part of the Mediterranean world, agreed with the eastern churches on the same list. These are the earliest final lists of our canon of Scripture.
See above.
Once the writings of the New Testament apostles and their authorized companions were completed, we have everything that God wants us to know about the life, death, & resurrection of Christ, and its meaning for the lives of believers for all time. In this way Hebrews 1 & 2 shows us why no more writings can be added to the Bible after the time of the New Testament. The canon is now closed.
Shouldn't the Bible confirm this?
1 Corinthians 11:2Major Church pronouncements on the Bible:I praise you for remembering me in everything and for holding to the traditions just as I passed them on to you.
2 Thessalonians 2:15
So then, brothers, stand firm and hold to the teachings [ Or traditions] we passed on to you, whether by word of mouth or by letter.
Pentecost (30/33AD)By what authority could Luther remove books from the Bible that was accepted by all Christians of his time? The Bible?The beginning of the Church; the Church exists before a determination of a canon or a definitive list of books of what was later called the Bible. The NT was not even written yet. The Bible is the book of the Church, we are not a church of the Bible.
Melito, Bishop of Sardis (c. 170)
Produced the first known Christian attempt at an Old Testament canon. His list maintains the Septuagint order of books but contains only the Old Testament protocanonicals minus the Book of Esther.
Council of Laodicea (c. 360)
A local council of the church in union with Rome produced a list of books of the Bible similar to the Council of Trent's canon. This was one of the Church's earliest decisions on a canon.
Council of Rome (382)
Local church council under the authority of Pope Damasus, (366-384) gave a complete list of canonical books of the OT and NT which is identical with the list later approved by the Council of Trent.
Council of Hippo (393)
Local North African Church council in union with and under the authority of the Bishop of Rome approved a list of OT and NT canon (same as later approved by the Council of Trent)
Council of Carthage (397)
Local North African Church council in union with and under the authority of the Bishop of Rome approved a list of OT and NT canon (same as later approved by the Council of Trent)
Pope Innocent I, Bishop of Rome, 401-417 (405)
Responded to a request by Exuperius, Bishop of Toulouse, with a list of canonical books of Scripture; this list was the same as later approved by the Council of Trent.
Council of Carthage (419)
Local North African Church council in union with and under the authority of the Bishop of Rome approved a list of OT and NT canon (same as later approved by the Council of Trent)
Council of Florence, an ecumenical council (1441)
Complete list of OT and NT canon was drawn up; this list later adopted by the Fathers of the Council of Trent
Council of Trent, an ecumenical council called to respond to the heresy of the Reformers (1545-1563) The canon of OT and NT received final definitions: 46 books in the OT; 27 in the NT; "Henceforth the books of the OT and the NT, protocanonical and deuterocanonical alike, in their entirety and with all their parts, comprise the canon and are held to be of equal authority." The ancient Vulgate edition of the Bible was called the authoritative edition of the Bible.
When Napoleon seized the Vatican in 1809 he exiled the Pope to Avignon,
transported the Vatican library to France in 50 wagons, and carried off a
prize to Paris—an ancient Greek manuscript of the Bible. There it remained
until 1815 when it was finally returned to Paris along with its owner.
Vatican authorities kept it under lock and key desperately hoping this
recently rediscovered treasure would be soon forgotten. But in 1845, a
brilliant young English scholarself taughtapplied for permission to
investigate this find in the Vatican library. Unable to avoid granting
permission, the Vatican put every obstacle in his path. He was not allowed
to take pen or paper with him, he was searched going in and coming out, and
two clerics stood by him to turn the pages so he could not look too long at
any one passage. He was only allowed six hours to examine the text. When he
left he knew he had seen one of the most remarkable evidences of how God
had preserved the Bible. Yet it would be over 20 years before this
manuscript was printed.
In 1866 Count Konstantin von Tischendorf another young, brilliant scholar,
and one of the real heroes in the study of canonicity was granted
permission to once more examine this manuscript. He was also given many
restrictions; only 14 days and three hours each day. But with his
photographic memory he was able to publish the most perfect edition of the
manuscript which had yet appeared in 1867. This forced the Vatican to
finally publish a correct copy in 1881.
This is only one of many exciting episodes in the story of the Bible. Many
people know little of these events. Yet again and again they provide
overwhelming evidence of the power and truth of God's Word.
Remember:
If there is no God, nothing matters; If there is a God nothing else matters.
If God has not spoken, we can know nothing; But if God has spoken, it opens
the door to all knowledge.
Therefore, nothing in life is more important then knowing the Word of God
I. Canon
A. Greek: kanona , a rule involving a standard for conduct — `rule,
principle.' hosoi to kanoni touto stoichesousin `as many as follow this
rule' (Louw-Nida).
B. Definition: An objective rule or standard given by God and is inherent
in the concept of inspiration. The list of books that meet certain tests or
rules and were thus authoritative and by definition limited to a few
writings.
