Forensic Scientists reveal what Jesus may have looked like as a 12-year old

Doesn't really matter if he wrote them or not. They're certainly very ancient and were held in high esteem by many in the early Church.

Very ancient means nothing. Frauds held in high esteem tells you something about the people that held them so, not the work. And it does tend to matter if it was written by or for Clement. It also tends to matter if the works are inspired or not, etc. We are, after all, talking about books noted as frauds that appeared again as part of the Isidorian decretals. The scope of their attempted usage by that time had expanded substantially. And the only reason they were attributed to Clement was to beg authority. Amazing how that term just keeps popping back up.

Unfortunately, there is no judge here to appeal to in order to settle the points in contention.

So I guess I will have to turn to Jesus and the Apostles and start quoting them.

That is quite a bit of work, and I am not quite up to it at this late hour, so I will start in at it over the weekend.

Since neither one of us can point to a piece of paper at or before Jesus' time that lays out the canon as the Jews saw it, we are at an impasse as to hard historical fact.

Obviously I am not going to accept your conclusory statements, and you are not going accept mine, so we will need to cite to actual first century texts in order to start building a history.

I gather that we agree that there does not exist a document from the the time Jesus lived or before, which is to say before 36 AD to be on the safe side, that purports to list all of the books of Jewish Scripture. I know of know such document. If you do know of one, please present it.
Otherwise we can stipulate that neither of us can prove by a document of Jesus' time or before the precise contents of the Jewish canon.

Since the only actual first century texts in our possession are the Qumran Scrolls and perhaps some of the Nag Hammadi documents, whatever Bible we are working from, if it translated from the oldest existing sources, is translated from texts that are monastic or scribal copies from the High Middle Ages, the sixth or seventh centuries at the earliest. I would assume you would agree that, to the extent we can know it, these scribal copies from which we make our translations are faithful to the originals.

With those two stipulations agreed upon, we can perhaps proceed to the documents that we do have from the time of Jesus and before.

But not tonight, as it is very late and I am very tired. I will pick up the thought tomorrow.

AG: " It must be hard to keep from weeping when these are chanted or read. "

K: "We don't even try! Some time ago Agrarian wrote that our Orthodoxy is taught in our Liturgies and services. The funeral service, which actually takes about an hour to complete (the church part I mean), is filled with so much of what we as Orthodox believe."

In some traditions, the priest himself chants the hymns of St. John of Damascus that K. posted. Before the first funeral that we did together, our priest told me that when he was first out of seminary, he was told that if the family wasn't weeping by the time you hit Tone 8, you had really butchered it! Sadly, when the OCA first put out English translations of the funeral service, a shortcut was taken, and only the first and last of these were included, so many Slavic based parishes that use these materials never hear the rest of them.

More traditional Russian-based parishes, such as ours, make sure they all get chanted -- they are simply irreplacable. Also lost in contemporary Slavic practice are the tradtional melodies for these hymns (mostly used nowadays are some variant on Kievan plain-chant melodies), which for some historical reason were drawn from old Bulgarian chant. One of the many projects sitting on my desk is a stack of music with those old Bulgarian melodies and the English texts of St. John of D's hymns... Sigh.

The last funeral we did was in our parish was for the beloved wife of our retired priest -- needless to say a more immediate concern was having the choir/chanters break down crying themselves. One of the several priests there remarked to me afterwards that the funeral service is perhaps second only to the Divine Liturgy itself for sheer beauty and for the theology it teaches, and he may be right. I do know that a family member later told me that a non-Orthodox friend, who was at the first Orthodox service of his life, remarked afterwards: "I could stand through and listen to that entire service again... right now..."

One of the interesting things about the traditional funeral service is that the entirety of Kathisma 17 (which is Psalm 118 -- 119 in the Hebrew numbering -- that really long one) is appointed to be chanted antiphonally. The presence of this Psalm/Kathisma in the funeral service is very ancient, and its connection with prayers for the departed is very close, since the other places where it is to be read or chanted are every day at Midnight Office (the service in the daily cycle where we have the most prayers for the departed), and at Matins on Saturdays (which is the day of the week specifically devoted to commemorating All Saints and the departed.) A special chanting of Kathisma 17/Psalm 118 also takes place at Matins of Holy Saturday (on the night of Good Friday), as part of the "Lamentations before the tomb of Christ" -- interspersed between each verse of the Psalm are verses recalling the lamentations of the Theotokos after the death of Christ, before his Resurrection. In other words, it is sung at "Christ's funeral service," and this may be why it appears in ours, since we try to imitate Him in every way.

At our parish, we only chant 3 short selections from this Psalm, followed by the funeral "Evlogitaria," verses that each begin, "Blessed art Thou, O Lord, teach me Thy statutes...." In most parishes, none of the Psalm is chanted because of the extra time it takes, and only the Evlogitaria are chanted (they are packed with theology, hope, joy, and prayer.) I have talked to those who have been to funerals where the entire Psalm was chanted antiphonally, and they say that that something about that particular Psalm has a haunting and mesmerizing effect that causes one to leave time itself behind...

