What is the “Apocrypha”?

Fr. John Whiteford's Commentary and Reflections ^ | 07-19-2019 | Fr. John Whiteford

[NRx]

Question: "What do the terms "apocrypha" and "deuterocanonical" mean, and how does the Orthodox Church view them?"

The question of the Biblical canon is a somewhat complicated one, because it developed over a very long period of time, and there certainly have been some historical disagreements on the matter. The word "canon" comes the Greek word κανών, which means a measuring rod, or a rule. And so when we speak of the canon of Scripture, we are speaking of the lists of books that affirmed to be Scripture.

Christians have a precisely defined New Testament Canon, about which there is no dispute... at least not since the 4th century, and this is due in part because of a heretic by the name of Marcion who produced a very truncated New Testament canon, which included only the Gospel of Luke and some of the Epistles of St. Paul, which he edited to fit his heretical views. And then there were also heretical books that claimed to be written by Apostles, but which were not which the Church wanted to clearly reject. There was never any dispute about most of the books of the New Testament, but there were a few books that were not immediately accepted throughout the Church, but were eventually.

When it comes to the Old Testament canon, there is a precisely defined core canon, and fairly well defined next layer, and then less clearly defined edges. So why the precision in the case of the new, but not the Old? This is partly because there was not nearly as much controversy on the question, which is not to say that there were no disagreements, but the level of concern over these disagreements did not rise to nearly the same level. It was not until the time of the Protestant Reformation that this question did become a bigger issue, because for Protestants who generally took a low view of Tradition, whether or not a book was really part of Scripture became almost an all or nothing question. Either the book was Scripture, in which case it had all authority; or it was not scripture, in which case it had essentially no authority, though it might be a matter of some historical interest.

When we speak of the Canonical books of the Old Testament, or the "Protocanonical" books as Roman Catholics put it, we have general agreement. These books are the same as the books recognized by the Jews as Scripture. The only difference you find is that in some canonical lists the books of Baruch is sometimes listed as part of these books, and Esther is not.

But what are the names used for the "extra" books that are not part of the undisputed Old Testament Canon? Many early Fathers simply made no distinction, and referred to them as Scripture. Then you have some sources that refer to these books as "non-canonical"... but we will need to consider further what they really mean by that. St. Athanasius the Great referred to these books as "readable" books -- books not included in the Jewish canon, but which could be read in Church in the services. Then you have the term "Deuterocanonical," which is, I think, a useful term, but it is a Roman Catholic term that came into use to counter the Protestant rejection of these books. The implication of this name is that these books comprise a second Old Testament Canon, or you could say a list of canonical books which were known not to have been accepted by the Jews, but which were accepted by Christians. Then you have Protestants who labeled these books as "Apocrypha." To these terms we could add the term "Pseudepigrapha", which is a label applied to many texts that are almost universally rejected, but which claim the names of Old Testament saints as their authors.

There is a very interesting comment by Origen in his letter to Africanus (ANF v. IV, pp 386ff.), in which he responds to Africanus, who had asked him why he quoted from the portion of the book of Daniel which contains the story of Susanna, which is not found in the Hebrew text. Origen responds that he was not unaware of this fact (after all, he produced a six column text of the Old Testament,  the Hexapla, which was the first critical edition of the Old Testament, and which compared the Hebrew text with various Greek editions). Origen defended the authenticity of this portion of Daniel. His response is detailed, but let me highlight a few points:

"And, forsooth, when we notice such things, we are forthwith to reject as spurious the copies in use in our Churches, and enjoin the brotherhood to put away the sacred books current among them, and to coax the Jews, and persuade them to give us copies which shall be untampered with, and free from forgery!  Are we to suppose that that Providence which in the sacred Scriptures has ministered to the edification of all the Churches of Christ, had no thought for those bought with a price, for whom Christ died; whom, although His Son, God who is love spared not, but gave Him up for us all, that with Him He might freely give us all things?

In all these cases consider whether it would not be well to remember the words, “Thou shalt not remove the ancient landmarks which thy fathers have set.” Nor do I say this because I shun the labour of investigating the Jewish Scriptures, and comparing them with ours, and noticing their various readings.  This, if it be not arrogant to say it, I have already to a great extent done to the best of my ability, labouring hard to get at the meaning in all the editions and various readings; while I paid particular attention to the interpretation of the Seventy, lest I might to be found to accredit any forgery to the Churches which are under heaven, and give an occasion to those who seek such a starting-point for gratifying their desire to slander the common brethren, and to bring some accusation against those who shine forth in our community. And I make it my endeavour not to be ignorant of their various readings, lest in my controversies with the Jews I should quote to them what is not found in their copies, and that I may make some use of what is found there, even although it should not be in our Scriptures. For if we are so prepared for them in our discussions, they will not, as is their manner, scornfully laugh at Gentile believers for their ignorance of the true reading as they have them.  So far as to the History of Susanna not being found in the Hebrew."

Two important points are made here: Christians should use the texts preserved by the Church, and not feel like we have to go cap in hand to the Jews to find out what the Bible is. However, it is important for us to know what texts they accept and do not, so that when speaking to them, we not appear to be ignorant, and thus harm our witness to them.

Skipping further on in the text we find Origen saying that the reason for many of the omissions in the Hebrew texts are because the Scribes and Pharisees omitted things that made them look bad:

"But probably to this you will say, Why then is the “History” not in their Daniel, if, as you say, their wise men hand down by tradition such stories?  The answer is, that they hid from the knowledge of the people as many of the passages which contained any scandal against the elders, rulers, and judges, as they could, some of which have been preserved in uncanonical writings (Apocrypha).  As an example, take the story told about Isaiah; and guaranteed by the Epistle to the Hebrews, which is found in none of their public books."

Here Origen gives an interesting meaning to the term "Apocrypha" (hidden books). His argument is that the story of Susanna was omitted in the Hebrew text because it made the Jewish elders look bad. If you look at the Wisdom of Solomon, you could see how they might also have had incentive to have hidden this book too.