C. Inspiration must precede canonicity.
1. Inspiration: [Greek, theopneustos, literally “God-breathed”] God the
Holy Spirit so supernaturally governed the human writers of Scripture, that
without waiving their human intelligence, vocabulary, individuality,
literary style, personality, emotions, education, or any other human
factor, His complete and coherent message to mankind was recorded without
error in any subject it addresses in the original languages of Scripture,
the very words bearing the authority of divine authorship.
All Scripture is inspired [theopneustos] by God and profitable for
teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness; (2
Tim. 3:16)
But know this first of all, that no prophecy of Scripture is a matter of
one's own interpretation, for no prophecy was ever made by an act of human
will, but men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God. (2 Peter 1:20-21)
2. Corollaries to the Doctrine of Inspiration
1. The Canon once complete is sufficient, it is enough, it is all that is
necessary, and communicates everything man requires to have salvation,
enjoy a relationship with God, grow to spiritual maturity, and possess
maximum happiness no matter the circumstances, situations, or suffering. 2
Peter 1:34
2. The Scripture attests to its own authenticity and authority. This is
inherent if it is what it claims to be, i.e., the voice of God, the mind of
Christ (1 Cor. 2:16), God's authoritative revelation of Himself to mankind.
When the Pharisees confronted Jesus for a witness to validate His claims of
Deity, He appealed to Scripture, if they failed to listen to the
self-authenticating words of Moses, they would not believe Him, or any
empirical or rational argument (see Luke 16:29-31).
a. This is not a circular argument. To what does Jesus Christ, the ultimate
reference point in all reality, refer for validation? There is no higher
authority.
b. Each book is canonical and authoritative the instant it was written,
each carrying its own authority within. Authority and validation is not and
never was bestowed by a group of men or church councils. They merely
recognized what was already there.
3. God guided the process of revelation and the transmission and
preservation of the text. Part of the doctrine of the Providence of God.
Just as the church is the body of Christ and the Scripture is the mind of
Christ, so Christ authenticated His Word. Ultimately, canonicity is
determined by Jesus Christ who caused His church to recognize His Word,
through the witness of God the Holy Spirit.
4. Inherent in the idea of canon is its limitation, it is limited to a few
writings. The New Testament canon was completed in c. 95 AD, recognized by
a formal decision in 397 AD which merely validated hundreds of informal
decisions catalogued throughout the three preceding centuries. Thus, there
are no longer any canonical books to discover, even if other writings by an
apostle were discovered or verified they would not be canonical. Not
everything an apostle wrote was canonical or inspired.
**Excludes: New books by cults, i.e., the Book of Mormon, The Book of
Science and Scripture, etc.
New revelations and prophecies. A revelation or prophecy by definition
originates with God and would thus have the same inherent authority and
infallibility as the Scripture. Thus, to claim new revelation or prophecy
the 100% accuracy rule of Scripture must prevail. If not 100% accurate then
the prophet is false and a blasphemer.
II. Old Testament Canon: The Hebrew Old Testament canon is historically
divided into three sections: Law or Torah (Genesis-Deuteronomy), The
Prophets, Former and Latter (Joshua-Kings; Isaiah-Malachi excluding
Daniel), and the Writings (Job-Ecclesiastes, Daniel) The difference between
the Prophets and the Writings was determined by the office of the author,
thus Daniel, Ezra, Nehemiah, and Chronicles were written by men who did not
hold the office of prophet so were.
A. Internal Evidence for Old Testament Canonicity.
The following verses claim Inspiration for the Torah.
And it came about, when Moses finished writing the words of this law in a
book until they were complete, that Moses commanded the Levites who carried
the ark of the covenant of the LORD, saying, “Take this book of the law and
place it beside the ark of the covenant of the LORD your God, that it may
remain there as a witness against you. (Deut. 31:24-26)
Josh 1:7-8; 23:6; 1 Kings 2:3; 2 Kings 14:6; 21:8; 23:25; Ezekiel 6:18; Neh
13:1; Dan 9:11; Mal 4:4
The following verses claim inspiration and canonicity for the Prophets:
Josh. 6:26, cf., 1 Kings 16:34; Josh 24:2933, cf., Judges 2:89; 2 Chron.
36:2223; cf., Ez 1:14; Dan 9:2, cf., Jer 25:1112.
B. Major question: how was canonicity determined and what is the extent of
the canon? Differing traditions have different canons. Protestants have a
39 book Old Testament; Roman Catholics include the Apocrypha; Greek
orthodox are different yet, and so is the Syriac Church. Which is right?
The answer must be consistent with Jewish determinations of canonicity. In
other words if there is evidence of Jewish acceptance or even disputation
on these books, then support can be adduced for acceptance of the
Apocrypha, if not, these writings must be rejected, despite the light they
shed on historical issues.
