Posted on 11/05/2018 6:07:05 PM PST by Gamecock
There was a legitimate reason to do so after the destruction of the second temple - in fact two legitimate reasons:
To survive it was necessary to expunge works that would give the heretics (Christians) justification.
“To survive it was necessary to expunge works that would give the heretics (Christians) justification.”
Maccabees and other books are uninspired because they contradict Scripture with false teaching.
As to your claim, which is a separate historical issue that assumes much... why don’t you just cut to the chase, post whatever evidence you believe is valid concerning your claim, and we will evaluate it.
I seriously doubt there was any concern of “surviving”, since God has a covenant with Israel He will keep.
I just asked you a question, Cronos, not "putting words in your mouth". Why do you seem so quick to take offense? God's word convicts and speaks to my heart and its testimony is in word and in power that it IS from God. I've read the Deuts/Apocrypha, they are missing that sense. I don't hear God's voice through them. Once again, what would be the reason for the Jews to reject these extra books? There's nothing "Christian" in them. In fact, why would I or any other Christian reject them if they were truly God-breathed?
Just as Christian canon was closed in the 300s, but the majority of books were known as canon, you had the same with the Jewish canon -- the first five books were canon and so were the historical books, but then from the prophets onwards there was contention.
And just as Christians didn't NEED to establish an official canon before they would accept the Divinely-inspired Scriptures, neither did the Jews. I'm sure you understand that when the early Christians received the epistles from the Apostles they recognized their authority, knew to obey them, hold to them, teach, copy and disperse them and preserve them as their rule of faith just as they already did with the Old Testament. These writings were imbued (and still are) with power just as the Pentateuch, the Prophets and the Psalms were to the Jewish people. They heard the voice of God through them. It was why Jesus could use them as authoritative BEFORE there was an official canon. What you ought to question is why the inspiration of the Holy Spirit needs the approval or okay of men before it can be an authority? God commanded severe penalties for those who disobeyed His words - whether they received the writings as from God or not.
Why do you think that the Samaritans have a different canon?
Why stop with them? Why did the Essenes? Why did Marcion of Sinope, etc. God's inspired written word doesn't depend upon whether men receive it that way or not. It has intrinsic authority because of its author. By the end of the first century, all the writings we now know as the New Testament were collected, copied and distributed.
I've seen some Roman Catholics here assert that it was the Catholic church that determined what writings were to be regarded as Scripture and belong in a canon. I get a picture of men toiling their way through a pile of books and picking out which ones are from God and which ones were not. It didn't work that way. Peter called Paul's writings "Scripture" and that was within a few decades of Christianity's start. The church was to be in submission to the word, the word was not in submission to the church.
Those "specific" books were known to historically be the accepted tripartite canon. Whenever Jesus did quote from the OT he prefaced it with words like "it is written", "thus sayeth the Lord", "as the Scriptures sayeth" and such to assert its authority. Jesus, BTW, did not quote from Sirach nor any of the Apocryphal books. But even if Jesus had quoted from the Apocrypha, simply quoting from something doesn’t mean that one is placing the writing within the canon. Paul quoted a pagan philosopher. That certainly doesn't make it Scripture.
In other words, did the Jews of the first century A.D. who had rejected Jesus Christ and the entire New Testament no long have the same authority as the Jews of the second century B.C. who used the Septuagint? Yes, I think that would be an accurate statement. I would also remind you that the present Masoretic text used by the Jews today only goes back to the 7th - 10th centuries. Among the Dead Sea Scrolls are Hebrew texts of the Old Testament that differ from this and match the reading of the Septuagint.
Circular reasoning. Your statement should more accurately is: Maccabees and other books are uninspired because they contradict 16th century Protestant theology about the the Scriptures. The early Christians who accepted the entire Septuagint would disagree.
Do you claim to have an infallible authority that the early Christians who accepted the Septuagint did not?
In fact, why would I or any other Christian reject them if they were truly God-breathed?
