Replies

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.
Where does it say this? They didn't believe in the Resurrection (they were Sad-You-See). But I do not recall the Bible anywhere saying they only believed in the Torah. Jerome and Origen asserted this.

See http://www.muslimhope.com/BibleAnswers/mk.htm

"Here is the evidence. The early church fathers Hippolytus, Tertullian, Origen, and Jerome said the Sadducees only believed in the Torah. However, The New International Dictionary of the Bible p.884-885 says they were in error, because

1) Josephus does not mention this
2) In the Talmud Sadducees use arguments from other books of the Old Testament,
3) They probably would not have been allowed on the Sanhedrin if they had not regarded the other books as canonical.
However against this are three points:
1r) Josephus wrote of the Sadducees, "…nor do they regard the observation of anything besides what the law enjoins…" in Antiquities of the Jews 18.1.4. (about 93-94 A.D.)
2r) Furthermore, even if the Sadducees did not totally reject the rest of the Old Testament, they might have only accepted the rest of the Old Testament books as less authoritative. This is similar to the view of some Christians as the apocrypha being godly writings that belong in Scripture, but having lesser authority than the rest of the Old Testament. Perhaps the Sadducees left open the question of just how authoritative the non-Torah books were.
3r) According to Josephus, Ananias (the younger) was a Sadducee who was appointed high priest by the Romans. It would detract from the Sanhedrin’s authority if they excluded the high priest. Also, Josephus writes in Antiquities of the Jews 18.1.4, that when the Sadducees became magistrates, they adhered to what the Pharisees said, because otherwise the multitudes could not endure them. It is analogous to today, when many liberal "Christian" pastors, who themselves deny that Jesus died to pay for our sins, still celebrate the Lord’s Supper every month, repeating the words "This is my blood shed for the forgiveness of sins", because otherwise the church members would not accept them as pastors.
Where did the early church fathers get their information? Since the Sadducees died out around 70 A.D., they did not get it from the Sadducees themselves. Perhaps they got the information from many early writings we do not have today. For example, Papias, a disciple of John the Apostle and the first extra-Biblical premillennialist, wrote a number of volumes which have been lost.
Therefore, while there is nothing to prove the early church writers wrong, there are arguments on both sides as to whether the Sadducees outright reject the rest of the Old Testament, or else just held these books as of lesser authority. "

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.
So? I specifically stated I wasn't talking about Jamnia.

The Targums did not contain the extra books.

So what, the Targums don't contain the Prophets, either...
From Wikipedia: "These two targumim are mentioned in the Babylonian Talmud as targum didan ("our Targum"), giving them official status. In the synagogues of talmudic times, Targum Onkelos was read alternately with the Torah, verse by verse, and Targum Jonathan was read alternately with the selection from Nevi'im (i.e. the Haftarah). This custom continues today in Yemenite Jewish synagogues. The Yemenite Jews are the only Jewish community to continue the use of Targum as liturgical text, as well as to preserve a living tradition of pronunciation for the Aramaic of the targumim (according to a Babylonian dialect)."

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.
So, we have someone besides Jerome again that doesn't include the "Deuts." The compilers of the Peshitta Syriac.

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.
It should have bothered them - and you. The Jewish Model was meticulous. It is simply unfathomable (and without evidentiary support) that the Jews would have removed books from their Testament that were considered canonical.

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"?
Not the point. The fact that there was a settled set of books that were considered Scripture at the time of Christ is clear from Jesus' own testimony on the subject.

Does this include the historical books, like Joshua or Chronicles? Probably. There were the former prophets and the latter prophets in Jewish culture. Joshua, Judges, Samuel/ Kings were considered former prophets. Daniel, Isaiah, Daniel, Ezekiel and Trei Asar (12 minor prophets) were considered the Latter Prophets. Jesus well may have understood this the same way and it appears that he did.

And how could there be "inter-testamental" books BEFORE the NT was even written???
Uh, if the the Apocryphal books were in the Septuagint and were written at a time in between the last of the Hebrew Scriptures was written but BEFORE the first New Testament book was written, then they are "inter-testamental." In between the Testaments.

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. Dealt with in other posts.

"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)
I don't see a defense of Susanna or Bel, I see a mentioning that they are found in every Christian church. He says he doesn't know what to do with them. In his list of Canonical books, they are not mentioned.

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.
1)'every single church of Christ' is an overstatement. They were not found in churches using the Syriac Peshitta for example. 2)The fact that this is being discussed again underscores the fact that it was not UNIVERSALLY held that these books were canonical and Jerome wasn't the only one.

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
Again, they are not in his listing.

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
Does not indicate that Sirach is Canonical. I could say "Let all who wish to live according to the teaching of Scripture understand the saying of Bill Clinton..." I use a baser individual to make a point. Jerome felt the books were instructive. He did NOT consider them Scripture. Origen does not say that Sirach IS Scripture. He listed the Canon. Sirach was not of the canon.

Oh, now Sirach is ALSO Scriptures, according to Origen...
No. But nice try.

To save time, I will note that he also sees Tobit, Judith, and Wisdom as Scriptures. Thus, your claim about Origen are totally false.
I saw his explicit lists. His quotations of books that even Jerome felt were instructive do not indicate that they are canonical. Unless you have a statement by Origen that says that "Judith, Tobit, Wisdom are canonical Scriptures" then don't bother.