"Therefore let us lie in wait for the righteous; because he is not for our turn, and he is clean contrary to our doings: he upbraideth us with our offending the law, and objecteth to our infamy the transgressings of our education. He professeth to have the knowledge of God: and he calleth himself the child of the Lord. He was made to reprove our thoughts. He is grievous unto us even to behold: for his life is not like other men's, his ways are of another fashion. We are esteemed of him as counterfeits: he abstaineth from our ways as from filthiness: he pronounceth the end of the just to be blessed, and maketh his boast that God is his father. Let us see if his words be true: and let us prove what shall happen in the end of him. For if the just man be the son of God, he will help him, and deliver him from the hand of his enemies. Let us examine him with despitefulness and torture, that we may know his meekness, and prove his patience. Let us condemn him with a shameful death: for by his own saying he shall be respected" (Wisdom 2:12-20).

This is a very clear prophecy of the attitude which the Jewish leaders would take toward Christ. This text was used very effectively by Christians in the Early Church, and the Jews had good reason to want to dismiss it.

I think Origen puts his finger on the reason why many Fathers made a distinction between the "canonical" books of the Old Testament which the Jews accepted, and the books which they did not accept. Even to this day, you still find these books referred to as "non-canonical" by contemporary Orthodox writers, who mean by that only that they are not in the Jewish canon.

For example, Fr. Seraphim Slobodskoy, in The Law of God, wrote:

"Besides the canonical books, a part of the Old Testament is composed of non-canonical books, sometimes called Apocrypha among non-Orthodox. These are books which the Jews lost and which are not in the contemporary Hebrew text of the Old Testament.  They are found in the Greek translations of the Old Testament, made by the 70 translators of the Septuagint three centuries before the birth of Christ (271 B.C.). These book have been included in the Bible from ancient times and are considered by the Church to be sacred Scripture. The translation of the Septuagint is accorded special respect in the Orthodox Church. The Slavonic translation of the Bible was made from it. 

To the non-canonical books of the Old Testament belong:

1. Tobit
2. Judith
3. The Wisdom of Solomon
4. Ecclesiasticus,  or the Wisdom of Sirach
5. Baruch
6. Three books of Maccabees
7. The Second and Third book of Esdras
8. The additions to the (Book of Esther,) II Chronicles (The Prayer of Manasseh) and Daniel (The Song of the Youths, Susanna and Bel and the Dragon)” (Archpriest Seraphim Slobodskoy, The Law Of God: For Study at Home and School (Jordanville, NY: Holy Trinity Monastery, 1996), p. 423).      

While generally, not much is made of a distinction between the "canonical" and "deuterocanonical" books in the Orthodox, some writers continue to argue that there is a distinction, such as Fr. Michael Pomazansky:

"The Church recognizes 38 books of the Old Testament. After the example of the Old Testament Church, several of these books are joined to form a single book, bringing the number to twenty-two books, according to the number of letters in the Hebrew alphabet. These books, which were entered at some time into the Hebrew canon, are called "canonical." To them are joined a group of "non-canonical" books-that is, those which were not included in the Hebrew canon because they were written after the closing of the canon of the sacred Old Testament books. The Church accepts these latter books also as useful and instructive and in antiquity assigned them for instructive reading not only in homes but also in churches, which is why they have been called "ecclesiastical." The Church includes these books in a single volume of the Bible together with the canonical books. As a source of the teaching of the faith, the Church puts them in a secondary place and looks on them as an appendix to the canonical books. Certain of them are so close in merit to the Divinely-inspired books that, for example, in the 85th Apostolic Canon the three books of Maccabees and the book of Joshua the son of Sirach are numbered together with the canonical books, and, concerning all of them together it is said that they are "venerable and holy." However, this means only that they were respected in the ancient Church; but a distinction between the canonical and non-canonical books of the Old Testament has always been maintained in the Church (Orthodox Dogmatic Theology, trans. Fr. Serpahim (Rose), (Platina, CA: St. Herman Press, 1984), p. 26f).

Metropolitan Hilarion (Alfeyev), on the other hand, says:

     "In contemporary editions of the Bible the books of the Old Testament are subdivided into those books that are canonical and those not canonical. Those books that fall under the canonical category are understood to be those of the Hebrew canon. This canon (i.e. the list of books recognized as holy in the Jewish tradition) was formed over centuries and was finally solidified in the year 90 CE by the Sanhedrin in the Galilean city of Jamnia. The canonical texts differ from the non-canonical in their antiquity; the former were written in the period between the fifteenth and fifth centuries BCE, while the latter were written between the fourth and first centuries BCE. As for the number of non-canonical books concerned there are the books of Tobit, Judith, the Wisdom of Solomon, Sirach, 2 and 3 Esdras, the letter of Jeremiah, Baruch and 3 Maccabees, and also the Prayer of Manasseh at the end of 2 Chronicles, as well as various parts of the book of Esther, Psalm 151, and three fragments from the book of the Prophet Daniel (3.24-90, 13, 14).
     The Protestant Bible does not include the non-canonical books of the Old Testament, and in this way it differs from the Orthodox just as from the Catholic Bible. The Catholic Bible includes the non-canonical books under the category of "deuterocanonical" (this term was coined by the Council of Trent in 1546). For the Orthodox Christian, the difference between the canonical and non-canonical books of the Old Testament is of a conventional character inasmuch as the question is not about an Orthodox or Christian canon, but is about the Jewish canon, completed independently from Christianity. In the Orthodox Church, the basic criterion for the specific canonicity of this or that book in the Old Testament is its use in the divine services. In this regard one cannot consider the Wisdom of Solomon and those fragments of the book of Daniel which are absent from the Hebrew canon, but which hold an important place in Orthodox services, to be non-canonical. Sometimes the non-canonical books, from the viewpoint of the Hebrew canon and the "deutercanonical" Catholic canon, in Orthodox usage are called by the Greek term anaginoskomena, αναγινώσκωμένα (i.e. acknowledged, recommended reading).
     While all of the canonical books of the Old Testament are written in Hebrew, the basis of the Old Testament text in the Orthodox tradition is the Septuagint, a Greek translation by the "seventy interpreters" made in the third to second centuries BCE for the Alexandrian Hebrews and the Jewish diaspora. The authority of the Septuagint is based on three factors. First of all, though the Greek text is not the original language of the Old Testament books, the Septuagint does reflect the state of the original text as it would have been found in the third to second centuries BCE, while the current Hebrew text of the Bible, which is called the "Masoretic," was edited up until the eighth century CE. Second, some of the citations taken from the Old Testament and found in the New mainly use the Septuagint text. Third, the Septuagint was used by both the Greek Fathers of the Church, and Orthodox liturgical services (in other words, this text became part of the Orthodox church Tradition). Taking into account the three factors enumerated above, St. Philaret of Moscow considers it possible to maintain that "in the Orthodox teaching of Holy Scripture it is necessary to attribute a dogmatic merit to the Translation of the Seventy, in some cases placing it on equal level with the original and even elevating it above the Hebrew text, as is generally accepted in the most recent editions" (Orthodox Christianity, Volume II: Doctrine and Teaching of the Orthodox Church, (New York: St. Vladimir Seminary Press, 2012) p. 33f).