In fact, the majority of Christians do accept them, as they have since the earliest years of the Church. What authority did Martin Luther and the other 16th century reformers have to reject Christian consensus to accept these books?
No, I stated the truth.
Maccabees and other books contradict inspired scripture.
They were weighed and found wanting. The
There was no accepted canon before that. Remember that different Jewish groups - whether in Israel or in Ctesiphon or in Egypt had different accepted prophet compilations.
He referenced Ecclesiasticus (Sirach)2:15-16, (Septuagint) or Sirach 2:18 (Confraternity).
In what way does one find Sirach differing from Malachi - is it just feeling like John Smith?
Like I already said, the authority resides with the Divinely-inspired Scriptures and NOT with those who do or don't recognize them.
The differences are minor and due to hand copying and translations. Additionally, the Septuagint has a murky provenance and is a GREEK translation of the books we know today as the Old Testament as well as some additional ones that were added later. An appearance in the Septuagint isn't what gives a writing its authority as evidenced by the missing books that were included in the LXX but NOT part of the Catholic canon.
But how are we to know what are the Divinely-inspired Scriptures? Are we to rely on the authority of those Jews who rejected Jesus Christ or of the Church established and given authority by our Lord himself? I will go with the latter.
I disagree. It sure looked like they knew what was or what wasn't God's word. Why else would Jesus preface his teachings with "it is written" if that held no recognition of Divine authority? When Jesus read from the scroll in the temple, did the religious leaders respect that He was reading from God's word? Leave aside the whole idea of a formally announced canon for a minute and think about what was already believed about the Law, the Prophets and the Psalms.
He referenced Ecclesiasticus (Sirach)2:15-16, (Septuagint) or Sirach 2:18 (Confraternity).
I don't see it.
Sirach 2:15-16
Those who fear the Lord disobey not his words; those who love him keep his ways. Those who fear the Lord seek to please him, those who love him are filled with his law.
This site https://turretinfan.wordpress.com/2011/03/17/did-jesus-quote-from-the-apocrypha/ shows some more presumed quotes from Jesus. But even if He did, can you demonstrate that Jesus meant it was Inspired writing?
There is a self-authentication or a self-attested authority to the Divinely inspired word of God. We read from Baptista Mantuanus on Scripture’s Self-Attesting Authority:
‘Saepenumero,’ saith he, ‘mecum cogitavi, unde tam suadibilis esset ista Scriptura, ut tam potenter influat in animos auditorum; unde tantum habeat energiae, ut non ad opinandum sed ad solide credendum omnes inflectat.’
‘I have often thought with myself whence the Scripture is so persuasive, whence it doth so powerfully influence the minds of the hearers; whence it hath so much efficacy, that it should incline and bow all men, not to think as probable, but solidly to believe, the things it proposeth.’
‘Non,’ saith he, ‘est hoc imputandum rationum evidentiae quas non adducit, non artis industriae et verbis suavibus et ad persuadendum accommodatis quibus non utitur.’ ‘It is not to be ascribed unto the evidence of reasons, which it bringeth not, neither to the excellency of art, sweet words, and accommodated unto persuasion, which it makes no use of.’
‘Sed vide an id in causa sit quod persuasi sumus earn a prima veritate fluxisse.’
‘But see if this be not the cause of it, that we are persuaded that it proceeds from the prime verity.’
He proceeds, ‘Sed unde sumus ita persuasi nisi ab ipsa, quasi ad ei credendum non sua ipsim trahat authoritas. Sed unde quaeso hanc sibi authoritatem, vindicavit? Neque enim vidimus nos Deum conscionantem, scribentem, docentem; tamen ac si vidissemus, credimus et tenemus a Spiritu Sancto fluxisse quod legimus: Forsitan fuerit haec ratio firmiter adhaerendi, quod in ea veritas sit solidior quamvis non clarior. Habet enim omnis veritas vim inclinativam, et major majorem, maxima maximam. Sed cur ergo omnes non credunt Evangelio? Respondeo quod non omnes trahuutur a Deo.’ And again, ‘Inest ergo Scripturis sacris nescio quid natura sublimius, ‘id est inspiratio facta divinitus et divinae irradiationis influxus certus.’