C. Qumran Scrolls (Dead Sea) Found in a cave in the Wadi Qumran, a wadi is
a dried up stream bed in the desert. This was the location of the Essenes,
a Jewish sect that flourished around the time of Christ. They were very
strict in their observance of the Law, their writings show they were
looking for a teacher of Righteousness to appear, and were deeply concerned
with understanding the Scripture. In the caves of Qumran hundreds of
scrolls were found. Their significance is without measure. Not only do they
help us see that the canon was fixed and closed before the First Advent,
but also show the accuracy of the Old Testament text. The Masoretic Text of
the Old Testament, the oldest text we had prior to the discovery of the
Dead Sea Scrolls, was dated to about 950 AD. Over 1300 years after the last
Old Testament book was written.
The Isaiah Scroll is the most complete and reveals very few differences
(not more than 200), most were minor spelling changes, grammar updates,
modernization of phrases. None of course affect any theology. One
interesting note, when the translators of the RSV Old Testament began
looking at the MT they had a presupposition that it was an inferior text
with many errors. When the St. Marks Isaiah scroll was compared with the MT
Isaiah text about 200 differences were discovered. After comparing the two
in light of general principles of textual criticism, even the liberals had
to admit the superiority of the MT and the accuracy of its preservation. Of
these 200 variations only 13 were accepted, and Millar Burrows, one of the
translators, and Prof. of Old Testament studies at Yale Divinity School, as
well as one of the early experts on the Scrolls admitted later that after
further reflection he regretted most of those changes.
1. 175 of 500 manuscripts are biblical texts.
2. All Old Testament books are represented except Esther
3. Commentaries deal only with the biblical canon; no commentaries are
written on apocrypha, disputed, or noncanonical books.
4. 20 of the 39 Old Testament books are quoted as Scripture.
5. Conclusion: No evidence existed among the Essenes to classify apocryphal
books as Scripture.
NB: Essenes, Palestinian Jews, Hellenistic Jew, Pharisees, Christians all
agreed on the extent of the Old Testament canon. There were no difference
or disagreements.
D. Other Evidence. In the Diaspora Jews were divided into three communities
with little communication between them: Babylonian, Palestinian, and
Egyptian. Each of these groups had their own approach to the Scriptures,
yet each group affirmed the same 22 or 24 books as the Scripture. In fact
the very term The Scripture, the Law, the Writings, implied a limited
selection of literature that was considered more authoritative than others.
1. Ecclesiasticus, a book in the Apocrypha, written about 125 BC in which
Jeshua or Joshua the son of Sirach states that at the time of his
grandfather (about 180-200 BC) there was a three-fold division of the canon
and that the canon was closed. This confirms the view of the Palestinian
community.
2. Judas Maccabaeus (164 BC) compiled a list of canonical books and
recognized the gift of prophecy had ceased (1 Macc 9:27 cf., 4:46, 14:41).
This confirms the view of the Palestinian community.
3. The Babylonian Talmud, (written around 200-300 AD but reports oral
tradition from much earlier): Baba Bathra 14b reports a three-fold division
which indicates that by the time of Christ or at least first century there
was a recognized canon in Judaism. This is the testimony of the Babylonian
Community.
4. Philo, c. 40 AD; a contemporary of Jesus and the Apostles, representing
the Egyptian community mentions the same three fold division. The Law, the
Writings, and the Prophets.
5. Josephus (37-100 AD) states that the Jews hold 22 books to be sacred
(Contra Apion I.8) and that a collection was kept in the Temple. View
reflects the view of the Palestinian community. This indicates a closed
canon.
6. The Council of Jamnia (90 AD) was not a formal counsel, but a gathering
of scholars who discussed issues about the existing canon, not to determine
the extent of the canon or the existence of a canon, they again debated the
inclusion of Esther, Ecclesiastes, Song of Solomon, and concluded to leave
them in the canon. They affirmed the same 22 or 24 book canon. NB. Liberal
theologians claimed that the Bible receives authority from councils which
determined which were authoritative. So anything could be included. But the
evidence shows that no council made this determination for the Old
Testament canon which was apparently recognized and closed by at least 180
BC.
7. Jesus affirms the same 24 book canon and threefold division:
Luke 24:44 Now He said to them, “These are My words which I spoke to you
while I was still with you, that all things which are written about Me in
the Law of Moses and the Prophets and the Psalms must be fulfilled.”
In a passage where Jesus is confronting the Pharisees with their negative
volition and historical rejection of the Prophets He declares:
Matt. 23:35 that upon you may fall the guilt of all the righteous blood
shed on earth, from the blood of righteous Abel to the blood of Zechariah,
the son of Berechiah, whom you murdered between the temple and the altar.
If Jesus were thinking chronologically He would not have said Zechariah,
who was killed around 825 BC but Uriah who was murdered about 600 BC
(Jeremiah 26:23). Jesus clearly was thinking canonically, that is in terms
of the Old Testament canon of the Jews, from the beginning, Abel in Gen. 4
to the end, Zechariah, in 2 Chron. 24:2021 (2 Chronicles is the last book
in the Hebrew Bible). Also see Matt 5:17 and Luke 11:51.