To complicate matters further, if you look at the Russian Synodal Bible and compare with the standard Orthodox edition of the Bible in Greek, there are some books that included in one that are not in the other (the Greek Bible included 4th Maccabees, and the Russian Bible includes 2nd Esdras (also called 4th Esdras in some editions), and so what should we make of all of this?

If you think of the Tradition as a target, with concentric circles, you could put the Gospels in the middle, the writings of the apostles in the in the next ring, maybe the Law of Moses, in the next, the prophets in the next, the writings in the next, the deutrocanonical books in the next, the wrings of those who knew the Apostle in the next, the Ecumenical Canons in the next, etc. The only debate would be which ring to put them on... and ultimately, is that the most important question? For a Protestant, this is a huge question. For the Orthodox, it is not so much.

For most of the books in the Orthodox Bible, there is no question that they are Scripture in the full sense. The Deuterocanonical books are certainly Scripture as well, though some Fathers and some writers would argue that they have secondary authority. Then there are some books that are included more along the lines of being appendices to the Scriptures (4th Maccabees and 2nd Esdras). They all are part of the larger Tradition, and they all have to be understood within the context of that larger Tradition -- and that is the key thing to keep in mind.

For more information, see:

Stump the Priest: The Septuagint vs. the Masoretic Text

This discussion with Gary Michuta (a Roman Catholic apologists) is of interest:

He has also written a book entitled "The Case for the Deuterocanon: Evidence and Arguments," which has a lot of useful information on this subject.

[Luircin]

PS: You continue to give assertions without evidence.

[Petrosius]

"Even if we were to accept your premise, all you could show is that there was no consensus on the status the the Deuterocanonical books. So while you might object to the charge that Luther removed these books from the Bible, you would also have to admit that Trent did not add them."

Rather, as argued, there was no settled, indisputable canon until after the death of Luther, who had substantial and even current scholarly and historical support for his own opinion in that regard, contrary to the standard Cath. propaganda, as seen earlier here.

How does your statement radically differ from mine? So there is no settled canon until Luther and Trent. Thus while Luther could not be charged with removing books, Catholics could likewise not be charged with adding them; the question would be unsettled until then.

This indeed is the real argument, yet one that was tried upstream already, but the fact remains that since distinctive Catholic teachings are not manifest in the only wholly inspired substantive authoritative record of what the NT church believed which is Scripture, especially Acts thru Revelation (which shows how they understood the OT and gospels), then she has no infallible authority (though as said, even secular powers can make rules for those under it).

Since Catholics do not accept the premise of sola scriptura this argument does not hold. But it can also be shown the Protestants reject what is actually in the Bible in favor or their own non-Biblical sola fide: e.g. the Real Presence, apostolic succession, the forgiveness of sins, the exclusion from the Kingdom because of sin, and a Church which speaks with the authority of the Holy Spirit.

And of course, the very premise of ensured perpetual magisterial infallibility as per Rome is itself novel and unScriptural, nowhere seen or promised or essential for authority and preserving faith.

The Council of Jerusalem in Acts shows the Church settling a dispute among the faithful through the decision of its pastors speaking with the authority of the Holy Spirit. When did this authority cease?

That is a contradiction in terms, re. "Christian faithful," and the numbers are claim, and since the only wholly inspired-of-God and substantive definitive source and description of what constitutes a christian is the New Testament, which excludes most Catholics as well as liberals Prots.

And who is to judge who is in conformity with the New Testament?

But if you want to invoke consensus of the faithful …

I suggested this as the only appeal that Protestants could make, but one that would also fail. Regarding the question of the canon of the Bible, Protestants can in truth only say that it is still in dispute among Christians. They have no basis on which to dogmatically declare that the Deuterocanonical books are not part of the Bible.

[P.O.E.]

Interesting info. Thanks!

[Petrosius]

Would these be the same Church Fathers who debated whether apostates should be re-baptized or readmitted to the church simply through Confession? As with Augustine on the question of sola scriptura, do not just pick isolated quotes out of context to prove your point. By the time of the Church Fathers, Confession was a clearly practiced sacrament, and no one objected that it was not necessary or contrary to Scripture.

[Luircin]

Precisely.

You Caths claim that the church fathers are the reason we should believe you, when they can’t agree with you or even each other.

You are left with the “Because the Vaticsn says so” argument. Which is a pretty stupid argument condidering what comes from the Vatican.

[daniel1212]

So there is no settled canon until Luther and Trent. Thus while Luther could not be charged with removing books, Catholics could likewise not be charged with adding them; the question would be unsettled until then.

We agree then, but unsettled until then for Catholics, but which is not the same as having one universally accepted canon from the 4th century.

But it can also be shown the Protestants reject what is actually in the Bible in favor or their own non-Biblical sola fide: e.g. the Real Presence, To the contrary. Not on the basis of the only wholly inspired-of-God and substantive record of what the New Testament church believed

apostolic succession

Rome does not.

the forgiveness of sins, the exclusion from the Kingdom because of sin, and a Church which speaks with the authority of the Holy Spirit.

Wrong again .

The Council of Jerusalem in Acts shows the Church settling a dispute among the faithful through the decision of its pastors speaking with the authority of the Holy Spirit. When did this authority cease?

You are moving the goal posts. This simply examples valid magisterial authority (which SS affirms) which flowed from the OT, dissent from which was a capital offense, (Dt. 17:8-13) and a right Scripturally substantiated judgment by it, as led by real apostles (and not Catholics).

