Replies

>Please show me where Christ or apostles quote from apocryphal sources. http://scripturecatholic.com/deuterocanon.html http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deuterocanonical_books Deuterocanonical is a term coined in 1566 by the theologian Sixtus of Siena, who had converted to Catholicism from Judaism, to describe scriptural texts of the Old Testament considered canonical by the Catholic Church, but which are not present in the Hebrew Bible, and which had been omitted by some early canon lists, especially in the East.[1][2][3] Their acceptance among early Christians was widespread, though not universal, and the Bible of the early Church always included, with varying degrees of recognition, books now called deuterocanonical.[4] Some say that their canonicity seems not to have been doubted in the Church until it was challenged by Jews after AD 100,[5] sometimes postulating a hypothetical Council of Jamnia. Regional councils in the West published official canons that included these books as early as the 4th and 5th centuries.[2][6] The large majority of Old Testament references in the New Testament are taken from the Greek Septuagint (LXX)—which includes the deuterocanonical books, as well as apocrypha —both of which are called collectively ἀναγιγνωσκόμενα anagignoskomena (things that are read or "profitable reading").[9] Several appear to have been written originally in Hebrew, but the original text has long been lost. Archaeological finds, however, discovered some original texts among the Dead Sea scrolls. The Septuagint was widely accepted and used by Greek-speaking Jews in the 1st century, even in the region of Roman Judea, and therefore naturally became the text most widely used by early Christians, who were predominantly Greek speaking. In the New Testament, Hebrews 11:35 refers to an event that was recorded in one of the deuterocanonical books 2 Maccabees.[10] Other New Testament authors also quote period literature which was familiar to the audience but that was not included in the Old Testament or the deuterocanonical books. For instance, Paul cites Greek writers and philosophers, and the author of Hebrews references oral tradition which spoke of an Old Testament prophet who was sawn in half in Hebrews 11:37, two verses after the 2nd Maccabees reference. The Jewish historian Josephus speaks of there being 22 books in the canon of the Hebrew Bible,[11] a Jewish tradition reported also by the Christian bishop Athanasius. However, included in Athanasius's list of 22 Old Testament books are Baruch and the Letter of Jeremiah. At the same time, he mentioned that certain other books, including five deuterocanonical books but also the Didache and the Shepherd of Hermas, while not being part of the canon, "were appointed by the Fathers to be read". He excluded what he called "apocryphal writings" entirely.[12]

One source you seem to be relying upon "scripture-catholic" is one of the worst around. They don't seem to have read (and understood!) some of that which they include.

Look at how it is a grab-bag of info which relies upon innuendo to make the case. Besides, most any quote they allege is found in deuteroncanon can be found elsewhere in the OT, and if not close enough word-for-word, than widely enough found as to fundamental precept otherwise in the OT.

All that info --- and it still didn't establish your contention

Books of the OT, thrown out by the Jews in 90A.D.

I gave a rough outline of explanation of what occurred. There was no "throwing books out of the OT" done by Jewish religious 'authorities' after the Temple was overthrown.

That's just a myth convenient to some...like the folks at 'scripture-catholic'. (titling themselves as they do, they manage to tar two good names/concepts all at the same time...)

When Jesus was reading from scrolls in the Temple --- do you imagine those scrolls were written in Greek?

Think about it. Then go and try and prove that Greek was the predominant language -- so much so that it would be spoken in the Temple. It's more likely that Hebrew was the official language of the religion -- somewhat as Latin was long the only official language amid Roman Catholicism, particularly when it comes to Scripture itself.

On that last score -- can you show me a single language translation or version other than in Latin which has DIRECT and EXPLICIT approval by the Vatican? I'll answer that for you. The answer is "no".

The original Greek translation of what came to be called Septuagint was only of the books of Moses, otherwise known as the Pentateuch.

The rest was added later - by who knows who. Later additions do not equal them being considered 'canonical' among the Hebrews which Christ showed Himself to, in the flesh.

The oldest extant copies of 'Septuagint' do not agree with one another as to contents (books). Chew on that for a while...

Which one of the oldest extant versions is the right one? Oh -- and neither of them (in their contents) agree with what Council of Trent later deemed OT canonical when they there applied the term deuterocanon (second canon).