8. The New Testament writers never question the extent or content of the
Jewish canon. The use of the term Scripture hJ grafh\ aiû grafai« tw×n
profhtw×n, indicates a closed canon. 250 Old Testament quotes in the New
Testament; none are from the disputed books or the Apocrypha. Only Esther,
Song of Solomon, and Ecclesiastes from the accepted canon are not quoted.
9. Church Fathers: accepted only 39 (22 or 24) Old Testament books.
Augustine liked the Apocrypha but did not consider it authoritative,
neither did Jerome, the translator of the Latin Vulgate, who included it in
the Vulgate only because of its historical value.
10. The Question of the Apocrypha. Why was it included? First, Jerome and
Augustine and other church Fathers believed the material was informative
and had historical value so was translated and added at the end, but
Jerome, Augustine, and Rufinus, to name a few, rejected the Apocrypha as
canonical. (1, 2 Maccabes, Judith, Tobit, Wisdom of Solomon, Susannah and
Bel and the Dragon, Ecclesiaticus, Esdras). Though there is much truth in
these books, truth alone is not enough to gain canonical authority. These
books were never considered canonical until after the Reformation in
reaction to the Protestants. Even Cardinal Cajetan, Luther's famous
opponent, rejected the canonicity of the Apocrypha.
11. Conclusion: By the early 2nd century BC Jews considered the canon to
have been comprised of 22 books, the gift of prophecy to have temporarily
ceased, and they did not include or even dispute the inclusion of the
Apocrypha.
E. Criterion for Old Testament Canonicity
1. Authorization by a prophet. The book bore the imprint of having been
written under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit and the book had been
accepted as authoritative.
2. Internal Evidence: Was the message of the book internally consistent and
did it measure up to the standards of the Scripture. Remember, books are
canonical not because Israel determined them to be; but because they were
recognized as such from their inception and down though the ages.
3. External Evidence: Was a book consistent with other books and were
prophecies fulfilled to the letter.
III. The New Testament Canon.
A. The New Testament books were all written between AD 40-45 (James) and AD
90-95 (Revelation). However, no attempt was made to collect them all
together or to recognize an authoritative canon until well into the next
century. One reason for this was the early church expected Christ to return
shortly, so they saw no pressing need to collect the New Testament.
B. Factors leading to canonization.
1. Attempts by heretics, such as Marcion, to arrange an authoritative
collection. Marcion was anti-Semitic and had a canon of a heavily edited
version of Luke, and 10 Pauline epistles.
2. Attempts by others such as the Montanists to claim additional revelation.
3. Persecution for possession of Christian writings, the edict by Emperor
Diocletian (AD 303) ordered the burning of all sacred writings. One might
die for Romans, but what about the Shepherd of Hermas, or 1 Clement. If it
was not the Word of God why die for it.
4. The content of the New Testament validated its authority and as
different churches collected different writings, the need for a canon was
realized.
5. The use of Apostolic writings in Worship. Which were authoritative,
which were not?
C. The Collection of the Canon. The Church is founded on apostolic
authority, not apostolic writings. It is their authority that validates the
writings.
Remember the books were authoritative and canonical from the moment of
writing because they were the Word of God. The role of the Church was to
attest to their inspiration. Ultimately it was Christ through the witness
of the Spirit that validated the Scripture for His Church. Writers of
Scirpture attested to their own writings as the Word of God and to the
writings of others, Col. 4:16; 1 Thess. 4:15; and Paul's quote from Luke
10:7 in 1 Tim. 5:18 which equated it with Scripture of the Old Testament in
Deuteronomy 25:4.
1. The Period of separate circulation (70-170),
During this period the individual books were being circulated. Some such as
the circular epistles like Colossians, and those to churches in close
proximity (Corinth, Thessalonica, Philippi) were gathered in local churches
and read. Others which were written to individuals (Timothy, Titus,
Philemon) were less well known but gradually grew in recognition. Hebrews
was frequently debated because the author was unknown.
Clement of Rome (c. AD 96) mentions at least eight New Testament books in
his epistles, Ignatius of Antioch cites about seven books (c. AD 106);
Polycarp mentions about 15 (c. AD 140). Irenaeus (AD 185) mentions 21
Hipplytus (AD 170-235, mentions 22.
During this time the books which were questioned but not excluded were:
Hebrews (unknown author), James, 2 Peter, 2,3 John, Revelation.
2. Period of separation, the issue at this time is extent (170-303),
During this period various collections are coming together. The issue is
which writings were to be excluded. Marcion (AD 140) stimulates
identification because of his false canon; the Edict of Diocletian does as
well. The Muratorian Canon (AD. 170) is the earliest known collection
excluding only Hebrews, James, and 1, 2 Peter. Irenaeus (AD 185) mentions
21, Hipplytus (AD 170-235, mentions 22. The Old Syriac version excludes 2
Pet., 2,3 John, Jude and Revelation, and the Old Latin (AD 200 excludes 1,
2 Peter, James, and Hebrews.
3. Period of completion (303-397).
Eusebius tells us that certain books were still debated though accepted:
James, Jude, 2 Peter, and 2, 3 John. Though most accepted them. Revelation
still had not gained complete acceptance primarily because it ended with a
curse on anyone who added or took away from it.