A final unrelated (I think) tidbit on Psalm 118: it is the Russian tradition that when the Blagovest bell is being rung (a very large bell rung to call worshippers to the beginning of major services), the bell ringer recites Psalm 118, ringing the bell at the beginning of the Psalm and again after every 8 verse section that originally was headed by a Hebrew letter of the alphabet (i.e. a total of 12 times.)

The Orthodox Church loves Kathisma 17/Psalm 118!

I have always liked that image. Good to know that my cat is sitting on that lap now, purring. She'd purr for him.

There are no original manuscripts of any Scripture, as you well know, whether it be the NT or the OT, and Hebrew Scripture. All are copies of copies. The value of the LXX is supported by the Qumran finds, indicating that Hellenistic Jews may have had a slightly different tradition. The Essenses also had additional books.

As to whether they were canon, I don't know. Surely, if the Alexandrian or Qumran Scripture clashed, something would have been written on it because of its sheer importance!

Bottom line is: no one has any claim on anything, because all sources differ. To the Christians, the fact that LXX is the preferred and predominant linguistic style used in referencing the OT writings is important. Since the NT NT Scripture, the acceptance of LXX is not an option.

Since the NT NT Scripture=since the NT is Scrpture

Otherwise we can stipulate that neither of us can prove by a document of Jesus' time or before the precise contents of the Jewish canon.

We can stipulate that we can't know the contents of canon prior to canonization. I may have been overbroad in my declarative; but, what you're attempting is a slight of hand.

We know that between 300bc and 100bc the selection process was done in three stages for updating the canon. Many say canon was set by 150; but, 100 is good enough. We know that there is no record of any change made again to the canon up to and including Jamnia. We do know what that canon was as of Jamnia because of the Hebrew version produced. The Jews had to know what canon was in order to produce a Hebrew version of it. So, we can say that they knew what it was between 100bc and 92ad (roughly). If it cannot be shown that it changed, then we know by proxy what it was in Jesus' time.

You would ask, How do we know that. Easy. When was canon set for Rome. When was it reaffirmed? Did it change in between? See, it's obvious when it's a matter of your own. Suddenly, when you don't want it to be so obvious, some grey area must enter in to allow you the possibility of making otherwise unsupportable claims. The you is a generality. You yourself are only passing on your indoctrination.

Now, I realize it's late and you're tired, so I do understand putting off till later. No problem. But, what you're attempting is dishonest. And I want you to know, I appreciate your position and your pleasentness; but, this is dishonest. And I have to point that out. It's akin to saying, "I got the cookies out of the jar with a set of tongs because you said "keep your hands out of the cookie jar".."

My point in saying we couldn't know the canon was to say that we couldn't know that your version of it is true because there's no record to back you up. On the other hand, we do have a record that backs up the other side. You want to argue that you were right if you had evidence and that you were right because you say so if there isn't any evidence. Problem is the evidence as it exists stands against you - not in the abstract. If I were to claim that you set canon before 300ad, I would have to prove that and show what it was. If I said you changed canon after trent, I'd have to prove that and show what the change was. If I cannot do so, it is not ok, by proxy, to say that well we just can't know so I can say and do what I will and claim it's your fault or by your leave. If I did that, you'd be on me like white on rice. Yet this is the position you are taking with the Jews in this case. It is fraudulent, dishonest, decietful and beneath a human to so behave. How much moreso for a Christian? Again, you are passing on what you were indoctrinated with, so I'm trying to be understanding. You didn't author it, your just trying to make sense of it.

So, as it stands, in order to defend your canon, you need to prove 1) What, if any, version of the LXX was ever canon. 2) What that canon included specifically 3) Who set that canon, specifically 4) That canon then changed (to support the second major point of your original story.

None of those points is small. And I will posit that your task is literally impossible as I would further submit, the story your clergy has sold is absent any merit of truth. There is no historical foundation - none for any part of your story. You may say, "but my church says so". Jim Jones said so. As much as people may love either your clergy or Jim Jones, it goes without saying, that much has been said over time by both that is demonstrably untrue. Thusly, while I do not envy you your position, I do empathize with where it leaves you. It isn't your fault. At best, it's your fault you didn't investigate better before you bought the story lock stock and barrel. That can be remedied. I'm sorry you've been lied to - truly. Whatever your response, I'll thank you again for your civility. This is not merely the most civil conversation I've recieved from a Catholic, it is also the longest civil conversation. I'm used to being called every foul, decietful, lying, thing in the book for daring point out such things. Your lack of abusiveness is a credit to you. I've noted dishonest points of debate you've used; but, I also understand that you're working against a form of indoctrination that tends to butress itself with such arguments because you've had it hammered into you. So, understand that while I point them out, I'm doing so because I don't believe you see it. I look forward to our further exchanges. And perhaps this Christian may, with God's help, get you to see this issue clearly. Grace & Peace

Bottom line is: no one has any claim on anything, because all sources differ. To the Christians, the fact that LXX is the preferred and predominant linguistic style used in referencing the OT writings is important. Since the NT NT Scripture, the acceptance of LXX is not an option.