That term deuterocanon allowed those who voted against those works being recognized as "fully" canonical to retain their own attitudes towards them, even as those books had long been accessed for verses or passages here and there which could be kosher enough as towards the grander underlying and unifying themes -- culminating in Christ's own bodily sacrifice --- without opening the door wide open to such things as burning the heart of a particular fish to ward off 'evil spirits', etc...

Do I need to provide link to (what can be know of) Josephus for you? How about educated commentary concerning it;

From http://www.ccel.org/ccel/alexander_a/canon.iii.iii.html

The important passage to which we refer is in his first book against Apion. “We have,” says he, “only two-and-twenty books, which are justly believed to be of divine authority—of which five are the books of Moses. From the death of Moses to the reign of Artaxerxes, the son of Xerxes, king of Persia, the Prophets, who were the successors of Moses, have written in thirteen books. The remaining four books contain hymns to God, and precepts for the regulation of human life.” Now, the five books of Moses are universally agreed to be Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy. The thirteen books written by the prophets will include Joshua, Judges, with Ruth, Samuel, Kings, Isaiah, Jeremiah with Lamentations, Ezekiel, Daniel, the twelve minor Prophets, Job, Ezra, Esther, and Chronicles. The four remaining books will be, Psalms, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, and the Song of Solomon, which make the whole number twenty-two. The Canon then existing is proved to be the same as that which we now possess. It would appear, indeed, that these books might more conveniently be reckoned twenty-four; and this is the present method of numbering them by the modern Jews; but formerly the number was regulated by that of the Hebrew alphabet, which consists of twenty-two letters: therefore they annexed the small book of Ruth to Judges; and probably it is a continuation of this book by the same author. They added, also, the Lamentations of Jeremiah to his prophecy, and this was natural enough. As to the minor prophets, which form twelve separate books in our Bibles, they were, anciently, always reckoned one book, so they are considered in every ancient catalogue, and in all quotations from them. Josephus adds, to what is cited above, the following: “But as to the books which have been written since the time of Artaxerxes until our times, they are not considered worthy of the same credit as the former, because they do not contain accurate doctrine sanctioned by the prophets.” [bolding and underlining added]

Continuing on from that same link, now some discussion of Melito whom I mentioned (and whom 'scripture-catholic' includes citation for but seem to not understand in the least.)

It will not be supposed that any change could have occurred in the Canon from the time of our Saviour and his apostles, to that in which Josephus wrote. Indeed, he may be considered the contemporary of the apostles, as he was born about the time of Paul’s conversion to Christianity, and was therefore grown up to man’s age long before the death of this apostle; and the apostle John probably survived him. And it must be remembered that Josephus is here giving his testimony to a public fact: he is declaring what books were received as divine by his nation; and he does it without hesitation or inconsistency. “We have,” says he, “only twenty-two books which are justly believed to be of divine authority.”
We are able also to adduce other testimony to prove the same thing. Some of the early Christian Fathers, who had been brought up in Paganism, when they embraced Christianity, were curious in their inquiries into the Canon of the Old Testament; and the result of the researches of some of them still remains. Melito, bishop of Sardis, travelled into Judea, for the very purpose of satisfying himself, on this point. And although his own writings are lost, Eusebius has preserved his catalogue of the books of the Old Testament; from which it appears, that the very same books were, in his day, received into the Canon, as are now found in our Hebrew Bibles. In the catalogue of Melito, presented by Eusebius, after Proverbs, the word Wisdom occurs, which nearly all commentators have been of opinion is only another name for the same book, and not the name of the book now called “The Wisdom of Solomon.” There is, however, an omission of Esther and Nehemiah. As to the latter, it creates no difficulty, for Ezra and Nehemiah are commonly counted as one book; and some learned men are of opinion that Ezra being the author of Esther, this book also is included under the name Esdras. The interval between Melito and Josephus is not a hundred years, so that no alteration in the Canon can be reasonably supposed to have taken place in this period.
Very soon after Melito, Origen furnishes us with a catalogue of the books of the Old Testament, which perfectly accords with our Canon, except that he omits the Minor Prophets; which omission must have been a mere slip of the pen, in him or his copyist, as it is certain that he received this as a book of Holy Scripture: and the number of the books of the Old Testament, given by him in this very place, cannot be completed without reckoning the twelve Minor Prophets as one.