During this period the formal acceptance and recognition takes place.
Council of Laodicea (AD 363) mentions the present collection of 27;
Athanasius mentions 27 in his Easter letter of AD 367 and these are the
recognized canon at the local Council of Hippo (AD 393) and the Third Synod
of Carthage (AD 397).
D. Criterion for New Testament Canonicity.
1. Apostolic authority
2. Acceptance by the churches
3. Internal Witness; the books were self authenticating in their authority.
4. In the final analysis it was the oversight of Christ for His Church
through the Spirit of God that directed them in the collection of the Canon.
IV. The Reliability of the New Testament
Just how reliable are the New Testament documents?
There are now more than 5,300 known Greek manuscripts of the New Testament.
Add over 10,000 Latin Vulgate and at least 9,300 other early versions (MSS)
and we have more than 24,000 manuscript copies of portions of the
New Testament. This means that no other document of antiquity even begins
to approach such numbers and attestation. In comparison, the Iliad by Homer
is second with only 643 manuscripts that still survive. The first complete
preserved text of Homer dates from the 13th century.
This contrast is startling and tremendously significant.
Perhaps we can appreciate how wealthy the New Testament is in manuscript
attestation if we compare the textual material for other ancient historical
works. For
Caesar's Gallic War (composed between 58 and 50 B.C) there are several
extant MSS, but only nine or ten are good, and the oldest is some 900 years
later than Caesar's day.
Of the 142 books of the Roman history of Livy (59 B.C-A.D 17), only 35
survive; these are known to us from not more than twenty MSS of any
consequence, only one of which, and that containing fragments of Books
III-VI, is as old as the fourth century.
Of the fourteen books of Histories of Tacitus (c. A.D. 100) only four and a
half survive; of the sixteen books of his Annals, ten survive in full and
two in part. The text of these extant portions of his two great historical
works depends entirely on two MSS, one of the ninth century and one of the
eleventh....
The History of Thucydides (c. 460-400 B.C.) is known to us from eight MSS,
the earliest belonging to about the beginning of the Christian era. The
same is true of the History of Herodotus (c. 480-425 B.C.). Yet no
classical scholar would listen to an argument that the authenticity of
Herodotus or Thucydides is in doubt because the earliest MSS of their works
which are of any use are over 1,300 years later than the originals.75
The fact of the many documents plus the fact that many of the New Testament
documents are very early (hundreds of parchment copies from the 4th and 5th
centuries with some seventy-five papyri fragments dating from A.D. 135 to
the 8th century) assures us we have a very accurate and reliable text in
the New Testament.
V. How We Got the English Bible.
A. Early Attempts. Remember English is a combination of Old Breton,
Anglo-Saxon, Norman, Danish, French, and German. As a distinct language it
does not come into existence until about the tenth century AD. (Paul did
not write in English or use the KJV). During this period various Bible
stories were reduced to song, Caedmon, the Venerable Bede, and Alfred the
Great, all played a role. Alfred was responsible for translating some small
sections of the Latin into Old English.
B. John Wycliffe (1320-1384) “the Morning star of the Reformation:
Wycliffe lived during the Babylonian Captivity of the Papacy. A time of
deep distrust in the Papacy and reaction to the abuses of the clergy. His
followers were known as Lollards, “poor priests” who preached, read, and
translated the Bible into English. His principle was to use the easiest and
most common English. New Testament translated in 1380 and Old Testament in
1388 made this the first complete Bible in the English language.
NB The Guttenberg invention of moveable typeset changed the world. At this
same time there was a renaissance of interest in Greek culture and the
Greek language. The onslaught of the Moslem hordes precipitated thousands
of refugees from Greece who brought many manuscript treasures with them.
Greek was taught publicly at the Univ. of Paris in 1488; the first Greek
Grammar appeared in 1476, a Greek lexicon came out in 1492 and in 1488 a
Hebrew Bible was published, then 1503 the first Hebrew grammar and in 1506
the first Hebrew lexicon. This precipitated an interest in studying the
Bible in the original languages and set the stage for the Protestant
Reformation.
C. William Tyndale (1492-1536)
Unsuccessful at translating in England so he left for the Continent to
complete the task. During this period he spent time with Luther in
Wittenburg, and in Cologne. . Copies were smuggled into England where
Archbishop Warham and the Bishop of London bought them all and burned them.
He printed his first New Testament in 1526 with subsequent revisions in
1535. He was kidnapped in Antwerp, taken to Flanders and in 1536 found
guilty of heresy, and executed on Oct 6 by being strangled to death and
then burned. Before he died he cried out, “Lord, open the King of England's
Eye's.” That prayer was answered quickly.