However, the premise behind such required obedience was not that of ensured perpetual magisterial infallibility as per Rome, which is never seen, nor essential, but Scriptural substantiation in word and in power.

And you did not answer my questions re. authority.

And who is to judge who is in conformity with the New Testament?

Starting the local magisterial office all the way up to its organizational head (and there should be a Acts 15-type council overall), but if you mean supreme infallibility and authority required assent, then who was to judge who was in conformity with the Old Testament at the time of John the Baptist?

I suggested this as the only appeal that Protestants could make, but one that would also fail.

Wrong again, for your problem, as explained, is with the word "faithful." Rome is the one who manifestly considers Teddy K Catholics to be faithful, while Clintons avoid conservative evangelical churches. And such as most strongly esteem Scripture also attest to the greatest unity in most basic beliefs . vs. Catholics.

Regarding the question of the canon of the Bible, Protestants can in truth only say that it is still in dispute among Christians.

If "Christians" in the broad sense of the word.

They have no basis on which to dogmatically declare that the Deuterocanonical books are not part of the Bible.

They certainly do have a very strong historical and textual case, and affirms believers can discern which writings are of God, as they did in manifestly establishing an authoritative body of wholly God-inspired writings. And the government of a church(es) can require assent to its judgments, but not as assured infallible.

But Rome has no Scriptural basis on which to infallibly declare she is and will be perpetually infallible whenever she speaks in accordance with her infallibly defined (scope and subject-based) formula, which renders her declaration that she is infallible, to be infallible, as well as all else she accordingly declares.

[daniel1212]

For the record, here is more conformation of what I said earlier if needed.

F. F. Bruce states that no evidence has been presented that the Jews (neither Hebrew nor Greek speaking) ever accepted a wider canon than the twenty-two books of the Hebrew Old Testament. He argues that when the Christian community took over the Greek Old Testament, they added the Apocrypha to it and "gave some measure of scriptural status to them also."2

Gleason Archer notes that other Jewish translations of the Old Testament did not include the apocryphal books. The Targums, the Aramaic translation of the Old Testament, did not include them; neither did the earliest versions of the Syriac translation, called the Peshitta...

Even the respected Greek Jewish scholar Philo of Alexandria never quotes from the Apocrypha. One would think that if the Greek Jews had accepted the additional books, they would have used them as part of the Canon...

It is also significant that Aquila's Greek version of the Old Testament, made about A.D. 128 and adopted by the Alexandrian Jews, did not include the Apocrypha.

Advocates of the Apocrypha argue that it does not matter if the Jews ever accepted the extra books because they rejected Jesus as well. They contend that the only important opinion is that of the early church. But even the Christian era copies of the Greek Septuagint differ in their selection of which apocryphal books to include. The three oldest complete copies of the Greek Old Testament that we have include different additional books. (Evidence, Answers, and Christian Faith: Probing the Headlines by Jimmy Williams and Kerby Anderson, p. 120 ; Kregel Publications. October 10, 2002)

The original grounds for the Alexandrian canon hypothesis were the comprehensive manuscripts of the Septuagint. The Septuagint is a pre-Christian Jewish translation, and the larger manuscripts of it include various of the Apocrypha. Grabe's edition of the Septuagint, where the theory was first propounded, was based upon the fifth-century Codex Alexandrinus.

However, as we now know, manuscripts of anything like the capacity of Codex Alexandrinus were not used in the first centuries of the Christian era," and since, in the second century C.E., the Jews seem largely to have discarded the Septuagint in favour of revisions or translations more usable in their controversy with the church (notably Aquila's translation), there can be no real doubt that the comprehensive codices of the Septuagint, which start appearing in the fourth century, are all of Christian origin.

An indication of this is that in many Septuagint manuscripts the Psalms are followed by a collection of Odes or liturgical canticles, including Christian ones from the NT. Also, the order of the books in the great fourth and fifth-century Septuagint codices is Christian, not adhering to the three divisions of the Hebrew canon; nor is there agreement between the codices which of the Apocrypha to include. Codex Vaticanus, Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Alex-andrinus all include Tobit, Judith, Wisdom and Ecclesiasticus, and integrate them into the body of the or rather than appending them at the end; but Codex Vaticanus, unlike the other two, totally excludes the Books of Maccabees.

Moreover, all three codices, according to Kenyon, were produced in Egypt," yet the contemporary Christian lists of the biblical books drawn up in Egypt by Athanasius and (very likely) pseudo-Athanasius are much more critical, ex-cluding all apocryphal books from the canon, and putting them in a separate appendix. Mulder, M. J. (1988). (Mikra: text, translation, reading, and interpretation of the Hebrew Bible in ancient Judaism and early Christianity. Phil.: Van Gorcum. p. 81 )

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)

By the first century, 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. The Jewish canon was not directed from above but developed from the "bottom-up." (Timothy H. Lim, University of Edinburgh: Understanding the Emergence of the Jewish Canon, ANCIENT JEW REVIEW, December 2, 2015)

In 1873, Philotheos Bryennios was working in the library of the Jerusalem Monastery of the Most Holy Sepulchre in the city of Constantinople when he discovered a manuscript (copied in 1056) containing the previously lost Didache, the two epistles of Clement, and several other compositions. Among these other compositions was a list of the OT books that has become known as the Bryennios List (BO.' The list of biblical books filled about twelve lines in the manuscript on fol. 76a, appearing between 2 Clement and the Didache itself. Bryennios published the contents of the manuscript in 1883, simply tran-scribing the list of biblical books. The surprising rediscovery of the Didache overshadowed the other works in the manuscript, so that it was not until 1950 that a full-scale analysis of this list was published. Jean-Paul Audet's seminal study brought the list to the attention of scholars and spawned further analysis.

Old Testament canon: This canon list contains a similar catalogue of books to the Jewish and Protestant canons in twenty-seven books. The identification of Esdras A and Esdras B is an open question, as well as whether Lamentations, Baruch, and the Epistle or a combination of these works are subsumed under the title of 'Jeremiah: This list does not contain any of the deuterocanonical books.

If the usual dating of BL can be accepted, then we have an early-second-century Jewish list of books received among Christians, comprising the twenty-seven books of the Old Testament. The contents of the list cohere closely with the other canonical lists preserved from the patristic era, though the order of books diverges significantly from other known examples, perhaps indicating continuing uncertainty on that matter.