Which version of the LXX? This is the difficulty I have addressed with my friend here in debate. There is no *single* LXX collection. And to the extent that some versions of it are known, we can't say we know what it started off as, given that people obviously took liberties with what they included in copying it - else there would not be multiple versions. It is arguable that to the extent the Hebrews had a problem with the LXX, it was that once written in the greek, the greeks were able to then add to it what they willed under the presumptiveness of claiming the additions as canon. A possibility based on the facts; but, not a fact in and of itself. I offer it, though, because of the problem of multiple versions.

This is not how the Jews have behaved prior or since. They are the very definition of 'anal' when it comes to precision of their texts. A humorous if irreverant observation; but, it makes the point. We're to believe on literally no evidence, that after thousands of years of reverent precision, these people just dropped precision for five seconds and then picked it up again.. something that is their history, their life and their knowledge from their God. This may be understandable were we talking about the less than careful manner in which Rome and other groups have handled God's word; but, it has never been so with the Hebrews. The precision with which they have handled their scriptures for thousands of years prior to Christ and since can't be matched with the help of modern equipment today in most cases. Yet we're to believe they threw caution to the wind and started proliferating editions and forgot what their texts were only to make a Hebrew version in protest of it's mishandling by others later.. no. It doesn't pass the sniff test. I agree that they may have issued a Hebrew version again in order to protest what was being done to a Greek version, that is entirely possible. But it's utter nonsense to say that they all of a sudden excluded something from their canon to spite Christians. If that were so, they would have had to eliminate most of their books, Isaiah in particular - or at least modify them. God forbid. That is not the way they have ever behaved, therefore, I would require of someone evidence of such. Gut instinct is that to the extent the Jews ever authored a version of the Septuigent, it would only have included canon works that we see in the Hebrew version of the text. Given there is no evidence they changed what constituted canon, saying the LXX had other books is not sufficient to establish that the Jews were responsible for that. Did the LXX play some role back then, perhaps. But are we speaking of the same LXX the Jews actually authored, that is entirely another matter.

Bottom line for me is that the Jews have claim on their canon. In absence of proof of inconsistency, it is not enough to claim inconsistency existed because of them. One must prove both the inconsistency and that they are responsible. Absent that, we are left with their record of things and know what their canon was at the time as much by what is recorded as by what is not. To the extent that the LXX has bearing now or then, one must prove what version, extant or no, of the LXX was used then by the Jews whom we presume to say authored it. To the extent that they added more to the LXX than was in the Hebrew works, one would have to prove further that it was considered canon. That is not established. The question is not as simple as one might presume. And claims alone are not enough to base anything on. There were vested interests at the time and have been ever since trying to introduce things that had no business in the texts.

My final point here is the final word on the matter not because I say so; but, because scripture says so. Paul told us flatly that the oracles of God were and are entrusted to the Israelites. Period. To the extent that ANYONE has any authority to say what constituted Old covenant canon, it is and was them the israelites. They have spoken on the matter. And that does, as a matter of their own authority granted by God, settle it. Whatever else one may presume to say may be contestable, that point is scripturally incontestable.

Your argument does not explain the Essenes and their additional books found at Qumran that agree with the LXX. They were every bit Hebrews as the Alexandrian or Judean Jews.

As for the masorets being perfectionists when it came to copying, that much is true, except that they don't date back "thousands of years" but conveniently appear in the first century AD!.

Since the text from the Dead Sea Scrolls (DSS) differs from the 9th century AD Masoretic Text (the oldest complete Hebrew Bible), your argument falls flat on its face. Shall we not also mention that the Babylonian and Jerusalem Talmuds differ as well? Or that out of 5,765 years of Hebrew Bible wasn't written until about 500 BC? before that, it was all oral tradition. You expect people to believe that the people, who repeatedly betrayed God, kept His word by word of mouth for thousands of years impeccably and without error?! Get real! Just the very existance of DSS provies that this is not so.

Christianity was a threat to the crumbling Jewish state, and with the destruction of the Temple the only thing that could keep Jews from following the new religion was to eliminate those passages that were threatening. There was desperation and a question of survival of a culture and a people being destroyed from within and without -- it is no wonder that masoretes appear just at that time! No small wonder, indeed! Just as it is no wonder that the rabbies got together at Jamnia. as I said before, there was not just a motive, but a strong motive.

As to the canon, it is evident from people like Josephus (100 AD) that not all Jews considered the same books canon. His list lacks Ecclesiastes (Song of Songs). Besides, Jamnia did not apply to all the Jews. The Jews of Ethiopia use a different canon. Christian OT source agrees with theirs. Whether they were not included at Jamnia or simply did not hear about Jamnia is irreleveant -- the fact is we have Jews to this day who use different canon that agrees with LXX.

The fact that Essenes used additional books and that their text agrees also with LXX suggests that the canon was not closed and provies not all Jews used the same canon. All this changed after Jamnia. Of course, the Jews at Jamnia didn't call it a "council" (what else can one call a gathering of prominent rabbis?), and maybe they didn't explicitly say the canon was closed, but the canon hasn't changed since then.

The NT refers to the wording of LXX. Whether apocrypha are Scripture (even +Jerome calls "Wisdom" by that name, and "Sirach" as holy Scripture), or whether they are merely profitable for reading does not change the fact that the Apostles used LXX as their Scripture.

