Sounds like a strawman to me. The issue was the Apocrypha, not the other books of the OT.
Umm, yeah. And once they Christians stopped associating with their former brothers because of obvious differences with the Jews who did not accept Christ, they stopped allowing them to define doctrine or Scripture. That is, until fifteen hundred or so years later when some schismatic Christians decide (I guess) that the Jews were more reliable than the people who had canonized the rest of Scripture.
My point is, the reason Christians consider those 39 books to be canonical is because God had already given those scriptures to the Jews. Nobody said that nonbelieving Jews should define doctrine for Christians (another strawman?); what was said was that the Apocryphal books - contemporary writings to the rest of the OT - were never considered inspired by the Jews. Why did the RCC decide that they were?
Really? There's no evidence that I've seen supporting that.
Which part - the fact that they didn't consider it inspired or that the canon officially closed at around the end of the first century?
Previously "stated" perhaps, but not previously "demonstrated". It's a convenient denial on the part of some revisionist historians, but there haven't been any copies of scripture from prior to that point demonstrating a canon without those books.
Do a google search for Jewish canon. It seems pretty clear to me that there's a general consensus on what they considered inspired and how their canon has been established.
Interesting. Paul was certainly the best OT scholar credited with writing our NT Scriptures. Did you know that better than 94% of Paul's OT quotations come from the Septuagint? That every quotation in Acts does (thus is was the version the Apostles evangelized with)?
Did Paul quote from the Apocrypha? If not, what's your point? I'm not denying the validity of the Septuagint translation, just the consideration that the Apocrypha is inspired of God.
Interesting that you put such weight on Isaiah ...
I only used it as an example because you brought it up.
I don't happen to agree that any particular doctrine rests soley on verses found in the Apocrypha, but most protestants see support there for purgatory and prayers for the dead (among others) in there.
Hmm, I thought Catholics found support for those there as well. I believe that prayers for the dead are found in - correct me if I am wrong - 2 Maccabees 12?, and I think that verses from Corinthians, IIRC, are cited for purgatory. Don't know that I brought either of those issues up. But then again, I don't even remember what got us started on this... :)
Lol! It was YOUR argument! I pointed out that the Apocypha were part of the standard Greek Sciptures used by Christ and the Apostles and YOU said that since they didn't quote them they must not have considered the canonical. I merely pointed out what your argument implied. If "quoted in the NT" is the gold standard you've got a problem. If it isn't (and it isn't) then you had no point at all.
what was said was that the Apocryphal books - contemporary writings to the rest of the OT - were never considered inspired by the Jews.
They obviously were by the first century Jews who were using them. And "contemporary" is a very interesting statement. When did you think they were written? Why did the RCC decide that they were?
Again, you assume they were never there and the Church just decided to pop them in. They were part of the Scriptures we received - taking them out would be a mistake. On the other hand, the reformers who DID remove them (along with a few other books they didn't like) admitted that it was doctrinal disagreements that caused it.
Which part - the fact that they didn't consider it inspired or that the canon officially closed at around the end of the first century?
The first part. Though the Jews who did not recognize the Messiah would surely have lost the "oracles of God" such that they could determine a canon fifty years after Christ.
Don't know that I brought either of those issues up.
I was just answering what doctrinal issues there might have been dispute with. Luther and other reformers came right out and said (essentially) "we don't agree with this doctrine and any book that supports it so clearly must not be Scripture"
Do a google search for Jewish canon. It seems pretty clear to me that there's a general consensus on what they considered inspired and how their canon has been established.
Ok. I added the word "Septuagint" and the first hit gave me:
The Septuagint Greek translation spread throughout the Hellenistic (Greek) world, supplanting several rival Greek translations.It is of great interest to scholars because:
1. it contains books later excluded from the canon by the Council of Jamnia
2. it is the basis for the traditional or Catholic Christian canon.
I'm not denying the validity of the Septuagint translation, just the consideration that the Apocrypha is inspired of God.
That's a very interesting statement. If I quote exclusively from the KJV throughout a life of writing but never get around to quoting Romans can you assume I think Romans is not in the canon? Or knowing that I consider the KJV to be "Scripture" and knowing that the KJV included Romans can you not conclude the opposite?
The stats were cited to show that the bulk of scholars assume that the "Scriptures" used by Christ and the Apostles and NT authors was the very same collection that included the Apocrypha. You may assume that Christ walked around thinking "those silly guys going around messing up Scripture... well... we'll fix it in a few decades". Me? I'd rather assume he would have said something about it if they were using the wrong Scriptures.
And while our oldest "semi-complete" manuscripts date from a non-orthodox Jewish source, the DSS support the Septuagint as well (including the books in question).
Second reply to clarify a point I hadn't made.
I'll take issue with the second half as well. The Jews didn't (and don't) have the kind of hierarchy/authority that would allow a "closing of the canon". The Ethiopian Jews (for example) include the Apocrypha to this day because they weren't around the Jamnia council to hear there had been a change. Unless you assume that they coincidentally added those books around the time the Catholics did?
Debate continued for at least a couple hundred more years among Jews as to which books belonged in or out (in the third century there was great controversy about Proverbs, for instance. Good thing for you guys they didn't get around to changing it again, right? - You would be taking it out today.)