The ordering of the books in BL provides more evidence for its date. The order is unique among the lists: Genesis Exodus Leviticus Joshua Deuteronomy Numbers Ruth Job Judges Psalter 1 Kingdoms (= I Samuel) 2 Kingdoms (= 2 Samuel) 3 Kingdoms (= I Kings) 4 Kingdoms (= 2 Kings) 1 Paralipomena (= I Chronicles) 2 Paralipomena (= 2 Chronicles) Proverbs Ecclesiastes (= Qoheleth) Song of Songs Jeremiah (+ Lamentations? + Baruch? + Epistle?) The Twelve Prophets Isaiah Ezekiel Daniel Esdras A Esdras B Esther (Edmon L. Gallagher, John D. Meade. The Biblical Canon Lists from Early Christianity: Texts and Analysis, Oxford University Press; 2018, pp. 70,75,78

Note that there is scope for considerable confusion with references to Esdras Αʹ (English title: 1 Esdras) and Esdras Β. The writers here believe they may refer to Ezra–Nehemiah or Esdras 1 and Esdras 2. Scholars believe the latter is Ezra–Nehemiah while 1 Esdras also First Esdras, Greek Esdras, Greek Ezra, or 3 Esdras, is an ancient Greek version of the biblical Book of Ezra in use among the early church, and many modern Christians with varying degrees of canonicity...As part of the Septuagint translation of the Old Testament, it is now regarded as canonical in the churches of the East, but apocryphal in the West; either presented in a separate section, or excluded altogether.

However,

Following the example of the Paris Vulgate Bible editions of the 13th century, and in what later became the usage of the Clementine Vulgate and the Anglican Articles of Religion, '1 Esdras' is applied consistently in late medieval bibles to the book corresponding to the modern Book of Ezra; while the modern Book of Nehemiah corresponds to '2 Esdras'. 1 Esdras here, is in the Clementine Vulgate called 3 Esdras. The 'Apocalypse of Ezra', an additional work associated with the name Ezra, is denoted '4 Esdras' in the Paris Bibles, the Clementine Vulgate and the Articles of Religion, but called '2 Esdras' in the King James Version and in most modern English bibles, as here. 1 Esdras continues to be accepted as canonical by Eastern Orthodoxy and the Ethiopian Orthodox Tewahedo Church, with 2 Esdras varying in canonicity between particular denominations within the Eastern churches.[3]

Overwhelmingly, citations in early Christian writings claimed from the scriptural 'Book of Ezra'(without any qualification) are taken from 1 Esdras, and never from the 'Ezra' sections of Ezra–Nehemiah (Septuagint 'Esdras B') ; the majority of early citations being taken from the 1 Esdras section containing the 'Tale of the Three Guardsmen', which is interpreted as Christological prophecy. - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1_Esdras

[Elsie]

Would this be the same Augustine, the Catholic Bishop of Hippo, who wrote the following: Golly!

It might be!!

---

 

As regards the oft-quoted Mt. 16:18 (And less understood)

 

 

 

• Augustine, sermon:

"Christ, you see, built his Church not on a man but on Peter's confession. What is Peter's confession? 'You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.' There's the rock for you, there's the foundation, there's where the Church has been built, which the gates of the underworld cannot conquer. — John Rotelle, O.S.A., Ed., The Works of Saint Augustine , © 1993 New City Press, Sermons, Vol III/6, Sermon 229P.1, p. 327

 

Augustine, sermon:

Upon this rock, said the Lord, I will build my Church. Upon this confession, upon this that you said, 'You are the Christ, the Son of the living God,' I will build my Church, and the gates of hell shall not conquer her (Mt. 16:18). — John Rotelle, Ed., The Works of Saint Augustine (New Rochelle: New City, 1993) Sermons, Volume III/7, Sermon 236A.3, p. 48.

 

• Augustine, sermon:

For petra (rock) is not derived from Peter, but Peter from petra; just as Christ is not called so from the Christian, but the Christian from Christ. For on this very account the Lord said, 'On this rock will I build my Church,' because Peter had said, 'Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.' On this rock, therefore, He said, which thou hast confessed, I will build my Church. For the Rock (Petra) was Christ; and on this foundation was Peter himself built. For other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is Christ Jesus. The Church, therefore, which is founded in Christ received from Him the keys of the kingdom of heaven in the person of Peter, that is to say, the power of binding and loosing sins. For what the Church is essentially in Christ, such representatively is Peter in the rock (petra); and in this representation Christ is to be understood as the Rock, Peter as the Church. — Augustine Tractate CXXIV; Philip Schaff, Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers: First Series, Volume VII Tractate CXXIV (http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf107.iii.cxxv.html)

 

• Augustine, sermon:

And Peter, one speaking for the rest of them, one for all, said, You are the Christ, the Son of the living God (Mt 16:15-16)...And I tell you: you are Peter; because I am the rock, you are Rocky, Peter-I mean, rock doesn't come from Rocky, but Rocky from rock, just as Christ doesn't come from Christian, but Christian from Christ; and upon this rock I will build my Church (Mt 16:17-18); not upon Peter, or Rocky, which is what you are, but upon the rock which you have confessed. I will build my Church though; I will build you, because in this answer of yours you represent the Church. — John Rotelle, O.S.A. Ed., The Works of Saint Augustine (New Rochelle: New City Press, 1993), Sermons, Volume III/7, Sermon 270.2, p. 289

 

• Augustine, sermon:

Peter had already said to him, 'You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.' He had already heard, 'Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jona, because flesh and blood did not reveal it to you, but my Father who is in heaven. And I tell you, that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of the underworld shall not conquer her' (Mt 16:16-18)...Christ himself was the rock, while Peter, Rocky, was only named from the rock. That's why the rock rose again, to make Peter solid and strong; because Peter would have perished, if the rock hadn't lived. — John Rotelle, Ed., The Works of Saint Augustine (New Rochelle: New City, 1993) Sermons, Volume III/7, Sermon 244.1, p. 95

 

• Augustine, sermon:

...because on this rock, he said, I will build my Church, and the gates of the underworld shall not overcome it (Mt. 16:18). Now the rock was Christ (1 Cor. 10:4). Was it Paul that was crucified for you? Hold on to these texts, love these texts, repeat them in a fraternal and peaceful manner. — John Rotelle, Ed., The Works of Saint Augustine (New Rochelle: New City Press, 1995), Sermons, Volume III/10, Sermon 358.5, p. 193

 

• Augustine, Psalm LXI:

Let us call to mind the Gospel: 'Upon this Rock I will build My Church.' Therefore She crieth from the ends of the earth, whom He hath willed to build upon a Rock. But in order that the Church might be builded upon the Rock, who was made the Rock? Hear Paul saying: 'But the Rock was Christ.' On Him therefore builded we have been. — Philip Schaff, Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1956), Volume VIII, Saint Augustin, Exposition on the Book of Psalms, Psalm LXI.3, p. 249. (http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf108.ii.LXI.html)

 

• Augustine, in “Retractions,”

In a passage in this book, I said about the Apostle Peter: 'On him as on a rock the Church was built.'...But I know that very frequently at a later time, I so explained what the Lord said: 'Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church,' that it be understood as built upon Him whom Peter confessed saying: 'Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God,' and so Peter, called after this rock, represented the person of the Church which is built upon this rock, and has received 'the keys of the kingdom of heaven.' For, 'Thou art Peter' and not 'Thou art the rock' was said to him. But 'the rock was Christ,' in confessing whom, as also the whole Church confesses, Simon was called Peter. But let the reader decide which of these two opinions is the more probable. — The Fathers of the Church (Washington D.C., Catholic University, 1968), Saint Augustine, The Retractations Chapter 20.1:.

 

[Elsie]

No, it just shows that you have taken his comments out of context.

The same as this??

Call no man father...

[Elsie]

...but Protestants either pretend that they are not there, or twist them to deny their plain meaning.

:Like THIS??

Call no man father.

[Elsie]

Regarding the question of the canon of the Bible, Protestants can in truth only say that it is still in dispute among Christians.

They have no basis on which to dogmatically declare that the Deuterocanonical books are not part of the Bible.

Regarding the question of the authority of the pope, Catholics can in truth only say that it is in dispute among Catholics.

They have no basis on which to dogmatically declare that the pope is some kind of heretic, non-RCC, demon posessed, Communist, humanist wannabe.

[af_vet_1981]

F. F. Bruce states that no evidence has been presented that the Jews (neither Hebrew nor Greek speaking) ever accepted a wider canon than the twenty-two books of the Hebrew Old Testament. He argues that when the Christian community took over the Greek Old Testament, they added the Apocrypha to it and "gave some measure of scriptural status to them also."2

In view of F.F. Bruce's writing below, the first pertinent questions is, what were the books "the Jews left the Septuagint to the Christians" ?

The second pertinent question is "does one accept the authority of Orthodox Judaism or Orthodox Christianity?"

For various reasons it was necessary for the Church to know exactly what books were divinely authoritative. The Gospels, recording 'all that Jesus began both to do and to teach,' could not be regarded as one whit lower in authority than the Old Testament books. And the teaching of the apostles in the Acts and Epistles was regarded as vested with His authority. It was natural, then, to accord to the apostolic writings of the new covenant the same degree of homage as was already paid to the prophetic writings of the old. Thus Justin Martyr, about AD 150, classes the 'Memoirs of the Apostles' along with the writings of the prophets, saving that both were read in meetings of Christians (Apol i. 67). For the Church did not, in spite of the breach with Judaism, repudiate the authority of the Old Testament; but, following the example of Christ and His apostles, received it as the Word of God. Indeed, so much did they make the Septuagint their own that, although it was originally a translation of the Hebrew Scriptures into Greek for Greek-speaking Jews before the time of Christ, the Jews left the Septuagint to the Christians, and a fresh Greek version of the Old Testament was made for Greek speaking Jews."

The Canon of the New Testament
By F. F. Bruce
Chapter 3 in The New Testament Documents: Are They Reliable?
(5th edition; Leicester: Intervarsity Press, 1959).

[daniel1212]

In view of F.F. Bruce's writing below, the first pertinent questions is, what were the books "the Jews left the Septuagint to the Christians" ?

You are a little late as the claim that the 1st. c. LXX contained the Deuteros has been shown to be presumptuous, as well as problematic.

The only manuscripts of the Septuagint we have that contain books of the Deuteros were made after the the Hexaplar recension (one of many revisonary works, and in which some meaningful changes were made in the texts themselves) and include the Codex Vaticanus from the 4th century CE and the Codex Alexandrinus of the 5th century. "These are indeed the oldest surviving nearly complete manuscripts of the Old Testament in any language; the oldest extant complete Hebrew texts date some 600 years later, from the first half of the 10th century. (Ernst Würthwein, The Text of the Old Testament, trans. Errol F. Rhodes, Grand Rapids, Mich.: Wm. Eerdmans, 1995) The various Jewish and later Christian revisions and recensions are largely responsible for the divergence of the codices." (Jennifer M. Dines, The Septuagint, Michael A. Knibb, Ed., London: T&T Clark, 2004) - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Septuagint#Manuscripts

Also,

Manuscripts of anything like the capacity of Codex Alexandrinus were not used in the first centuries of the Christian era, and since in the second century AD the Jews seem largely to have discarded the Septuagint…there can be no real doubt that the comprehensive codices of the Septuagint, which start appearing in the fourth century AD, are all of Christian origin.,,

There is no evidence that elements of Diaspora or Palestinian Judaism had an expanded Septuagint canon distinct from the twenty-two book Hebrew canon, and the historical probabilities weigh heavily against such a supposition. There is also no evidence that the ante-Nicene church received or adopted a Septuagint canon although it did apparently consider the Septuagint to be inspired and its text-forms to be superior to those of the masoretic Bible.'" (Roger Beckwith, [Anglican priest, Oxford BD and Lambeth DD], The Old Testament Canon of the New Testament Church [Eerdmans 1986], p. 382, 383)

And if you are going to use these copies of the LXX for a canon then you have a real problem, for it means you must exclude some that Rome holds as canonical and include some that it does not. For the Psalms of Solomon, which is not part of any scriptural canon, is found in copies of the Septuagint as is Psalm 151, and 3 and 4 Maccabees (Vaticanus [early 4th century] does not include any of the Maccabean books, while Sinaiticus [early 4th century] includes 1 and 4 Maccabees and Alexandrinus [early 5th century] includes 1, 2, 3, and 4 Maccabees and the Psalms of Solomon).