"of Hebrew Bible wasn't written until about 500 BC? before = the Hebrew Bible wasn't written until about 500 BC? Before...

Kosta, I agree with your assessment.

We have no originals of NT Scripture at all.
We do have First Century era materials from Qumran, but of course that is all OT material. It has been studied, as you suggest, and as you note, there is nothing earth-shattering there. We have the Septuagint and the Massorete traditions both there.

The trouble is that way back on this thread Havoc and I got started into an argument about authority. We're still at it.
Since the first piece of paper that discusses any sort of canon in detail is in Josephus' "Against Apion", but that was written after 100 AD, we are at a loss when we seek certitude in a First Century source as to the First Century Canon.

That this was an issue is demonstrated by the fact that Church fathers and councils went back and fourth for almost 400 years before we get to a canon that looks like the one we have today. Whatever one cites before the Synod of Rome (I will use the word "Synod" so as to not confuse this regional council for an Ecumenical Council), one will find books of the Old and New Testaments excluded or included such that all such lists do not match the current Canon, either Catholic or Protestant.
Christians debated the precise contours of the canon then and still do. That's what Havoc and I have been at.

It seems to me that the best way to get a bead on what the content of the canon ought to be considered to be is to take a look at what Jesus and the Apostles said, and the Scriptures they quoted or alluded to.

When one does that, one comes up with the Septuagint, included books such as Tobit, Wisdom, Sirach and the Maccabbees.

We have no fixed written list before 100 AD.
But we do have codicies of the Septuagint that are as old or older than the Jewish Massoretic texts. We do have Qumran scrolls containing some of those Septuagint versions of the language. And most authoritative of all, we have Jesus and the Apostles citing to the Septuagint version and those books that our Protestant brothers reject.

What I am trying to do is to get to a point where Havoc and I at least agree on the facts of history. Once that happens, the realization comes that one has to take one canon or the other on faith. My argument for faith in the Septuagint form, including the Deuterocanonical books, is that Jesus and the Apostles used them. From my perspective, that gives them an authority that cannot be challenged, really.

I know that Havoc disagrees with that, but I at least want to get down to the point where he have boiled the issue down to that, and recognize that it is a matter of reasoned faith which canon one accepts.

We are not there yet.
Indeed, we took a detour at Jamnia, which was my error for bringing up, because it moves the debate from 30 and 40 and 50 and 60 AD, where it belongs, to 90 and 100 and 118 AD.

Anyway, I've pulled out the papers and cross references so that I can start citing to Jesus citing to the Septuagint and particularly the Deuterocanonica. That list is really long. Since nobody is going to be able to produce a list of the canon in 30 AD, what I am going to do is simply show what Jesus and the Apostles were citing, and stand pat on the assumption that if they cited it as Scripture, that settles the issue for Christians.

To the extent it doesn't, we'll then have to explore why someone thinks it does not.

Yes, irresistibly so, but we must never, ever allow ourselves to fall in love with customs and confuse them with Him. Unfortunately, I think some people do.

I completely agree. The customs are nice but I consider them little nostalgic bells and whistles that are pleasant to my palate. Others may prefer their lamb seasoned differently than just salt, garlic and olive oil. That doesn't make them wrong.

You say: "We know that between 300bc and 100bc the selection process was done in three stages for updating the canon. Many say canon was set by 150; but, 100 is good enough. We know that there is no record of any change made again to the canon up to and including Jamnia."

I say: cite the source by which we "know" that. Cite an ancient source before 100 AD that gives us the canon that you say was "set" by 150 or 100. We are debating authority. Saying "the canon was set" is the same authority as saying you speak for Walmart. If there is no piece of paper (or modern scribal copy of such a piece of paper) from 150 or 100 BC that shows the set canon, then there is no authority to say the canon was "set".
And there is no such piece of paper.
It's simply a gratuitous assertion on your part.
You say there was a set canon then - show me.

You say: "We do know what that canon was as of Jamnia because of the Hebrew version produced."

I respond: That is true. The Hebrew version of the Bible seems to have been determined at Jamnia. Perhaps it would be more neutral for our purposes to say that, among the competing versions of the Jewish Scriptures, the particular Hebrew version (as opposed to the Essene or Septuagint Greek versions) was reconfirmed by those Jews who made up the "Council" of Jamnia and who were also composing the Mishna starting about that time. But, of course, those Jews no longer included the part of Judaism that became Christian. The Christian Jews WERE part of Judaism at the time of Jesus and afterward for a considerable piece of time. And they certainly conflicted with their Jewish brethren. They also certainly favored the Septuagint, because that is what Jesus and the Apostles are using in the Bible, not the Massoretic Text version of language. At Jamnia, the Christians were not represented, and the texts the Christians used, which we also know were used by the Essenes in many cases, were not the ones that came out of Jamnia and are the Hebrew Canon today.
But Jamnia's too late.
We have to look at the time when the Temple was still up and the Christians were still Jews. What text were THEY using? By using the Bible itself, we find that they were using the Septuagint.
To me, this establishes that the Septuagint books are the canonical ones. They're the one God cited to. When Jamnia happened, the people of God were already gone from the Jewish faith and were in the Church. The Church was using the Septuagint. Not to put to fine a point on it, but the Jews of Jesus' time faced a choice. Some followed Jesus and the apostles, and they made the Church, and at Jesus' death, when the curtain of the Temple was rent in twain, the Holy Spirit left the Temple and rested upon the Church. The Jews who remained with the Temple erred.
And at Jamnia, where the Jews, bereft of Christians, put forward the Hebrew version that is the Massoretic Text, and thereby rejected the Septuagint used by the Christian Church, they erred again.