‘But whence are we persuaded, that it is from the first verity, but from itself? its own authority draws us to believe it. But whence obtains it this authority? we see not God preaching, writing, teaching; but yet, as if we had seen him, we believe and firmly hold that which we read to have come from the Holy Ghost. It may be that this is a reason of our firm adhering unto it, that the truth in it is more solid, though not more clear’ (than in any other way of proposal),’ and all truth hath a power to incline unto belief; the greater the truth the greater its power, and the greatest truth must have the greatest power so to incline us. But, why then do not all believe the gospel? I answer, Because all are not drawn of God. There is then in the holy Scripture somewhat more sublime than nature, that is, the divine inspiration from whence it is, and the divine irradiation wherewith it is accompanied.’ To God be the Glory! https://turretinfan.wordpress.com/category/self-authentication/
What Does the Self-Authentication of Scripture Mean?
Roman Catholic blogger at Catholic Champion, Matthew Bellisario, has responded to a post from Jeff Downs (link to Jeff’s post) which featured a video from Dr. Tony Curto (video below this introductory paragraph) introducing the topic of the self-authenticating nature of the Bible (link to Bellisario’s post).
Mr. Bellisario doesn’t interact directly with any Reformed arguments on the subject, but he does pose what he seems to view as a challenge for the position:
One wonders if Bellisario really thinks it works that way – as though self-authentication were a sort of glow that the documents give off under an ultraviolet (UV) light or something like that.
Bellisario should read up on the doctrine of the self-authentication (also called the self-attestation) of Scripture. Greg Bahnsen has written an article worth reading on the subject (link to article). Some of Dr. Bahsen’s explanation is as follows:
Moreover, their messages were of necessity coherent with each other. A genuine claim to inspiration by a literary work minimally entailed consistency with any other book revealed by God, for God does not lie (“…it is impossible for God to lie,” Heb. 6:18) and does not contradict Himself (“But as God is faithful, our word to you is not yes and no,” II Cor. 1:18). A genuine word from God could always be counted upon, then, to agree with previously given revelation — as required in Deut. 13:1-5, “If there arises among you a prophet…, saying `Let us go after other gods…,’ you shall not hearken unto that prophet….You shall walk after Jehovah your God, and fear Him, and keep His commandments, and obey His voice….”
Hopefully the reader can see that this kind of self-authentication or self-attestation isn’t a matter of simply sorting through a bunch of manuscripts. That kind of picture would be a caricature of the doctrine, not an accurate representation of the doctrine.
– TurretinFan
To God be the Glory!
It is one of the means used to determine what was in canon or not. On what basis do you accept say Micah and not Sirach?
You are looking at modern day Judaism which is derived from Pharasism -- it is a sister religion to Christianity, both of which are derived from 2nd Temple Judaism. Modern day Judaism is not exactly the same as Judaism during the time of Christ.
judaism at that time had multiple sects - we know of the Pharisees (ancestors of the modern day Judaism), Zealots, Sadduccees, Essenes and also the Samaritans (who exist today).
Why else would Jesus preface his teachings with "it is written" if that held no recognition of Divine authority? - because Jesus knew which would be referred to, and that's why He includes references to deuterocanonical books.
When Jesus read from the scroll in the temple, did the religious leaders respect that He was reading from God's word? -- He was reading from the Pentateuch, the undisputed books that all Jewish sects hold/held.
Just as the 4 gospels are held by all Christian sects
Matt. 6:19-20 Lay not up to yourselves treasures on earth: where the rust, and moth consume, and where thieves break through and steal. [20] But lay up to yourselves treasures in heaven: where neither the rust nor moth doth consume, and where thieves do not break through, nor steal. Sirach 29:11 Use your wealth as the Most High has commanded; this will do you more good than keeping your money for yourself. 12 Count among your treasures the fact that you give to the poor. It will save you from all kinds of trouble 13 and will be a better defense against your enemies than the strongest shield or stoutest spear.