Nor is there agreement between the codices which the Apocrypha include...Moreover, all three codices [Vaticanus, Sinaiticus and Alexandrinus], according to Kenyon, were produced in Egypt, yet the contemporary Christian lists of the biblical books drawn up in Egypt by Athanasius and (very likely) pseudo-Athanasius are much more critical, excluding all apocryphal books from the canon, and putting them in a separate appendix. (ibid, Beckwith)

Likewise Gleason Archer affirms,

Even in the case of the Septuagint, the apocryphal books maintain a rather uncertain existence. The Codex Vaticanus (B) lacks [besides 3 and 4] 1 and 2 Maccabees (canonical, according to Rome), but includes 1 Esdras (non-canonical, according to Rome). The Sinaiticus (Aleph) omits Baruch (canonical, according to Rome), but includes 4 Maccabees (non-canonical, according to Rome)... Thus it turns out that even the three earliest MSS or the LXX show considerable uncertainty as to which books constitute the list of the Apocrypha.. (Archer, Gleason L., Jr., "A Survey of Old Testament Introduction", Moody Press, Chicago, IL, Rev. 1974, p. 75; http://www.provethebible.net/T2-Integ/B-1101.htm)

The German historian Martin Hengel writes, “Sinaiticus contains Barnabas and Hermas, Alexandrinus 1 and 2 Clement.” “Codex Alexandrinus...includes the LXX as we know it in Rahlfs’ edition, with all four books of Maccabees and the fourteen Odes appended to Psalms.” “...the Odes (sometimes varied in number), attested from the fifth century in all Greek Psalm manuscripts, contain three New Testament ‘psalms’: the Magnificat, the Benedictus, the Nunc Dimittis from Luke’s birth narrative, and the conclusion of the hymn that begins with the ‘Gloria in Excelsis.’ This underlines the fact that the LXX, although, itself consisting of a collection of Jewish documents, wishes to be a Christian book.” (Martin Hengel, The Septuagint as Christian Scripture [Baker 2004], pp. 57-59)

Also,

The Targums did not include these books, nor the earliest versions of the Peshitta, and the apocryphal books are seen to have been later additions, and later versions of the LXX varied in regard to which books of the apocrypha they contained. “Nor is there agreement between the codices which of the Apocrypha include. (Eerdmans 1986), 382. The two most complete targums (translations of the Hebrew Bible into Aramaic which date from the first century to the Middel Ages) contain all the books of the Hebrew Bible except Ezra, Nehemiah and Daniel.

And Cyril of Jerusalem, whose list rejected the apocrypha (except for Baruch) exhorts his readers to “read the Divine Scriptures, the twenty-two books of the Old Testament, these that have been translated by the Seventy-two Interpreters,” the latter referring to the Septuagint but not as including the apocrypha. (http://www.bible-researcher.com/cyril.html)

And that the smaller canon was that which was held by those who sat in the seat of Moses, and which is the only one quoted from by Christ, and referred to as "Scripture, "it is written, etc,." in the NT, is what the weight of testimony shows,

"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) By the first century, 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. The Jewish canon was not directed from above but developed from the "bottom-up." (Timothy H. Lim, University of Edinburgh: Understanding the Emergence of the Jewish Canon, ANCIENT JEW REVIEW, December 2, 2015)

which is affirmed in Catholicism: “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)

Yet teachings and or history found in the Deuteros 9among other sources) can be alluded to and some of its teachings and history validated (and we can both reference sources for some of what they say even if we do not fully concur with all they say).

[Petrosius]

So let me understand your position. Since the earliest codices that we have of the Septuagint with Deuterocanonical books date from the 4th/5th century, the Deuterocanonical books must have been added by the Christians. And this is backed up by the fact that Aquila’s Greek version, which was made in the 2nd century when the Jews had rejected the Septuagint because of its use by Christians, does not include them. Additional evidence is an 11th century manuscript of a list of the books of the Old Testament.

This is pure speculation or even wishful thinking. At the end of the day the earliest complete codices we have of the Septuagint contain the Deuterocanonical books, and there are no complete codices of that period the are missing them. The question also arises, if the Deuterocanonical books were only added by the Christians in the 4th century to an earlier received Old Testament without them, who added them and why does the manuscript evidence only show their inclusion?

[daniel1212]

So let me understand your position. Since the earliest codices that we have of the Septuagint with Deuterocanonical books date from the 4th/5th century, the Deuterocanonical books must have been added by the Christians. And this is backed up by the fact that Aquila’s Greek version, which was made in the 2nd century when the Jews had rejected the Septuagint because of its use by Christians, does not include them. Additional evidence is an 11th century manuscript of a list of the books of the Old Testament.

The pure speculation or even wishful thinking is that the 1st. LXX contained them. Aquila is merely one aspect of the argument that the LXX of the 1st century, and related to more and more importantly, that the body of writings refereed to as "Scripture" by the Lord and NT church, did not include the Deuteros as Scripture In review

manuscripts of anything like the capacity of Codex Alexandrinus were not used in the first centuries of the Christian era

the order of the books in the great fourth and fifth-century Septuagint codices is Christian, not adhering to the three divisions of the Hebrew canon;

Moreover, all three codices [Vaticanus, Sinaiticus and Alexandrinus], according to Kenyon, were produced in Egypt, yet the contemporary Christian lists of the biblical books drawn up in Egypt by Athanasius and (very likely) pseudo-Athanasius are much more critical, excluding all apocryphal books from the canon, and putting them in a separate appendix.

Jewish historian Flavius Josephus appears to be the earliest extant witness to this view. Answering the charges of an anti- Semite Apion at the end of the first century of our era, he says: “

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) On the basis of later Christian testimony, the twenty-two books mentioned here are usually thought to be the same as our thirty-nine,2 each double book (e.g., 1 and 2 Kings) being counted as one, the twelve Minor Prophets being considered a unit, and Judges-Ruth, Ezra-Nehemiah, and Jeremiah-Lamentations each being taken as one book. This agrees with the impression conveyed by the Gospel accounts, where Jesus, the Pharisees, and the Palestinian Jewish community in general seem to understand by the term "Scripture" some definite body of sacred writings."