You: "You would ask, How do we know that. Easy. When was canon set for Rome. When was it reaffirmed? Did it change in between? See, it's obvious when it's a matter of your own. Suddenly, when you don't want it to be so obvious, some grey area must enter in to allow you the possibility of making otherwise unsupportable claims. The you is a generality. You yourself are only passing on your indoctrination."

I respond: This is needlessly insulting. But the problem of authority remains. There is nothing grey in what I have said. I will prove, by direct citation of the Gospels and the Epistles, that Jesus and the Apostles used the Septuagint, including the Deuterocanonical works. You are unable to show me any piece of paper, any source before 90 or 100 AD, that shows that there was a fixed canon from which Jesus departed. In the absence of such a piece of paper, we have conflicting authorities.
Basically, we have the Jews saying they changed nothing, but we have the Christians quoting and citing from a different canon.
The canon's conflict.
Which one is authoritative?
I say that it is obvious: the one Jesus quoted from.

There is nothing grey here.
The greyness lies in your argument above and here: that there WAS a fixed canon, say, circa 150 or 100 BC.
You say that. Prove it with a piece of paper.
You can't.

You said: "Now, I realize it's late and you're tired, so I do understand putting off till later. No problem. But, what you're attempting is dishonest. And I want you to know, I appreciate your position and your pleasentness; but, this is dishonest. And I have to point that out. It's akin to saying, 'I got the cookies out of the jar with a set of tongs because you said "keep your hands out of the cookie jar"..'"

I reply: I am getting a little tired of the accusations of dishonesty. I am being completely honest and seeking the Truth. That is why I demand to see pieces of paper. The canon was fixed in 100 BC? SHOW ME. You weren't there. I wasn't there. Give me a piece of paper from someone who was, and that will be at least evidence. As it is, it is a bald assertion on your part. Repeating it, or citing to some other guy with the same mindset as you, or 50 of them, and saying "history says" is what is dishonest. If there is no primary source document from the time period, history does NOT say that. Historians writing NOW say that, for various reasons, but they do it on inference.

Now, I know full well no such piece of paper exists.
We don't know what the canon was, or if there was a fixed canon, in 100 BC, or at the time of Jesus, becuase there is no piece of paper that tells us.

So, what we have is duelling authorities.
I have Jesus and the Apostles citing to documents and wording that IS NOT IN the Massoretic Text.
You have Jamnia affirming the Massoretic Text.

You give authority to the post-Templar Jews.
I give authority to Jesus and the Apostles.
You try to retroject the decisions of 100 AD to 100 BC and saying 'The Jews didn't say they changed anything, therefore they didn't'. That is an opinion. You are entitled to that opinion. You are unable to produce an historical document from before that point that proves your opinion, but you are entitled to maintain that nothing changed. What you are not entitled to do is to impugn my honesty when I don't accept you unsubstantiated assertion.
Jesus used the Septuagint. That I can demonstrate by First Century texts: the Gospels. The Apostles used it, including Paul of the Sanhedrin. That I can demonstrate by First Century texts: the Epistles.
Can I prove more than that?
No.
Is it DISHONEST to point out a hundred times over that Jesus and the Apostles - the Jews who became Christians - used the Septuagint and not the Massoretic Text? No. It is a matter of analysis.
Is it DISHONEST to assert, therefore, that Christians got it right and the Jews got it wrong?
No. It is a matter of opinion. I am of the opinion the Jesus was right by definition, because He was God, and that in the polemics between the Jews and Christian Jews of that era, the Christians got it right and the Jews got it wrong.
Indeed, that is the whole reason there was a polemic, Jesus was crucified, Stephen was stoned, and James was killed. Those three used the Septuagint. The scholars of Jamnia reaffirmed the Massoretic Text. They both were not right.
I think the Christians were. And it is not dishonest to assert it.

You said: "My point in saying we couldn't know the canon was to say that we couldn't know that your version of it is true because there's no record to back you up. On the other hand, we do have a record that backs up the other side."

I say: The fact that Jesus and the apostles cite to the Septuagint version of the Scriptures and not the Massoretic
Text is the record that backs me up.

You say: "You want to argue that you were right if you had evidence and that you were right because you say so if there isn't any evidence. Problem is the evidence as it exists stands against you - not in the abstract."

