Replies

Dear Regards & Annalex

I am not defending Jamnia. I am defending the Jews who were, are, and always shall be God's chosen people. I do not defend everything that the Jewish people have ever done. I do defend the fact that they are beloved by God and were led by God to develop a Canon of Scripture long before the council of Jamnia - a canon that did NOT contain the Apocrypha.

The Targums did not contain the extra books. The Peshitta Syriac did not contain them. ONLY the Septuagint and Scripture versions derived from it contained the Apocryphal books. The oldest versions of the Septuagint we have are between the 4th and 5th century. They do contain the Apocrypha. However, these MSS are obviously Christian in origin. They say nothing about what was in the Septuagint of Christ's day.

The early manuscripts of the Septuagint also don't agree as to what books are accepted as Scripture. Vaticanus doesn't contain I & II Maccabees or The Prayer of Manassah, but includes Psalm 151 and 1 Esdras. Sinaiticus omits II Maccabees and Baruch, and includes Psalm 151, 1 Esdras and IV Maccabees. Alexandrinus includes Psalm 151, 1 Esdras, the Psalms of Solomon and III and IV Maccabees.

Josephus (a Jew not hostile towards Christ) contended that the Old Testament canon closed during the reign of Artaxerxes I (400s BC) but even before this, Jesus Himself stated what the Canon was Luke 24:44 "And he said unto them, These are the words which I spake unto you, while I was yet with you, that all things must be fulfilled, which were written in the law of Moses, and in the prophets, and in the psalms, concerning me. " Nothing about the inter-testamental books there.

So, lets move to the "unanimous agreement" of the early Fathers. Well, some rather prominent theologians rejected their canonicity.

Jerome and Origen rejected the books as canonical. Athanasius did the same as did Gregory of Nazianzus. The Old Testament stopped with the Hebrew Scriptures for these men. I suppose that they were just agreeing with the Pharisees and being anti-Christ when they did so. Next thing, you'll be declaring anathema those who agree with them - oops, I guess that already happened too.

Only with the collective Roman hissy fit in the 1500s did they get put in the Canon; but, by then, there had been centuries of Roman persecution against the Jews so whats a little disdain for what they considered Scripture by adding to the Bible those books that apparently only the Alexandrians (potentially but not definately) held as authoritative?

Israel is lost, but she is still loved. God entrusted to the very logia tou theo. Do you think that she was in doubt about what they were? Do you think that their hatred of Jesus was so strong that they, the people who had painstakingly translated every letter and counted them out to make sure that they were accurate would then remove them from the Scriptures over the Jewish Carpenter that they did not believe was Divine? Such contention stretches credibility to say the least.

To be sure, the council at Jamnia didn't get it right. But to say that they removed the apocryphal books because they had it in for Christianity is not substantiated. They represented Israel after her Messiah came. Blind to Christ (not blind to what was their own Scripture though). Israel rejected Christ and is now blinded in part - but not forever. She will look upon her Messiah one day and the errors of her past will be cast away. In the mean time, God's promises towards her still stand. She isn't perfect, but she is His. Bless her. Don't curse her. This doesn't mean full agreement, but it does mean treating her with love.

I do defend the fact that they are beloved by God and were led by God to develop a Canon of Scripture long before the council of Jamnia - a canon that did NOT contain the Apocrypha.

Again, you are incorrect. Different sects of Judaism did not agree on the Canon of Scriptures. Again, the Septuagint was used BEFORE Christ by the Diaspora. Again, the Bible itself tells us that the Sadducees only believed in the Torah (first five books) as the Word of God. The Jews before Jamnia were not concerned with solidifying a canon. This did not occur until AFTER Jerusalem was destroyed and the Pharisaical sect that was left decided to set the canon so as to maintain their separateness from the competing sect of Christianity, which obviously had a DIFFERENT OT that they used. Proof of this is when the OT is quoted, over 80% of the quotes are taken from the Greek OT, not the Masoretic Hebrew OT.

The Targums did not contain the extra books.

So what, the Targums don't contain the Prophets, either...

The Peshitta Syriac did not contain them.

Wherever Christianity spread, translations of the Hebrew Scriptures were made based on the LXX. Thus, it became the basis for translations made into Arabic, Ethiopic, Armenian, Old Latin, Coptic, Georgian, and Old Church Slavonic. (It was not the basis either for the Syriac version [known as the Peshitta], which is a pre-Christian translation based directly upon the Hebrew, or for St. Jerome's Latin translation, which is also based on the Hebrew.). Since Jerome's aversion of the Greek OT is well-known, it is not surprising that the Syriac version does not include the Deuts.

The early manuscripts of the Septuagint also don't agree as to what books are accepted as Scripture. Vaticanus doesn't contain I & II Maccabees or The Prayer of Manassah, but includes Psalm 151 and 1 Esdras. Sinaiticus omits II Maccabees and Baruch, and includes Psalm 151, 1 Esdras and IV Maccabees. Alexandrinus includes Psalm 151, 1 Esdras, the Psalms of Solomon and III and IV Maccabees.