Tyndale was a man of vast scholarship, he new seven languages well and his
knowledge of Greek was superb. His English style was so great that 80% of
the KJV is Tyndale. His translation created a hunger for the Bible in the
vernacular, and was instrumental in bringing about the answer to his own
prayer.
D. Miles Coverdale (1488-1569)
Coverdale was Tyndale's assistant, published his own version, which was the
Tyndale New Testament and partial Old Testament plus Coverdale's own work
on the Old Testament which was based on the Latin since he did not know
Hebrew. This was the first complete English Bible in print (1535).
Coverdale had the ear of the king and was aided by Thomas Cromwell. Because
of his conciliatory attitude, Coverdale also played key roles in the later
Great Bible and Bishop's Bible.
E. Thomas Matthew (pseudonym of John Rogers).
Also an assistant to Tyndale, he published a revision of Tyndale's New
Testament and Tavener's Old Testament with notes and references in 1537.
Both Cromwell and Cranmer gave this their support and the translation was
dedicated to King Henry and Queen Jane. Rogers adopted the Reformation
theology and was burned at the stake on Feb 4, 1555 by Queen Mary, “Bloody
Mary.”
F. The Great Bible. (1539)
Coverdale was the general editor. This was authorized by Henry 8. It was
enormous in size, with ornate, elaborate decorations. It was the first
English version to remove the Apocrypha to an appendix. It was authorized
by the King to be read and was a version of the Matthew's revision of
Tyndale minus the marginal notes which were offensive to the church in
England..
G. Cranmer's Bible
Cranmer was the Archbishop of Canterbury who was very Protestant and very
brave. This was a 2nd edition of the Great Bible with a preface by Cranmer.
It went through 8 editions and was extremely popular. When the Roman
Catholic reaction set in Thomas Cromwell (1840) was executed. Then after
Henry VIII died, and his son Edward's short reign, his sister, the Roman
Catholic Mary Tudor, known as Bloody Mary, took the throne and burned over
three hundred Protestants at the stake. Cranmer was Archbishop and was also
burned at the stake.
H. Geneva Bible (1560)
The first English Bible to incorporate verse divisions which were from
Robert Stephen's 1551 edition of the Greek Text. He is said to have
inserted verse divisions as he road horseback from Paris to Lyons. That
might explain some of the unusual verse breaks. This translation was done
by scholars who had fled to Calvin's Geneva. It became the popular version
and was preferred by the Puritans over the KJV. This was the Bible used by
Oliver Cromwell and his Puritan army, the Pilgrims, John Bunyan,
Shakespeare, and even King James himself, but he despised one or two of the
marginal notes which implied that a ruler could be removed for injustice.
I. Bishop's Bible
1568 A revision of the Great Bible by 8 Bishop's and was supplanted by the
KJV.
J. King James Version of 1611 (Never authorized and not a true version)
Based on Erasmus Greek Text (TR). Revised in 1629, 1638, 1653, 1701, 1762,
1769, and several more times unofficially. Over 100,000 changes were made.
It unfortunately depended to some degree on the Bishop's Bible and included
some anachronistic Latinisms and other problems which eventually had to be
corrected.
K. Discovery of the Alexandrian Manuscripts:
Sinaiticus. In 1844 Tischendorff visited the monastery at St Catharine on
Mount Sinai, there as he was burning papers from a waste basket to light
the fire in his room he discovered the papers were an ancient manuscript of
the LXX. He retrieved much of it and took them to the university library at
Leipzig, in 1853 he returned and the steward of the monastrprodeced a
manuscript wrapped in a red cloth which contained much of the Old Testament
and all the New Testament plus two other early Christian works, Epistle of
Barnabas and the Shepherd of Hermas. It like Vaticanus was a fourth century
document.
Codex Ephraemi, a fifth century mss erased during the twelfh century and
written over. Tischendorf used a chemical process to recover what had
originally been written.
Papyrii
NB. The Textus Receptus which was the basis of the Greek text behind the
earlier versions was based on only 8 or 9 rather old Greek MSS which had
evidence of textual corruption. With the exceiption of the NKJV, all modern
translations are based on the Westcott-Hort textual theory or an eclectic
version thereof, which relies heavily on the four uncials found in the late
19th century plus the papyri. Much debate takes place over this between the
Majority Text advocates who emphasize the value of the Byzantine family of
documents and the Westcott-Hort/eclectics. This writer is not a textual
critic and prefers to analyze each passage on its own merits.
K. English Revised Version (1881): the first English translation based on
the newly discovered MSS and the Westcott-Hort textual theory.
L. American Standard Version (1901): the predecessor to the NASB.
M. Revised Standard Version (1952): a revision of the KJV and the English
Revised, but was attacked heavily by conservatives because of the liberal
bias of its translators.