I reply: I don't care if I am right. I want to get to the Truth. If it is demonstrated that I am wrong, by the documentary record, I will change my mind. Our discussion started way back up the thread when you asserted that there were various errors in the outlook of my religion. I responded by asking your base of authority. You advanced the Bible. And I focused on the problems of authority of your version of the Bible.
And we are still there.
You do not have to accept Jesus' and the Apostles' use of the Septuagint, and not the Massoretic text as evidence. To ME, it is dispositive authority.
Not to put too fine a point on it: Jesus cites to Tobit. You say Tobit's not in the Bible because the Jews say so.
I say that Jesus is right because he's God, and that if he cites to Tobit, it's Scripture. To me, that's not just evidence, it is dispositive.
You have asserted that the evidence is against me, but to get there, I have to accept a bare assertion, that there was a fixed canon circa 150-100 BC. You produce no evidence of this other than what Jews did in 90-100 AD. And what they did excludes books that Jesus cited to.
I think this proves that the Jews got it wrong, again.
Since they don't think Jesus was God, of course they are entitled to that view.
But I gather that you are a Christian, and therefore DO think Jesus was God.
Therefore I find your willingness to go with post-Christian Jewish authority over the useages of Jesus and the Apostles a bit mystifying.
I realize that in order to really PROVE Jesus used the Septuagint, and not the Massoretic text, I have to start giving textual evidence - the very thing I am asking for from you: give me the EVIDENCE that the Jews fixed their canon in 100 BC. That they did it in 100 AD, AFTER the rather enormous intervention of Jesus in the world and destruction of the Temple, and in a period of violent conflict with Christians, does not inspire confidence that the Jews by that point have any particular authority that favors the case for their version of Scripture.

You: "If I were to claim that you set canon before 300ad, I would have to prove that and show what it was."

You said, and I quoted you above, that the Jews set their canon between 150 BC and 100 BC. I say "prove it". Thus far you have referred doggedly to 100 AD to prove 100 BC. That does not work. Especially since Jesus didn't use the texts supposedly reasserted in 100 AD. THAT I WILL prove, by parallel citations to Septuagint and Massoretic text passages. I can prove that Jesus and the Apostles used the Septuagint, not the Massoretic Text. And I can prove that they used extensively texts that are not in the Massoretic Texts at all.
All this will prove is that Jesus and the Christians, and the Jews of the Jamnia, were using different sets of texts and considering them canonical. Then it is a matter of personal judgment as to which you accept: the authority of the Christians, or the authority of the post-Christian Jews.
Obviously I think that Jesus' use of the Septuagint is dispositive.
And obviously I have to prove that Jesus used the Septuagint. That I CAN do.

I am not going to accept the argument that the Jews' use of a canon at Javneh in 90 or 118 AD proves anything about the state of the canon in 150 BC. There is too much time, and too many dramatic events (like the coming of the Romans, the coming of the Messiah, the rise of Christianity and the destruction of Temple and disappearance of the Essenes and the Sadduccees between 150 BC and 118 AD) for me to accept the acts of 90-118 AD as proof of anything in 150 BC. I need a document from 150 BC.
I have documents from the 40s, 50s, 60s, 70s, and 90s AD in which Christians consistently use the Septuagint. And I will demonstrate that.
Does this prove that the Jewish canon in 150 BC was the Septuagint? No.
It proves that God and his Apostles used the Septuagint as Scripture. And THAT is what makes them Scripture. The Jews disagreed. The real conflict of authority, then, is between the Jewish rabbis and Jesus and the Apostles. I am a Christian. Therefore, I think the rabbis got it wrong.
They used the Massoretic Text. Jesus used the Septuagint. THEREFORE, in my view, the Septuagint is the God-chosen canon. If I were a Jew, obviously I would disagree.
I have difficulty understanding how a Christian could though, although I am certain you are about to tell me.

There is a bit more to it than that. I also think that when the Christians were using the Septuagint, that it was the primary Jewish Scriptures, and had the status of an open canon, which was in fact limited at Jamnia. However, I cannot prove that with any documents.
What I can prove is that Jesus and the Apostles used the Septuagint, including the so-called "Apocrypha". And this is precisely what I will do over the course of this weekend.

You: "Again, you are passing on what you were indoctrinated with, so I'm trying to be understanding. You didn't author it, your just trying to make sense of it."

Me: Umm, no. I was not indoctrinated by anybody. I never had any catechism. I have read various versions of the Bible, Jewish translations of the Torah, parts of the Mishna and the Shulchan Aruch, Josephus, 1 and 2 Clement and the other truly apocryphal writings, Eusebius and many others. I have read the Catechism of the Catholic Church, yes. But I have also read the Book of Common Prayer, cover to cover, extensive Orthodox discussions of Orthodoxy, and half my family for three generations are Baptist ministers down South; my in-laws are Jehovah's Witnesses. I've been through George Fox's and John Woolman's Journals and William Penn's 'Fruits of the Spirit'. I have not been formally indoctrinated by anybody. My approach to religion is largely scientific. WHAT are the texts, WHEN were they written, by WHOM, WHAT do they claim, HOW does that interact with other claims?
And why are the various religious groups at each others' throats?
I myself am a Catholic, not because any of these texts and arguments have ever convinced me, but because voices and visions convince me there is God and angels. Faced with the reality of God, the question for me is simply "What is the best way to go about embracing that reality?"
And the answer, in my judgment, is Catholicism.
Nobody has ever indoctrinated me in anything.

I do, of course, wonder if the converse is true. I suspect that you have been raised in a particular religion, and indoctrinated in it. It is interesting that you have not yet asserted which one.