We find some Greek Church Fathers quoting the same Old Testament texts, but in very different forms. There is no indication, however, that this troubled to Church leadership. The insistence on letter-for-letter, word-for-word accuracy in the Scriptures was a feature that was not to emerge in Christian thought for many centuries, and then in imitation of Jewish and Islamic models. As far as most early Christians were concerned, any Greek version of the Old Testament read in the Church merited the term Septuagint.

Jesus Himself stated what the Canon was Luke 24:44 "And he said unto them, These are the words which I spake unto you, while I was yet with you, that all things must be fulfilled, which were written in the law of Moses, and in the prophets, and in the psalms, concerning me. " Nothing about the inter-testamental books there.

Oh brother... And where does the Bible tell us what consisted of the "prophets and psalms"? Does this include the historical books, like Joshua or Chronicles? And how could there be "inter-testamental" books BEFORE the NT was even written???

Jerome and Origen rejected the books as canonical.

Jerome did. And he is the ONLY one I could find in my study on this subject. Origen did not reject them. In his list of Scriptures, he includes Baruch and both Maccabees. He also accepts some other books...

"You begin by saying, that when, in my discussion with our friend Bassus, I used the Scripture which contains the prophecy of Daniel when yet a young man in the affair of Susanna, I did this as if it had escaped me that this part of the book was spurious. You say that you praise this passage as elegantly written, but find fault with it as a more modern composition, and a forgery; and you add that the forger has had recourse to something which not even Philistion the play-writer would have used in his puns between prinos and prisein, schinos and schisis, which words as they sound in Greek can be used in this way, but not in Hebrew. In answer to this, I have to tell you what it behoves us to do in the cases not only of the History of Susanna, which is found in every Church of Christ in that Greek copy which the Greeks use, but is not in the Hebrew, or of the two other passages you mention at the end of the book containing the history of Bel and the Dragon, which likewise are not in the Hebrew copy of Daniel. (Origen,To Africanus, 5)

Later, in this same passage, he will defend the Catholic version of Daniel 3 and the Song of the 3 children. Notice that Origen also defends the use of Susanna, and Bel and the Dragon, as found in Daniel 13 and 14 of the Catholic Bible. He says that Bel and the Dragon and Susanna, Daniel 13 and 14 and only found in the Catholic Bible, is found in every single Church of Christ. Origen himself acknowledges that all Churches use these books. And in which way? He notes that he refers to them as Scripture. His opponent said it was a forgery. He corrects his opponent. It is not a forgery, but he notes his own use of them as Scripture

And what else did Origen find as Scripture?

But he ought to know that those who wish to live according to the teaching of Sacred Scripture understand the saying, 'The knowledge of the unwise is as talk without sense,' [Sirach 21:18] and have learnt 'to be ready always to give an answer to everyone that asketh us a reason for the hope that is in us.’ [1 Pt 3:15] " Origen, Against Celsus, 7:12

Oh, now Sirach is ALSO Scriptures, according to Origen...

To save time, I will note that he also sees Tobit, Judith, and Wisdom as Scriptures. Thus, your claim about Origen are totally false.

...Athanasius did the same

You and your sources are confused with the term "canon" as used by Athanasius, misunderstanding his use in his 39th Festal letter, no doubt. To HIM, canon meant books to be read during the Liturgy, during Mass. It doesn't refer to "which books are Scriptures". Since the Deuteros were contested by some, Athanasius, in an effort to protect his flock from spurious writings, felt it necessary to exclude even those books accepted by other churches. Now, did Athanasius himself think the Deuteros were Scriptures? Yes...

"[T]he sacred writers to whom the Son has revealed Him, have given us a certain image from things visible, saying, 'Who is the brightness of His glory, and the Expression of His Person;' [Heb 1:3] and again, 'For with Thee is the well of life, and in Thy light shall we see lights;' [Ps 36:9] and when the Word chides Israel, He says, 'Thou hast forsaken the Fountain of wisdom;' [Baruch 3:12] and this Fountain it is which says, 'They have forsaken Me the Fountain of living waters' [Jer 2:13]" [3] Athanasius the Great: Defense of the Nicene Faith,2

Baruch is Scripture, mentioned in the same breath as Hebrews and the Psalms and Jeremiah...