Matt. 12:42 – Jesus refers to the wisdom of Solomon which was recorded and made part of the deuterocanonical books.
Matt. 16:18 – Jesus’ reference to the “power of death” and “gates of Hades” references Wisdom 16:13.
Matt. 27:43 – if He is God’s Son, let God deliver him from His adversaries follows Wisdom 2:18.
\Luke 13:29 – the Lord’s description of men coming from east and west to rejoice in God follows Baruch 4:37.
Mark 4:5,16-17 - Jesus’ description of seeds falling on rocky ground and having no root follows Sirach 40:15.
Ultimately it comes to the point that Jesus quoted these and they are inspired. On what basis do you, 2000 years later claim any book of the Bible to be inspired or not?
On this basis (among numerous others):
Versus:
From https://www.blueletterbible.org/search/Dictionary/viewTopic.cfm?topic=IT0001836/a>:
The Prologue or Preface to Ecclesiasticus is our next witness to the formation of the canon. It was written by the grandson of Jesus ben Sirach, who bore his grandfather's name (circa 132 BC). Jesus ben Sirach the younger translated in Egypt his grandfather's proverbs into Greek, and in doing so added a Preface or Prologue of his own. In this Prologue, he thrice refers to the tripartite division of the Old Testament. In fact the Prologue to Ecclesiasticus is the oldest witness we have to the threefold division of the Old Testament books. He says: "Whereas many and great things have been delivered unto us by the Law and the Prophets, and by others,.... my grandfather, Jesus, when he had given himself to the reading of the Law, and the Prophets, and other books of our Fathers, and had gotten therein good judgment (the Revised Version (British and American) "having gained great familiarity therein"), was drawn on also himself to write something pertaining to learning and wisdom..... For the same things uttered in Hebrew and translated into another tongue, have not the same force in them; and not only these things, but the Law itself, and the Prophets, and the rest of the books, have no small difference, when they are spoken in their own language." These are explicit and definite allusions to the threefold division of the Old Testament writings, yet only the titles of the first and second divisions are the technical names usually employed; the third is especially vague because of his use of the terms, "the other books of the Fathers," and "the rest of the books." However, he evidently refers to writings with religious contents; and, by "the other books of the Fathers," he can hardly be supposed to have meant an indefinite number, though he has not told us which they were or what was their number. From his further statement that his grandfather, having immersed himself in the Law and the Prophets, and other books of the Fathers, felt drawn on also himself to write something for the profit of others, it may be inferred that in his time there was as yet no definite gulf fixed between canonical writings and those of other men, and that the sifting process was still going on (compare W. R. Smith, OTJC2, 178- 79).
I repeat...I disagree that Jesus quoted them directly. But He NEVER referred to any Apocryphal/Deuterocanonical books as "It is written..", "Thus sayeth the Lord...". In other words, He neither gave, nor alluded to, Divine inspiration for writings other than the books of Moses and the Prophets.
When Jesus read from the scroll in the temple, did the religious leaders respect that He was reading from God's word?
-- He was reading from the Pentateuch, the undisputed books that all Jewish sects hold/held.
The Pentateuch is the first five books of Moses. Jesus read from the Prophet Isaiah in the temple.
As for your supposed evidence of Jesus quoting from the Deut/Apoc, I've already shown that He didn't in a previous link. I'm not interested in continuing this argument with you. You can believe what you want to believe about them. I happen to have a higher view of what constitutes Divinely-inspired Scripture that doctrines of the faith are built upon.
you may disagree with that, but you can then use that same interpretation of yours to disagree with other non-Pentateuch books. you see the slippery slope?
Oneness Pentecostals say they are utterly biblical and the Mormons decide on their own canon. This is just the result of the slippery slope. Surely you see that?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.