N. New American Standard Version (1968): an excellent word for word
translation based on the original Greek. Stylistically it is a little
wooden and stiff in places in the English. In the Old Testament they
accepted uncritically the Hebrew definitions in Brown, Driver, and Briggs
Hebrew-English Lexicon, despite many lexical advances in the middle of the
twentieth century. Overall this is the best translation even though it
relies too heavily on Westcott-Hort theory.
O. New International Version (1978): A fine attempt at a universally
accepted English version that would work on both sides of the Atlantic.
Unfortunately, it sounds too much like a paraphrase, and interpretive
rather than precise translations are abundant. For example, the Greek
sarkikos from sarx, meaning flesh and indicating the sin nature, is
translated `worldly' in 1 Cor. 3:1-3. There are many other such inexcusable
tranlsations.
P. New King James Version: a modernization of the AV, with more up to date
English, yet still preserving the marvelous cadence of the original.
Unfortunately it suffers from reliance on the textus receptus and
perpetuates those textual errors.
V. References:
D.A. Carson, The King James Version Debate.
R. Laird Harris, Inspiration and Canonicity of the Bible.
Bruce Metzger, The Text of the New Testament.
Norman L. Geisler and William E. Nix, From God to Us.
Wilbur Pickering, The Identity of the New Testament.
R. B. Thieme, Jr. Canonicity.
©Robert L. Dean, Jr. 1999
Canonicity How We Got the Bible - by Robert Dean, Jr.
http://www.prestoncitybible.org/doctrines/CD/canonicity.htm
Says who?
All confess that Malachi was the last Jewish prophet.
I don't know what "all" you mean. Christians believe that St. John the Forerunner (= John the Baptist) was the last Jewish prophet -- not only was he the last, he was the greatest, you have the very words of Christ himself on that. St. John came long after Malachi.
In spite of the fact that even Cardinal Cajetan, himself, Luther's famous opponent, rejected the canonicity of the Apocrypha, in 1546, at the time they affirmed the Apocrypha to be within the canon, the Roman Catholic Church said that they had the authority to constitute A LITERARY WORK to be "Scripture".
I have no idea what you think this means, or what de fide Catholic teaching you believe yourself to be quoting. The Catholic magisterium is crystal clear in stating that "all Scripture is inspired by God, and profitable for instruction in righteousness ...".
Wayne Grudem
I don't recognize a Pope Wayne Grudem. Rather than quoting Protestant theologians on what Rome believes, you might be well advised to go to the source, Rome herself. You might want to start with Dei Verbum (Vatican II).
The fact that these books were included by Jerome in his Latin Vulgate translation of the Bible (completed in A.D. 404) gave support to their inclusion, EVEN THOUGH JEROME HIMSELF SAID THEY WERE NOT "BOOKS OF THE CANON"
I don't know a Pope Jerome, either. Jerome (having been influenced by the rabbis who taught him Hebrew) thought they didn't belong in the canon. The Pope overruled him. Jerome obeyed the Pope. So do I.
Thirty years later, in A.D. 397, the Council of Carthage, representing the churches in the western part of the Mediterranean world, agreed with the eastern churches on the same list. These are the earliest final lists of our canon of Scripture.
Right you are. So now are you going to accept Judith, Tobit, "five books of Solomon" (=Psalms, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Songs, and Wisdom), and two books of Maccabees? Because, after all, Carthage did.
Where We Got the Bible --Bishop Henry Graham
Get back to me when you find Luther's doctrine of "the Bible alone" in the Bible.
Champion: "Says who?"
The Major premise rests on Scripture: Peter says the OT is the “prophetic word.” (2 Peter 1:19);
Paul calls it the “scriptures of the prophets” (Romans 16:26);
Zacharias the priest says “As he spake by the mouths of his holy prophets, which have been since the world began.” (Luke 1:70);
They have Moses and the Prophets” as Abraham said (Luke 18:39);
Luke wrote, “Beginning at Moses and all the prophets, he expounded unto them in all the Scripture the things concerning himself.” (Luke 24:24; cf. Rom. 1:2);
Heb. 1:1, “God spake in divers manners by the prophets.”;
the church is built upon the “apostles and prophets” (Eph. 2:20);
All things must be fulfilled which are written in the law of Moses, and in the prophets, and in the psalms, concerning me:” and it follows immediately, “And he opened their understanding, that they might understand the Scriptures.” (Luke 24:44-45);
Paul asks Agrippa, “Believest thou the prophets?” that is the Scriptures. (Acts 26:27);
When Paul dealt with the Jews at Rome he tried to convince them “out of the law of Moses and the prophets.” (Acts 28:23).
From these we see that the major assertion is true, that the whole OT was given to us by God’s prophets.
There is no part of the OT which was not given by the prophets.
The entire OT canonical Scriptures are deemed in the following way:
1) the prophets; 2) Moses and the prophets; 3) Moses, the prophets, and the psalms.