You: 1) What, if any, version of the LXX was ever canon. 2) What that canon included specifically 3) Who set that canon, specifically 4) That canon then changed (to support the second major point of your original story.

Me:
(1) The parts translated for the Ptolemys at the behest of the High Priest at Jerusalem, and whatever parts were used by Jesus and the Apostles.
(2) The canon was open, with nebulous borders, until the Church closed it. Those things listed in (1) certainly are canon.
(3) The Church closed the Canon, using the power of the keys.
(4) The Canon was open, both as to New and Old Testaments, for quite awhile. The Jews closed their canon around the time of Jamnia, and did so by preferring the Palestinian Hebrew canon and rejecting the Septuagint. They did this without divine authority. Martin Luther adopted their error in order to advance his own.

I will establish what is in the OLD TESTAMENT Canon by citing to what Jesus and the Apostles cited to.
That will leave a handful of books not cited to, and 1 Enoch, to discuss.

The New Testament canon was decided by the Catholic Church under the power of the Holy Spirit.

"Paul told us flatly that the oracles of God were and are entrusted to the Israelites. Period. To the extent that ANYONE has any authority to say what constituted Old covenant canon, it is and was them the israelites. They have spoken on the matter. And that does, as a matter of their own authority granted by God, settle it."

First: "oracle" does not equal "Scripture". It also includes the casting of lots by Urim and Thummim.

Second: are you saying that if Jesus Christ cited to the Septuagint, that he was wrong because the Jews (later) spoke on the matter? The high priest and Sandhedrin also sentenced him to death for blasphemy. Were they right? They executed Stephen for blasphemy. Were they right?
They executed James, son of Jesus. Were they right?
Does their judgment as a matter of their "authority granted by God, settle it"?
They also systematically opposed the Christians at every step. The men who sat at Jamnia were polemically opposed to Christianity. Were they right?

Or did the religious authority of the Jews end, and the religion cease to have force, when the curtain of the Holy of Holies was rent in twain with the death of Jesus.

Also, Houston, we have a real problem here.
You have not identified your religious affiliation.
But you HAVE asserted that you are not a Sola Scripturalist.
If you're not using the Bible alone, you are relying on some tradition in addition to the Bible. Which one?

Your argument does not explain the Essenes and their additional books found at Qumran that agree with the LXX. They were every bit Hebrews as the Alexandrian or Judean Jews.

My argument doesn't need to explain other books found at Qumran unless you can show that said additional books were considered canon by them. What that says about the LXX is zero. As I noted, you would need to prove what the content of the LXX was when produced by the Jews.

As for the masorets being perfectionists when it came to copying, that much is true, except that they don't date back "thousands of years" but conveniently appear in the first century AD!.

As to the evidence, my memory is that the oldest dated to the 900s bc up till recently when I believe that was pushed back farther. As a matter of precision, I'd have to chase down my notes on it; but, it really isn't important to the discussion for the moment, so I will neither assent to nor challenge your position for now.

Christianity was a threat to the crumbling Jewish state, and with the destruction of the Temple the only thing that could keep Jews from following the new religion was to eliminate those passages that were threatening. There was desperation and a question of survival of a culture and a people being destroyed from within and without -- it is no wonder that masoretes appear just at that time! No small wonder, indeed! Just as it is no wonder that the rabbies got together at Jamnia. as I said before, there was not just a motive, but a strong motive.

Well, while this appears to be the popular fiction from Catholics, I would again note absence of any evidence to support it. And I would note the same in regard to Jamnia. Jamnia was neither a council, nor a canon setting/modifying conference. To the extent that it did anything, the record of it shows a discussion over Ecclesiastes and Song of Solomon. So while the evidence not only doesn't support you, it points an entirely different direction. Finally, Christianity was not a threat to the crumbling Jewish state. It wasn't a "jewish" state by that point but rather a Roman state with Jewish occupants. And for your accusation to hold up, why were Isaiah and the other books referencing messiah not removed. It seems inconsistant to sit and charge them with cutting off their nose to spite their face and yet find the nose still there.

As to the canon, it is evident from people like Josephus (100 AD) that not all Jews considered the same books canon. His list lacks Ecclesiastes (Song of Songs). Besides, Jamnia did not apply to all the Jews. The Jews of Ethiopia use a different canon. Christian OT source agrees with theirs. Whether they were not included at Jamnia or simply did not hear about Jamnia is irreleveant -- the fact is we have Jews to this day who use different canon that agrees with LXX.

This is again, a matter of smoke and mirrors. Jamnia had nothing whatever to do with canonization. That is the record the Jews and historians give us. In order to argue the LXX means anything, you must establish specifically what the Jews put in their version of it - to the extent that they did at all and what they considered canon. This seems largely the same game that was probably played back then - an attempt to garner credibility for a particular collection of works by getting the Jews to even appear to assent to same. Historically speaking, the absence of assent has wound us up here with your claims and nothing to back them up.

The NT refers to the wording of LXX. Whether apocrypha are Scripture (even +Jerome calls "Wisdom" by that name, and "Sirach" as holy Scripture), or whether they are merely profitable for reading does not change the fact that the Apostles used LXX as their Scripture.