...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.
No we don't. 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...

Okay, let me get this argument straight. Athanasius believed that the Deuteros were Scripture so to protect his flock from spurious writings he omitted them from his list. Makes sense.

"[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 the only book named such. He rejected Wisd. Tobit Judith & Maccabees as well as Esther and Ecclesiastes. Again, he states concerning the Deuteros :"[they are]not received as canonical but having been appointed by the Fathers to be read to those just beginning in the faith and wishing to be instructed in the word of godliness." In short, non-canonical but instructive reading.

"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
He refers to several people here. 1) The sacred writers in Hebrews. 2)Isaiah. 3) Susanna 4) Baruch. Quoting from books one finds instructional is not establishing their canonicity. Paul, in witnessing to the pagans at Mars Hill quoted Greek Authors "“For in him we live and move and have our being”- Epimenides, Cretica; "For we are also his offspring"- Aratus Phaenomena and he later quotes Menander's Thais :"Evil company corrupts good habits." Did he consider them Scripture? No. He considered them instructional. In the Origen quote, only Hebrews is associated with "Sacred Writers". The rest is instructional but is not meant to be a commentary on what the Canon is.

Daniel 13 is Scripture ... Wisdom and Sirach are Scriptures for the same reason. Judith...yadayadayada...
Again, read what Athanasius said about the Apocryphal books ""But for the sake of greater exactness I add this also, writing under obligation, as it were. There are other books besides these, indeed not received as canonical but having been appointed by our fathers to be read to those just approaching and wishing to be instructed in the word of godliness: Wisdom of Solomon, Wisdom of Sirach, Esther, Judith, Tobit, and that which is called the Teaching of the Apostles, and the Shepherd. But the former, my brethren, are included in the Canon, the latter being merely read; nor is there any place a mention of secret writings. But such are the invention of heretics, who indeed write them whenever they wish, bestowing upon them their approval, and assigning to them a date, that so, using them as if they were ancient writings, they find a means by which to lead astray the simple-minded." Regardless of his quoting from them because they were appointed to be read- they were NOT considered canonical by Athanasius or by the Fathers per his own quote.

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...
Maybe you will read Athanasius' actual words rather than reading INTO his words based upon YOUR own presuppositions. He listed the books. He specifically denied the canonicity of the extra books while retaining their usefulness.

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.
The conversation stemmed from the antisemitism on the thread - so yes, it is relevant. Second, you have dismissed Christ's own words as to an established Canon. The Law, the Prophets and the Psalms. That was the Canon. We can argue about what was in those sections of the Tanach, but the fact remains that Jesus knew what was the established Canon passed down through the Jews - and Jesus lived BEFORE Jamnia in case you didn't notice.

Regards

B wrote : So, we have someone besides Jerome again that doesn't include the "Deuts." The compilers of the Peshitta Syriac.

And this takes me back to square one.

The Peshitta Syriac ALSO does not contain 2 Peter, 2 John, 3 John, Jude, and Revelation - commonly known as the NEW TESTAMENT Deuterocanonicals. Origen also does not make a clear statement about any of these books. Yet you accept them? Your argument reeks of special pleading...

I find this all highly hypocritical and ridiculous. You deny that OT Deuts based on the interpretation of a few Fathers and the Peshitta Syriac bible, but when these SAME sources either deny or do not verify the NT Deuts, this you sweep under the carpet? This logic stands upon sand.

Your view desperately seeks ANYTHING that might show that the OT Deuts were not Scripture. You even side with the Jews, called by John 'anti-christ'. In your attempt to smear the Church, you are willing to side with those people who denied the Christ and the inspired Words of the Gospel???

Then, you AGAIN throw the baby out with the bath water by your hypocritical and selective choices of the Church Father's opinions on the inspired Word of God - but ignoring these same people who DENY part of the Bible that you today claim are inspired by God???

After some thought, I have concluded that on this very subject, the topic of the Deuterocanonicals, that the "Protestant apologist" shows his true colors - a manipulator who stands on illogical points of view, even desperately destroying the ground HE stands on, with the mere goal of wounding the Church. Thus, by your fruits, they are known. While in every other subject, the problem is one of interpretation - here, we have solid and iron clad logic that is denied and ignored, all with the goal of leading the sheep astray. These "Protestant apologists" will even side with the anti-christ to achieve their goals. It is plain. On this subject, the "Protestant apologist" shows him/herself to be a wolf among the sheep.

I for one have made my point and will not discuss this issue again. It should be painfully obvious the "Protestant apologist" stands on sand -

1. Relying on the Jews to determine the Word of God, even if it means they side with those men of 2000 years ago who discount the entire New Testament and the person of our Saviour.

2. Denying the OT Deuts based on the exact same men who questioned the NT Deuts - which these "apologists" accept unabashedly. Why the two-faced attitude?

I will probably ruffle some feathers with this post, but if one reads the hypocritical and nonsensical view taken by these charecters, I hope one will understand my ire regarding those who are obviously not concerned with bringing souls to the truth, but with leading people astray.

Regards