"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."

By the first century, 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. The Jewish canon was not directed from above but developed from the "bottom-up." (Timothy H. Lim, University of Edinburgh)

"...the pseudepigraphical work 4 Ezra (probably written about A.D. 1208)...admits that only twenty-four Scriptures have circulated publicly since Ezra's time.

The Catholic Encyclopedia itself affirms the Palestinian canon as consisting of the same books. “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) (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03267a.htm)

The available historical evidence indicates that in the Jewish mind a collection of books existed from at least 400 B.C. in three groups, two of them fluid, 22 (24 by another manner of counting) in number, which were considered by the Jews from among the many other existing books as the only ones for which they would die rather than add to or take away from them, books which they considered veritably from God...The Apocrypha are not included. (http://www.biblicalstudies.org.uk/pdf/rev-henry/11_apocrypha_young.pdf)

For the Jews of Palestine the limits of the canon (the term is Christian, and was not used in Judaism) were rigidly fixed; they drew a sharp line of demarcation between the books which 'defiled the hands', i.e. were sacred, and other religiously edifying writings.- J. N. D. Kelly

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.

There is also further testimony, but this should suffice as evidence that the established most authoritative body of writings of God by the time of Christ was not that of the expanded canon seen in late LXX MSS, and yet which do not agree with Rome's Sources.

[af_vet_1981]

It is not a problem except one
1. Accepts the primacy of Orthodox Judaism to establish the Canon of scripture (and yes, there are references for this in scripture, ie., Moses' seat, to whom belong the scriptures) after Jesus' Advent
2. Rejects that Jesus gave the power to bind and loose that belonged to Moses' seat to the Apostle Peter (and the other Apostles)
3. Rejects Orthodox Christianity in favor of reformed, restorationist, or reconstructionist authorities.

[daniel1212]

At the end of the day the earliest complete codices we have of the Septuagint contain the Deuterocanonical books, and there are no complete codices of that period the are missing them.

At the end of the day historical testimony is toward the Deuteros not being part of after the 1st century LXX, nor part of the most authoritative canon, with the two being related, and with Christ reference to the tripartite canon in Lk. 24:44 (and as "all Scripture" in v. 27) being that one.

Thus the reason there are no complete codices that are missing the Deuteros is because the earliest complete codices are hundreds of years after 132 B.C. and the 1st century LXX, and some Christian are known to have messed with it. Yet even then the codices conflict with each other and with Trent on the issue of the contents.

Also, seeing as the last books of the Deuteros are thought to have been written some time around 100 BC (or later) while the translation of the Septuagint itself was completed by 132 BC then it leaves little time for the establishment of them as Scripture proper.

The question also arises, if the Deuterocanonical books were only added by the Christians in the 4th century to an earlier received Old Testament without them, who added them and why does the manuscript evidence only show their inclusion?

Look at your question. The answer to the last sentence is in the first one. "Christians" added them which is why the manuscript evidence from hundreds of years later show them, while the Palestinian Hebrew canon, which what Christ only quoted from, did not. To suppose otherwise is more wish than substance.

[daniel1212]

It is not a problem except one

You have 3 but wrong on all counts.

Accepts the primacy of Orthodox Judaism to establish the Canon of scripture (and yes, there are references for this in scripture, ie., Moses' seat, to whom belong the scriptures) after Jesus' Advent

Illogical. You argument is like that of Catholics who argue that concurrence with their church on the NT canon means acceptance of her authority, which is absurd. The importance relevance of the Palestinian canon is that it both testifies against the LXX containing the Deuteros or of that establishing a canon, and that tripartite canon of those who sat in the seat of Moses being the one Christ referred to as "all the Scriptures." (LK. 24:27.44)

Rejects that Jesus gave the power to bind and loose that belonged to Moses' seat to the Apostle Peter (and the other Apostles)

It does not, and in face SS (such as the Westminster Confession) affirms the authority of councils to Scripturally settle disputes. However what it rejects is the novel and unScriptural premise of ensured perpetual magisterial infallibility as per Rome, so that its judgments must be correct.

That was neither promised, exampled, or presumed in giving authority to those mortals who were given authority in the OT and in the NT. Nor to civil authorities who can also render like binding judgments, but which does not mean they cannot be wrong and so dissent is warranted. That of Acts 15 was established upon Scriptural substantiation in word and in power.

Rejects Orthodox Christianity in favor of reformed, restorationist, or reconstructionist authorities.

And the NT church began upon Scriptural dissent from those who actually did sit in the seat of Moses over Israel, as the magisterial stewards of Scripture, and it the faith of that church and the books they referred to as Scripture, "It is written," Moses said," etc. that we are to follow. Rome is who much rejects that in favor of reformed, restorationist, or reconstructionist authorities.

[af_vet_1981]

1. "One" refers to a personal pronoun. There is no Palestinian canon. The Samaritan woman was corrected by the Messiah. They know not what they worship for salvation is of the Jews.
2. Westminster ? There is no Westminster in the scriptures. Henry VIII in 1539-40 founded something there that lasted a short time in a bid to supplant the Catholic diocese that preceded it by centuries.
3. Rome is a Church in the scriptures, known throughout the world for its faith.
4. The Church that the Messiah built was not built on scriptural dissent, nor on the Bible for that matter. It was built on the Apostle Peter, the other Apostles and Prophets, with the Messiah Himself as the chief cornerstone.

[daniel1212]

"One" refers to a personal pronoun. There is no Palestinian canon. The Samaritan woman was corrected by the Messiah. They know not what they worship for salvation is of the Jews. Westminster ? There is no Westminster in the scriptures. Henry VIII in 1539-40 founded something there that lasted a short time in a bid to supplant the Catholic diocese that preceded it by centuries. Rome is a Church in the scriptures, known throughout the world for its faith. The Church that the Messiah built was not built on scriptural dissent, nor on the Bible for that matter. It was built on the Apostle Peter, the other Apostles and Prophets, with the Messiah Himself as the chief cornerstone.

Ignorance, sophistry, insolence and propaganda. Troll-like posts warrant no more of a response, but this time it took less time. Bye again.