Replies

The case for a closed canon which excluded the Deuterocanonical books, and which was received universally by all the Jews, is not as strong as you would present. First, even in Palestine there was not a unanimity concerning the canon. While the Pharisees accepted what is now the Masoretic canon, the Sadducees did not. They only accepted the first five books of the Torah. The present Masoretic canon probably did not reach its current form until the 2nd century. According to Lawrence H. Schiffman, Vice Provost for Undergraduate Education at Yeshiva University:

I nowhere argued or claimed a a closed canon universally accepted by all the Jews, so why are you resorting to a strawman? There is not even a universal uniform canon today.

Instead i actually stated "it is to be doubted that" all held to the 22/24 book Josephus/Pharisaic canon, but argued that "there was an established authoritative body of writings of God by the time of Christ," this being (even if nor formally closed), the one held by those who sat in the most authoritative canon seat of Moses, the tripartite one most likely referred to as Scripture by Christ.

We do not possess myriads of inconsistent books, conflicting with each other. other. Our books, those which are justly accredited, are but two and twenty, and contain the record of all time....” — Josephus, Against Apion, 1,8 (38-41)

"In all likelihood Josephus' twenty-two-book canon was the Pharisaic canon, but it is to be doubted that it was also the canon of all Jews in the way that he has intended." (Timothy H. Lim: The Formation of the Jewish Canon; Yale University Press, Oct 22, 2013. P. 49)

"it is clear that the Pharisees held to the twenty-two or twenty-four book canon, and it was this canon that eventually became the canon of Rabbinic Judaism because the majority of those who founded the Jewish faith after the destruction of Jerusalem were Pharisees. (Timothy H. Lim, University of Edinburgh)

While virtually all the Writings were regarded as canonical by the time of the destruction of the Temple in 70 C.E., arguments continued regarding the status of Proverbs, Song of Songs, Ecclesiastes, and Esther, and these disputes are attested in rabbinic literature.

"The Writings" do not refer to the Deuteros, while of course there was some debate in the whole, but as Lawrence H. Schiffman (thanks for the name at least) also states in the work you did not cite. Emphasis is mine:

The term "apocrypha" refers to those books which are found in the Hellenistic Jewish Bible canon of Alexandria, Egypt, but not in the Palestinian Jewish canon . The Hellenistic canon was preserved by the Christian church in the Septuagint and Vulgate Bibles, and the Palestinian canon was handed down in the form of the traditional Hebrew Bible. ...

The desire to supplement Scripture was part of a general tendency in the Greco-Roman period toward "rewritten Bible." In such works the authors, out of reverence for the Bible, sought to extend the biblical tradition and often applied it to the issues of their own day. ...

aruch (1 Baruch) is a hortatory work which was treated as a supplement to Jeremiah. It is a pseudepigraphon, purporting to have been written by Baruch, the scribe of Jeremiah... The first part had to have been written by the onset of the first century B.C.E., but the date of the second half cannot be established. It may postdate the destruction of the Second Temple in 70 C.E. From Text to Tradition: A History of Second Temple and Rabbinic Judaism, pp. 12-,121, 123,125, 126, Lawrence H Schiffman, PH D, Sol Scharfstein, Ethel and Irvine Edelman Professor of Hebrew and Judaic Studies; KTAV Publishing House, Inc., 1991)

Thus according to even your source there was a Palestinian Jewish canon, even if there was still some degree of debate i circles, while here again is testimony against the Deuteros being part of the Palestinian canon, with some books even postdating the completion of the Jewish LXX (132 BC)

The idea of two separate future histrcan could sat the same of our canons, a longer Alexandrian one and a shorter Palestinian one, was originally proposed by Protestant scholars in the 18th century to explain why Christians and Jews held two separate canons.

Thank God for more objective historians, yet it is the strong warrant for a shorter Palestinian canon being what is referred to as Scripture by the NT church that is the issue, and as cited, your own Catholic Encyclopedia among other sources affirms,

“the protocanonical books of the Old Testament correspond with those of the Bible of the Hebrews, and the Old Testament as received by Protestants.” “...the Hebrew Bible, which became the Old Testament of Protestantism.” (The Catholic Encyclopedia>Canon of the Old Testament; htttp://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03267a.htm) The Protestant canon of the Old Testament is the same as the Palestinian canon. (The Catholic Almanac, 1960, p. 217)

One piece of evidence is that the Kaige Recension, a Greek copy of Scripture that was produced by the Pharisees in the first century B.C., contains Baruch and the additions of Daniel.