The writer of the above, when he says "perfectly accords with our Canon" is speaking or OT canon minus the so-called deuterocanonicals. During Melito's time there was already some controversy among Christians as to what the Hebrew canon precisely consisted, which is why he traveled to seek out the answer.

Even if he (Schaff, I think it is) is wrong about the book called "Wisdom" in the above --- where are all the rest? Where are all the rest in Tertullian's list?

These issues (of OT canon) were argued over the course of many centuries, with there being many Councils in the East which took up the issue, some of which the Church of Rome was not partaker of-- and in one instance (if memory serves) though there be a couple of representatives from Rome present, since they were so outnumbered by all the others, then later Rome whined 'no fair' since they didn't entirely agree with the results.

What matters here is just what the Son of God Himself would have recognized as what He came to fulfill -- or else that fulfillment becomes either adulterated or incrementally fades into meaningless...

Not aiming this personally towards yourself, like in accusation that you are one of the murderers Christ spoke of, but in Matthew 23:29- there is;

29 “Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! Because you build the tombs of the prophets and adorn the monuments of the righteous, 30 and say, ‘If we had lived in the days of our fathers, we would not have been partakers with them in the blood of the prophets.’
31 “Therefore you are witnesses against yourselves that you are sons of those who murdered the prophets.
32 Fill up, then, the measure of your fathers’ guilt. 33 Serpents,
brood of vipers! How can you escape the condemnation of hell? 34 Therefore, indeed, I
send you prophets, wise men, and scribes: some of them you will kill and crucify, and
some of them you will scourge in your synagogues and persecute from city to city,
35 that on you may come all the righteous blood shed on the earth, from the blood of righteous Abel to the blood of Zechariah, son of Berechiah, whom you murdered between the temple and the altar.

with the portion I have bolded indicating the order the order of the scrolls as where used by the Hebrews of that day. Notice too the context -- Him speaking to the scribes and the Pharisees whom knew what was written upon the scrolls arguably better than anyone, all THAT blood-guilt coming down upon them --- even if the spirit of the Law and the underlying thrust of the messages given unto them by prophets down through the centuries (thus the heart of the Father shown, albeit somewhat veiled) very much escaped them, and would continue to be beyond them when they would in the near future --scourge, persecute, kill & crucify "prophets, wise men, and scribes".

That would be Christians (of course?), and those of their own number who would attempt to caution the murderers from their continued lawlessness even if they didn't necessarily openly profess the name of Jesus Christ Himself, perhaps...

But between Adam and Zechariah there is no room for Maccabees, and the like, or what someone may attempt to 'teach' or propound from there ---which is the point. Besides -- the Maccabees tried to take it into their own hands to 'do God's will' for Israel, there showing themselves the sort of prophets who run before receiving the entire message -- who run without having been appointed & sent BY THE KING. The punishment for that --according to OT texts -- is death.

Josephus -- A.D. 70 witness against the deterocanonicals having been ever accepted by the Jews as Holy Writ.

Melito -- soon on his heels, saying much the same with one possible difference (which may be no real difference at all.)

Origen -- more or less an echo of Melito, and Origen in spite of his eccentricities was a prodigious analyst and compiler of that which had come before him. His geographic location at the time was prime. Eusebius bears witness of these two.

Tertullian -- bore witness of canon which does not agree with later acceptance of what Jerome termed Apocrypha other than one book which Jerome himself wrote was not of equal consideration of the rest of the Hebrew 'canon' as it were...

As for Qumran texts -- there were writings among those found which evidently were in no sense considered holy writ by anyone -- then or now.

Presence of a few of the Apocrypha means little to nothing -- unless one wishes to add yet more apocryphal written works found there ALSO. I mean...why pick and choose? How can one do THAT merely for some of those being present there, if other works besides the so-called deuteroncanonicals are found there also? If there is to be some standard of judgement applied -- then apply it across the board. Or else it is illogical.