Again, inconclusive. Knowing that there were multiple versions of what calls itself the LXX, establishing that Greek OT texts are cited from an LXX doesn't tell us what constituted the LXX for those citing it to the extent that this is the case. Nor does it mean the LXX was canon. If it's works included accurate works that were canon, then citing them is no foul - that lends nothing to other works that might have been in the LXX. So saying "LXX" is inconclusive - WHICH LXX?!

So, we're back to the starting points - What was included by the Jews in the LXX to the extent that they actually compiled it. What did they include if anything that was considered canon. IE what specific books did they put in vs what they put in as canon. Which books did Christ and the Apostles consider canon? Citing something doesn't mean you consider it canon. It may be useful to a point being made; but, it doesn't make it canon. All of these things are dead obvious. Pouting or throwing fits doesn't present us with factual evidence to prove your case.. especially in light of evidence that deounouces numerous points outright - specifically, Jamnia.

I've read through your two most recent responses and still the questions lay unanswered. A claim is not a response. So, I'll stand on my prior points regarding what would be required to establish. You may produce a citation list if you like as to what you feel was quoted from the LXX; but, that doesn't tell us "which" LXX or whether that was considered Scripture.
To the extent that Hebrew volumes were quoted in Greek, that doesn't lend canonicity to anything not quoted/cited.

Ultimately, whatever one claims, we are left with authority resting with the Jews as to what constitutes Old testament or old covenant scripture. It is their covenant and their
Testament, not ours. We cannot but assent to what they have defined for themselves.. which is the point of establishing
proper chain of authority. If you usurp their authority instead of assenting to it, you've lost claim for your own.

That doesn't make them wrong.

Nothing wrong with customs, my friend, they raise the spirit and vibrations. Customs simply mean how we go about our worship of God. If you get a chance, read the story about Three Little Hermits by Leo Tolstoy. If you can't find it, I will sent you a link. Believe me, it's wirthwhile reading.

We don't go to church for entertainment, or to "feel in heaven," but we go to church for Sacraments. It's food for the soul, and you can get it only where the priests are.

It's like a restaurant -- some are luxurious and elegant, others are greasy-spoon mom-and-pop hangouts, but both serve food that you need. Elegant can be impressive, but the greasy-spoon is somethimes cozier.

Why didn't the Jews remove Isaiah? They didn't; they changed the key words. Removing something in its entirety that was part of all other versions of the OT would have grave implications; much easier to change a word here and there and (conveniently) lose all other originals!

Is it not strange that the Jews would be "anal" (as you said) about their accuracy in transcribing, yet every copy of the Jewish Bible older than the 9th century AD is lost? I find that extremely suspicious. You would think that finding themselves in diaspora they would guard their holiest books a little better, huh?

But, don't get me wrong! The same applies to the Christians, who somehow "lost" the original Gospels. And while there are codices and archaeological bits and pieces that seem to suggest that the later copies were actually true copies -- the facts are fragmentary and cannot with 100% certainty account for every word written in the NT.

As to your insistence as to what comprised the original LXX, you know there is no answer to that. Some say that the book was commissioned for the Five Books of Moses, supposedly by scribes from all twelve tribes of Israel. That in itself is questionable because by that time (3rd c. BC) the tribes were not clearly identifiable and some of them were scattered over large areas, so it is not clear how that could have been done.

In short, there are a lot of holes everywhere in the history of Judaism and Christianity that cannot be ascertained by rock-solid facts and enough doubt exists to imply that human nature had a considerable amount of say in what goes and what doesn't go.

There is very little historical evidence that any of the stories mentioned in the OT really took place -- such monumental events as parting of the sea, plagues, etc. would have been noted by Egyptian records, and other stories of the OT by the Assyrians in an unambiguous way.

Adding this fact to the fact that the OT was carried from one generation of pagan-prone Jews to another makes it difficult to believe that not one iota was changed until the stories were put down in writing.

That being said, there is nothing written about Jesus. If His movement had had such an impact on the Jewish state and society, it is really surprising that not a single dot was written down about His presence either by His enemies or sympathizers, or Romans alike. Instead, all writings about Him appear two generations later (Josephus) as a short note that he was a good Man tortured and put to death by Romans; and Titus who, living with Christians in Nero's Rome, mentions that they believed in "Christus." Not much, isn't it for such an important Person?

Thus if you want hard evidence for anything Biblical, you might as well hang it up, because neither Jews nor Christians have any hard evidence to prove anything. The value of the Scriptures is not in their documentary reporting of "facts" but in their spiritual revelations.

As to what is spiritually acceptable is a matter of faith, and our faith is based on our perception of God and how we fit in the bigger picture of His Creation.

"Thus if you want hard evidence for anything Biblical, you might as well hang it up, because neither Jews nor Christians have any hard evidence to prove anything. The value of the Scriptures is not in their documentary reporting of "facts" but in their spiritual revelations."

I agree, except that I think that the Shroud of Turin and the Oviedo Cloth are hard evidence left by God of the crucifixion and the Resurrection. We have this cloth. We can study it forensically. And those studies reveal some pretty incredible things about the image on the cloth.

If only we had a DNA sample, we could clone Jesus.