"And where the sacred writers say, Who exists before the ages,' and 'By whom He made the ages,’ [Heb 1:2] they thereby as clearly preach the eternal and everlasting being of the Son, even while they are designating God Himself. Thus, if Isaiah says, 'The Everlasting God, the Creator of the ends of the earth;’ [Is 40:28] and Susanna said, 'O Everlasting God;' [Daniel 13:42-Susanna] and Baruch wrote, 'I will cry unto the Everlasting in my days,' and shortly after, 'My hope is in the Everlasting, that He will save you, and joy is come unto me from the Holy One;' [Baruch 4:20,22]" Athanasius the Great: Discourses Against the Arians

Daniel 13 is Scripture

But if this too fails to persuade them, let them tell us themselves, whether there is any wisdom in the creatures or not? If not how is it that the Apostle complains, 'For after that in the Wisdom of God the world by wisdom knew not God?’ [1 Cor 1:21] or how is it if there is no wisdom, that a 'multitude of wise men' [Wisdom 6:24] are found in Scripture? for 'a wise man feareth and departeth from evil;’ [Prov 14:16] and 'through wisdom is a house builded;’ [Prov 24] and the Preacher says, 'A man's wisdom maketh his face to shine;' and he blames those who are headstrong thus, 'Say not thou, what is the cause that the former days were better than these? for thou dost not inquire in wisdom concerning this.’ [Eccl 8:1,7:10] But if, as the Son of Sirach says, 'He poured her out upon all His works; she is with all flesh according to His gift, and He hath given her to them that love Him,'[Sirach 1:8,9]" [7] Athanasius the Great: Discourses Against the Arians, 2:79

Wisdom and Sirach are Scriptures for the same reason.

Let us not fulfill these days like those that mourn but, by enjoying spiritual food, let us seek to silence our fleshly lusts(Ex. 15:1). For by these means we shall have strength to overcome our adversaries, like blessed Judith (Judith 13:8), when having first exercised herself in fastings and prayers, she overcame the enemies, and killed Olophernes. And blessed Esther, when destruction was about to come on all her race, and the nation of Israel was ready to perish, defeated the fury of the tyrant by no other means than by fasting and prayer to God, and changed the ruin of her people into safety (Esther 4:16) [Athanasius the Great: Letter 4, 2 (A.D. 333

Judith is Scriptures

The Spirit also, who is in him, commands, saying, 'Offer unto God the sacrifice of praise, and pay to the Lord thy vows. Offer the sacrifice of righteousness, and put your trust in the Lord (Sir. 18:17).'[Athanasius the Great: Letter 19, 5

And again, Sirach is Scriptures, unless you believe the Spirit commands us in an uninspired book.

There are more such verses for Wisdom, but you get the drift, hopefully. St. Athanasius' writings tells us that he considered the Septuagint OT as Scriptures, sometimes using passages from the Deuteros to make a point, giving them the same exact authority as the Protocanonical books. In summary, you misunderstand his 39th Festal letter, as he himself notes that Sirach, Wisdom, Baruch, Judith, and Daniel 13 are inspired by God.

...as did Gregory of Nazianzus.

First, note, as in Athanasius case, Gregory EXCLUDES Esther. He also excludes Revelation from his NT list. So this of itself is not a major problem for the Catholic, as I will soon note that he, like Athanasius, considers many of the Deuteros to be Scriptural

And how shall we preserve the truth that God pervades all things and fills all, as it is written "Do not I fill heaven and earth? saith the Lord (Jer. 23:24)" and "The Spirit of the Lord filleth the world" (Wisdom 1:7) if God partly contains and partly is contained. For either He will occupy an empty Universe, and so all things will have vanished for us, with this result, that we shall have insulted God by making Him a body.... St. Gregory Nazianzen: The Second Theological Oration

Wisdom is Scripture

Then the last and gravest plague upon the persecutors, truly worthy of the night; and Egypt mourns the firstborn of her own reasonings and actions which are also called in the Scripture the "Seed of the Chaldeans" (Judith 5:6) removed, and the children of Babylon dashed against the rocks and destroyed; (Psalm 138:9). and the whole air is full of the cry and clamour of the Egyptians. St. Gregory Nazianzen:

Judith is Scripture

How did God sustain her? Not by raining down manna, as for Israel of old (Ex. 16:14), or opening the rock, in order to sustain to give drink to His thirsting people (Ex. 18:6) or feasting her by means of ravens, as Elijah 1 King 17:6), or feeding her by a prophet carried through the air, as He did to Daniel when a-hungered in the den (Daniel 14:33(Bel and the Dragon, V:33). St. Gregory Nazianzen:

There are similar passages for Baruch, Sirach, and the Septuagint version of Daniel.

I suppose that they were just agreeing with the Pharisees and being anti-Christ when they did so. Next thing, you'll be declaring anathema those who agree with them - oops, I guess that already happened too.

Maybe you should get the facts straight before you spout off such nonsense. I have given plenty of evidence that you are wrong and merely mimicing some Protestant apologist who hadn't done his homework...

The rest has nothing to do with our conversation, as I have not said anything hateful towards the Jews. I am merely giving you the historical facts of what the Church believed was Scripture and that the Jews did NOT have a fixed Canon until after the Destruction of Jerusalem and felt the need to consolidate and fight against whom they saw as a wayward sect, the Christians. This theological battle is seen throughout the writings of the New Testament.

Regards