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).
I never said that "quoted in the NT" was a gold standard. I asked why the RCC included them in the canon. The initial comment was yours, in response to that question, and I quote - "If it was the Scriptures that Jesus and the apostles used it would seem good enough for me." To which I responded, " But the New Testament doesn't quote the Apocrypha at all, to the best of my knowledge, so apparently it WASN'T good enough for them."
It appears that our difference in perspective lies with our respective use of the words "used" and "quoted." So I'll clarify. My point is this. Most of the 39 books of the OT are quoted extensively by the players in the New Testament, and those that are not are certainly doctrinally supported and referenced, either directly or indirectly. Can the same be said for the Apocrypha? It's an honest question. You have to agree that the Apocrypha is a DIFFERENT GROUPING ALTOGETHER. The RCC, even while interspersing the Apocrypha throughout the Bible, considers them deuterocanonical. Which raises another question - the word means "books ADDED to the canon." How can that be, if they were always there?
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?
Contemporary (ok, fine, used a bit loosely) in the sense that they were written by Hebrews - as the other 39 were - before the time of Christ. Contemporary to Jewish history before the time of Christ. And that's another thing. The Apocrypha were written at a time when there was no prophetic message, no active prophets speaking the word of the Lord. The time from Malachi to the time of Christ was virtually silent in that regard. To me that is also telling.
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.
Doctrinal as well as textual, from what I have read. And again, then why are they called deuterocanonical? And Jerome rejected them, didn't he? They weren't universally accepted at that time and weren't even declared divinely inspired until the Council of Trent.
Ok. I added the word "Septuagint" and the first hit gave me:...
1. it contains books later excluded from the canon by the Council of Jamnia
Nice try. Exclude does not only mean remove from a position previously occupied. It also means to prevent or restrict the entrance of; to bar from participation, consideration, or inclusion.
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?
Poor analogy, imo. Romans was written after Christ's ascension, so He could hardly quote it. With that in mind, your lack of quoting it is moot, because your words aren't potential scripture.
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.
This assumes, once again, that the Jews held the Apocrypha in as high of regard as they did their Hebrew Tanakh, when in fact they did not. There was nothing for Jesus to correct, because it seems to me that no one was going around claiming that the Apocrypha contained the divinely inspired, prophetic word of God.
Look, all I want to know is, and I don't believe I've gotten an answer, why did the RCC choose to include the Apocrypha? Related - why did the Council of Trent call them divinely inspired? What level of importance is placed upon them by the Catholic Church, and has it always been thus? These are honest questions. Tell me why they are considered as they are.