And Luther's Bible also contained (most of) the Deuteros, even if in a separate section, as did (for the record) the Polyglot Bible (1514) of Cardinal Ximenes just prior to Trent, which soon received papal sanction.

Additionally evidence is the fact that Rabbi Akiba de Joseph, the head of the rabbinical school in Jamnia in the 2nd century, did not just list what was in the canon, but felt that it was necessary to explicitly exclude the Deuterocanonical books.

This claim does not help your cause, since modern research research considers the so-called The Council of Jamnia to be hypothetical at best, and or rejects that it excluded the Deuterocanonical books. Read: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Council_of_Jamnia

Evidence to support the idea of an established Alexandrian canon which contains the Deuterocanonical books comes from the fact that the biblical canon of the Ethiopian Jews contains the Deuterocanonical books to this day.

And more, but which is not argued against, as the issue is what "Scripture" "It is written," The Word of God/the Lord" meant in regards the most authoritative 1st. c. canon, and properly referred Christ, who never quoted any Divine text from outside the smaller canon.

Even if we were to agree that there was a single canon among the Jews that excluded the Deuterocanonical books,

Still arguing a strawman from start to finish.

you yourself admit that they were added by the early Christians. The acceptance of these books was already well enough established by the 4th century that the manuscript history shows their inclusion.

Which is not in contention, except that this was not a single universally held canon either. Now as for what your argument really is:

Guided by the Holy Spirit,

Presuably you mean essentially only those who followed Augustine were...

this they would be free to do just as much as accept the books of the New Testament as Scripture.

As can a government do freely today.

As for the oft made claim that there are no references to the Deuterocanonical books in the New Testament, I would suggest that you take a look at this.

So this is your argument? Another strawman, for I did not say there are no references to the Deuterocanonical books in the New Testament, for the term is broadly used, and as Jimmky Akin says who also provides a page of "references," "it is not always obvious whether something is a genuine reference...many are not so clear as there may be only a single phrase that echoes one in a deuterocanonical book..As a result, many scholarly works simply give an enormous catalogue of all proposed references and leave it to the individual interpreter to decide whether a given reference is actual or not.I will follow the same procedure until I have time to sit down with the following references, sort through them, and decide which I can prove to be references are to deutercanonical books... (http://jimmyakin.com/deuterocanonical-references-in-the-new-testament)

At least he is trying to be honest, while your (actual) reference is from the notorious so-called "scripturecatholic" who seems to see references to deutercanonical books in every closet, so to speak. From what I see he loos at part of a sentence, and or a allusion or similar thought, "like sheep without a shepherd," and somehow this means that the NT is referencing that Judith 11:19. But he never provides the texts side by side, or even hypertexts the verses, and instead he provides his description of what he sees as a reference. Thus (of course) "John 6:35-59 – Jesus’ Eucharistic discourse is foreshadowed in Sirach 24:21. But which states, "They that eat me shall yet be hungry, and they that drink me shall yet be thirsty." (Sir 24:21) which actually contradicts John 6:35 - 59, which teaches, "And Jesus said unto them, I am the bread of life: he that cometh to me shall never hunger; and he that believeth on me shall never thirst." (John 6:35)

Akin has not had to time to sort thru his, nor am I am going to look thru all of this hungry RC, while these kind of "references," or even describing something found in a books of the Deuteros, like `Hebrews 11:35 and 2 Maccabees 7, is simply not the same as quoting or referring to something as Scripture, it is written, the Word of God/the Lord, " as denote authority. Yet as even Divine truths spoken by pagans can be quoted, then such intro is the strongest testimony to authority, such as,

: “as the Scripture hath said” (John 7:38 ); “What saith the Scripture” (Galatians 4:30 ); “it is (stands) written,” emphasizing the permanent validity of the Old Testament revelation (Mark 1:2 ; Romans 1:17 ; Romans 3:10 ); “that it might be fulfilled,” emphasizing the fulfillment of Old Testament prophecies (Matthew 4:14 , Matthew 12:17 , Matthew 21:4 ); “God hath said,” “He saith,” “the Holy Spirit says,” which personify Scripture and reflect its divine dimension (Romans 9:25 ; Romans 10:21 ; 2 Corinthians 6:16 ); “Moses,” “David,” or “Isaiah” says which emphasize the human element in Scripture (Romans 10:16 , Romans 10:19-20 ; Hebrews 4:7 ). - https://www.studylight.org/dictionaries/hbd/o/old-testament-quotations-in-the-new-testament.html

