Do you find it just a little bit odd that those who would have you reject the Canon of Scripture direct you to Protestant apologetic websites for "proof" of their reasoning? That is hardly an inerrant source on which to base a decision to reject the affirmed Word of God.
Continue to stick to the facts:
- The Deuterocanonicals were THE Scriptural source for the Greek speaking Jews of world in the first century, of which there were many more than there were Hebrew speaking Jews living in Palestine.
- There was NO single Jewish canon until sometime around the beginning of the 2nd century AD when the Council of Jamnia (if it ever really was held) met to address the growing Christian presence.
In addition to the Septuigent, there were also the Pharisee, Saddusee, and Essene canon, the later of which has been found to contain Hebrew versions of several of the Deuterocanonical books.
- Lastly, the "7" books were universally accepted as Canon until they were found to be in conflict with Luther's and "reformed" theology. Luther also tried to remove the Epistles of James (which he called an Epistle of straw) and Jude, but ran in to too much opposition.
Peace be with you.
Yes, let's:
- The Deuterocanonicals were THE Scriptural source for the Greek speaking Jews of world in the first century, of which there were many more than there were Hebrew speaking Jews living in Palestine.
The Jewish "magesterium" NEVER considered these extra-scriptural books as divinely-inspired. As the ones to whom were given the "oracles of God" (Romans 3:2), it is only reasonable that what they consider the Old Testament canon, IS the OT canon. These disputed books were written AFTER the last book was accepted as the word of God. From the link http://carm.org/why-apocrypha-not-in-bible, we learn:
Abel was the first martyr in the Old Testament from the book of Genesis, while Zechariah was the last martyr in the book of Chronicles. In the Hebrew Canon, the first book was Genesis and the last book was Chronicles. They contained all of the same books as the standard 39 books accepted by Protestants today, but they were just arranged differently. For example, all of the 12 minor prophets (Hosea through Malachi) were contained in one book. This is why there are only 24 books in the Hebrew Bible today. By Jesus referring to Abel and Zachariah, He was canvassing the entire Canon of the Hebrew Scriptures which included the same 39 books as Protestants accept today. Therefore, Jesus implicitly rejected the Apocrypha as Scripture.
- There was NO single Jewish canon until sometime around the beginning of the 2nd century AD when the Council of Jamnia (if it ever really was held) met to address the growing Christian presence.
False. From the same link:
The Dead Sea scrolls provide no commentary on the Apocrypha, but do provide commentary on some of the Jewish Old Testament books. This probably indicates that the Jewish Essene community did not regard them as highly as the Jewish Old Testament books.
Many ancient Jews rejected the Apocrypha as Scripture. Philo never quoted the Apocrypha as Scripture. Josephus explicitly rejected the Apocrypha and listed the Hebrew Canon to be 22 books. 3 In fact, the Jewish Community acknowledged that the prophetic gifts had ceased in Israel before the Apocrypha was written.
In addition to the Septuigent, there were also the Pharisee, Saddusee, and Essene canon, the later of which has been found to contain Hebrew versions of several of the Deuterocanonical books.
Also false. See above.
- Lastly, the "7" books were universally accepted as Canon until they were found to be in conflict with Luther's and "reformed" theology. Luther also tried to remove the Epistles of James (which he called an Epistle of straw) and Jude, but ran in to too much opposition.
Blatantly false. Even many of the church "fathers" rejected the Apocryphal books as inspired Scripture. Again, from the link:
Many church Fathers rejected the Apocrypha as Scripture, and many just used them for devotional purposes. For example, Jerome, the great Biblical scholar and translator of the Latin Vulgate, rejected the Apocrypha as Scripture though, supposedly under pressure, he did make a hurried translation of it. In fact, most of the church fathers in the first four centuries of the Church rejected the Apocrypha as Scripture. Along with Jerome, names include Origen, Cyril of Jerusalem, and Athanasius.
The Apocryphal books were placed in Bibles before the Council of Trent and after, but were placed in a separate section because they were not of equal authority. The Apocrypha rightfully has some devotional purposes, but it is not inspired.
You'll have to do better than fussing about my choice of sources if what they say is uncontested. It should be obvious that some things CAN be unbiased.