Augustine so shows this in his writings against Cresconius the grammarian: Not without cause was the canon of the church framed with so salutary a vigilance, that certain books of the prophets and apostles should belong to it.” (Lib. 2. cap. 31);
also “Let them shew us their church, not in the rumors of the Africans, but in the injunction of the Law, in the predictions of the prophets, in the songs of the Psalms; that is, in all the canonical authorities of the sacred books.” (De Unit. Eccles. C. 16.)
* Matchett-PI: "All confess that Malachi was the last Jewish prophet."
Champion: "I don't know what "all" you mean. Christians believe that St. John the Forerunner (= John the Baptist) was the last Jewish prophet -- not only was he the last, he was the greatest, you have the very words of Christ himself on that. St. John came long after Malachi."
First of all let's not lose sight of the reason the subject of the phrophets was even brought up, and that is this: The fact is that the apocryphal books were not written by the prophets.
Secondly, Between Malachi and John the Baptist, no other Jewish prophet arose and the writers of the apocryphal books lived after Malachi. Even the RCC does not deny this.
You are wrong if you think the RCC denys this.
After the aproximate date of 435 B.C. (when Malachi wrote), the Jews recognized no further additions to the OT canon.
The subsequent history of the Jewish people was recorded in other writings, such as the book of Maccabees, but those writings weren't considered by the Jews to be worthy of inclusion in the OT canon along with the collections of God's words from earlier years.
Jewish literature outside the OT shows that they believed that the divinely authoritative words from God had ceased around 435 B.C.
About 100 B.C., the author of 1 Maccabees writes of the defiled altar, "So they tore down the altar and stored the stones in a convenient place on the temple hill until there should come a prophet to tell them what to do with them." [1 Macc.4:45-46]
They apparently knew of no one who could speak with the authority of God as the OT prophets had done.
The memory of an authorative prophet among the people was one that belonged to the distant past, for the author could speak of a great distress "such as had not been since the time that prophets ceased to appear among them." [1 Macc.9:27; cf.14:41]
The greatest Jewish historian of the first century, Josephus (born c.A.D. 37/38), explained, "From Artaxerxes to our own times a complete history has been written, but has not been deemed worthy of equal credit with the earlier records, because of the failure of the exact succession of the prophets." (Against Apion 1.41).
This shows that Josephus knew of the writings now considered part of the "Apocrypha", (also called Deuterocanonical books), but that in his viewpoint, and that of many of his contemporaries, no more "words of God" were added to Scripture after about 435 B.C.
In the New Testament, we have no record of any dispute between Jesus and the Jews over the extent of the canon. Apparently there was full agreement between Jesus and his disciples, on the one hand, and the Jewish leaders or Jewish people, on the other hand, that additions to the OT canon had ceased after the time of Ezra, Nehemiah, Esther, Haggai, Zechariah, and Malachi.
This fact is confirmed by the quotations of Jesus and the NT authors from the OT. According to one count, Jesus and the NT authors quote various parts of OT Scriptures as divinely authorative over 295 times but not once do they cite any statement from the books of the Apocrypha or any other writings as having *divine authority*.
Jude (14-15) does cite 1 Enoch 60.8 and 1.9, and Paul at least twice quotes pagan Greek authors (Acts 17:28; Titus 1:12), but these citations are more for the purposes of illustration than proof. Never are the works introduced with a phrase like, "God says", or "Scripture says", or "It is written", phrases that imply the attribution of divine authority to the words cited.
It should also be noted that neither 1 Enoch nor the authors cited by Paul are part of the Apocrypha. No book of what is called, "the Deuterocanonical books" (Apocrypha) is even mentioned in the New Testament.
The definitive work on the OT canon is contained in Roger Beckwith's book, entitled, "The Old Testament Canon of the New Testament Church and Its Background in Early Judaism" (London: SPCK, 1985, and Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1986).
SAt the conclusion of his study, Beckwith says, "The inclusion of various Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha in the canon of the early Christians was not done in any agreed way or at the earliest period, but occurred in Gentile Christianity, after the church's breach with the synogogue, among those whose knowledge of the primitive Christian canon was becoming blurred." He concludes, "On the question of the canonicity of the Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha the truly primitive Christian evidence is negative" [pp 436-37]
I could cite many more references from Rabbinic literature, and elsewhere, but it all says essentially the same thing as I wrote/quoted above. (It's easily located if one is truly interested).
Bottom line? God, himself, places supreme value on our having a correct collection of God-breathed writings (graphe aka Scripture), no more no less, and pronounces severe punishment on any who would add or subtract from his words.
For His WORDS are our life. [Deut.32:47; Matt.4:4]
Just as God was at work in creation, in the calling of his people Isreal, in the life, death, and resurrection of Christ, and in the early work and writings of the apostles, so God was at work in the preservation and assembling together of the books of Scripture for the benefit of his people for the entire church age.
Ultimately, then, we base our confidence in the correctness of our present canon on the faithfulness of God.
You should know by now that I can't be sucked into the frantic strawman arguments of the confused.
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.