What I did argue was that,

That there was an established authoritative body of writings of God by the time of Christ is manifest by the frequent quotes or references to them as authoratative by the Lord Jesus and the NT writers. Which was never manifest as being an issue with the Scribes and Pharisees whom the Lord affirmed sat in the magisterial seat of Moses, (Mt. 23:2) to whom conditional obedience was enjoined.

Otherwise it seems the argument is that since the Roman church government tended to side with the larger canon, yet leaving freedom for the faithful to disagree until the Reformation made it an issue, then we are supposed to accept it,

And why? Because Rome also says has the marks of the one true apostolic church (OTAC) based upon her own interpretation, the do the EOs who significantly disagree with you all? .

If that is the argument then neither should have allowed us to read the Bible (well, Rome tried to hinder that ). For as said, distinctive Catholic teachings that are not manifest in the only wholly inspired substantive authoritative record of what the NT church believed (including how they understood the OT and gospels), which is Scripture, especially Acts thru Revelation.

Or is the argument that as asked before when your resorted to the authority argument, an assuredly (if conditionally) infallible magisterium is essential for determination and assurance of Truth (including writings and men being of God), etc.

And that being the historical instruments and stewards of Divine revelation (oral and written) means that Rome is that assuredly infallible magisterium.

If that is the case then it settles the case in my favor on that basis alone.

I nowhere argued or claimed a a closed canon universally accepted by all the Jews, so why are you resorting to a strawman? There is not even a universal uniform canon today.

If there was no closed canon, then you cannot hold Christians to the later established Masoretic canon.

The term "apocrypha" refers to those books which are found in the Hellenistic Jewish Bible canon of Alexandria, Egypt, but not in the Palestinian Jewish canon . The Hellenistic canon was preserved by the Christian church in the Septuagint and Vulgate Bibles, and the Palestinian canon was handed down in the form of the traditional Hebrew Bible. ...

But this is exactly the Catholic position; the Church received and follows the Alexandrian canon rather than the Palestinian one. The Christian Church cannot be held bound by the decision of 1st/2nd century Jews to limit themselves to the narrower Palestinian canon. By this time the authority over all of Scripture had been translated from the Jews to the Christian Church.

The existence of a shorter Palestinian canon is irrelevant if the early Christian Church had accepted the longer Alexandrian canon that had exited alongside it.

Since there was no single, and universally accepted, canon among the Jews, it is anachronistic to say that the New Testament Church meant this when they referred to Scripture. This is especially true since they quoted the Old Testament using the Septuagint, a product of Alexandria, rather than the Hebrew Old Testament.

I did not mention the Council of Jamnia. While that council most likely did not exist, there was a rabbinical school there, of which Akiba was a member.

But there was no one authoritative canon, the issue being disputed among the Jews.

Which is not in contention, except that this was not a single universally held canon either.

I never said that there was. No one can deny that the issue of the canon was disputed, that is until the 4th century, when the Church made authoritative ruling, even if it was not, at the time, an infallible one. That the question arose again later does not negate that the issue was considered settled until the late Middle Ages. Even then, the majority of opinion was in favor of retaining the Deuterocanonical books that had been accepted by the Church since the 4th century.

As regards to the reference to the Deuterocanonical books in the New Testament, while individual references can be questioned, the overall conclusion must be that the New Testament was influenced by these books.

But as you have admitted, this authoritative body was not a closed canon. After the establishment of the Church, whatever authority that was possessed by the Seat of Moses was transferred to the Church, which decided in favor of the larger Alexandrian canon.

Exactly, except that I would take issue with your characterization of the "Roman church government," a pejorative term which seeks to limit the Catholic Church to the pope and Rome. It was the universal Church, in union with the pope, which accepted the larger canon. But why should any Christian accept the decision of the Protestant Reformers to reject what the universal Church had accepted for over a thousand years? The best that you could argue for is that the question is still open and in dispute among Christians, with the Protestant position being in the minority.