Other Books?

[francisdesales]

Francis,

I did not want the link posted. I think you knew that.

Did you read the article fast. Maybe, you did not want to waste your time.

I saw you mentioning "the software is not working", so I thought that implied you wanted me to make sure it was posted. You don't want the link posted? I can remove it.

I did not set out "Thus says the Lord," as a rule, but after I set out three elements to the test of inspiration, I noted Scripture referring to itself as the Word of God as "evidence." So you start right off with a stawman argument, making evidence a rule. Not every book has to say, "Thus says the Lord," but when it does, that is evidence.

Yes, it is evidence, presuming we know (or have witnesses we trust who knows) the author. If I happen upon Jeremiah, not knowing who he is or the tradition he comes from, am I bound to believe that "thus says the Lord" is REALLY from the Lord?

This is why the witness of a community is more important than someone writing "thus says the Lord". I can write that as well, and it doesn't prove that God actually inspired me to write that. Thus, your 'evidence' is based upon a PRESUMPTION that you cannot make without a community/church that witnessed for the veracity of the statement. Thus, at the end of the day, you cannot dispose of the Church that is the pillar and foundation of the truth, so it claims and Scriptures affirm.

But that is how lexicographical distinctions are important. For the New Testament refers to the entire OT as Scripture.

Without telling us what that is...

But how do we know lexicographically what is meant... from the council of Jamnia, and I noted it may not have been a council, and it had no counciliar significance, only significance for determining a dictionary definition. However, you respond as if I set it out as having conciliar significance. The only significance it has is lexicographical -- that is lexicographical tradition. So you twisted the meaning of what I wrote completely for another strawman arugment, even though I went to additional effort in what I set out to make clear I was referencing lexicography and not conciliar authority. The fact that the Pharisees crucified Christ does not change the meaning of words according to lexicography.

You are making this out to be more than I made it out to be. I mention it in passing, and then ask about "WHAT TRADITION"...? The point is that "Jamnia" was not "final" and several Jewish books remained debated. Thus, the force of "Jamnia" is overdone by you, but MORE so, the "tradition" that you imply is monolithic. I stated something true. Judaism did not have a set canon, many groups had their own ideas of what was sacred, agreeing ONLY on the contents of the Pentateuch. You do not addresss that, and make a big deal out of a passing statement?

However, according to Scripture, those Jews in control of the tabernacle/temple were the ones in control of what was determined by the Jews as Scripture.

That would be the Saduccees...! So now you have a five book bible...

It is not circular or a non-sequitar to note that Jews in control of the temple did not recognize the Apocrapha, just because at one time the temple no longer existed, or because there was a time between temples

.

It is because there was no canon until AFTER the Temple was destroyed. Thus, it is insignificant. In addition, my research says that the accepted writings of Jews was much broader than LATER periods imply, such as Josephus.

However, with Lamentations and Esther, Jesus confirmed these as Scripture,

Circular argument. He confirmed NEITHER of them as Scriptures, unless you a priori argue that "Writings" includes those two books, which clearly, it did not, as it was argued for 200 years...

which we know lexicographically by how the Jews referred to their writings. And Jews in control of the temple also confirmed these books as Scripture.

Again, you are totally ignoring how diverse Judaism was before the Temple was destroyed, thus, the "lexicon" argument is pointless. Judaism accepted NUMEROUS writings as Scriptures that later Rabbinical authority would come to deny.

Men vouching for the inspiration of Scripture does not constitute a principle of canonicity as established by Scripture.

You brought it up. Remember Peter? You talked about the prophets. WHO vouches for them?

And God did not have prophets speak, so that eventually they would be known as having said the Word of God. Their message was to their generation as well.

Of course, but men recongized their utterances from God, which is WHY they preserved them in the first place!

Really, Francis, you did not respond to my article at all, but just to something you imagined it said.

[/quote]

I did, I cited it, I read it, and I disagree with it. I note why. It does not provide "foolproof" rules that I need to identify Scriptures. It is an attempt after the fact to justify what Luther did. It is based upon fallacious arguments. It has false information in there. In addition, you totally ignore the fact that your rules leave out most of the New Testament... Why, M Paul? Aren't the Gospels Scriptures?

I have done a lot of research in this area, so I can provide lots of evidence and discussion, if you so desire.

Regards

 

[M-Paul]

Francis,

I want to say something, and I want to try to be nice about it. However, one wonders if by toning things down in trying to be nice, the true significance of what is being said gets lost.

You are posting in this forum to defend Catholicism. However, if you do not read a position you want to respond to honestly and answer it for what it really says, then you actually make a negative impression of Catholicism. And when the issue is at the very foundation of what separates Protestants from Catholics, that impression is all the worse.

If you cannot make an honest assessment and response to the position you want to answer, I think you would do a greater service to Catholicism, if you merely found a way to step aside from the discussion, until you could find a legitimate answer through additional diligent study.

Therefore, let me begin by saying, that this discussion of the canon has gone on for centuries – and no one instance of it has adequately reviewed all the issues and relevant evidence. However, it is my opinion, that if Catholics want to be successful in reaching out to Protestants, they must take on the issues regarding canon and how it can be established by Scriptural principles. Usually, in my experience, Catholics have no knowledge whatsoever of how Protestants establish canon, and this remains true even after it is explained to them in detail.

In the case of the OT, this is established as canon through Christ and his references to it in the NT by itself. The only issue is lexicographically, what was he referencing. He was not in Alexandria – but he was speaking to the most authoritative Jews, who were in control of the temple. There is no evidence whatsoever that he intended a splinter group. The text of the Hebrew Bible now upheld by the Jews represents what Jews in control of the temple defined as its contents. There is no evidence that other books were accepted by anything more than splinter groups. Jamnia’s review represented what had already been established for centuries and it was never changed in any official capacity.

I think that to state that Judaism never had a set canon is absolutely ridiculous, and I think it is actually a desperate attempt to make the Catholic Church authoritative. It would resemble my saying statements from the Vatican do not officially represent Catholicism, because many American Catholics express their own views. However, of course, to make the Catholic position seem credible, emphasis has to be given that there were Jews in places that used other books. The greatest abuse on putting in extra book to the canon was in Alexandria, Egypt, where the Apocrapha arose. However, as Luther noted, according to principles of Scripture, the Septuagint or Latin translators are not inspired prophets. And as I noted in the article, Josephus also supports an official closed canon, and in a manner that corresponds to what Jews accept today, but using language and expression from his own time.

After the temple was destroyed, an authoritative body of Jews still existed, and they took control of the temple when it was rebuilt. After the temple was destroyed again, they were resettled to Jamnia.

However, there is other evidence supporting OT books by internal content, and it is relevant to make reference to this, such as expressions of the nature, “Thus says the Lord.â€

Francis, I think you recognize that if the Protestant position on establishing the canon is correct, then the authority of the RCC goes down the drain, as these biblical principles also establish Sola Scriptura as ultimate authority, and it is noted in Scripture in setting them out, that those who add to Scripture are actually to be put to death… or in other words, they are cursed. (So am I saying Catholics are cursed? – No). Therefore, you have no choice but to find ways to discredit them, and if necessary to have this conversation go on forever. However, my article was just a very, very brief introduction to the canon, and for anyone who is concerned about what is the truth, I do recommend that they read one of the books I cited or another of similar import. The Protestant position began just before the Reformation and it has been studied and debated extensively over the centuries since then. (At this point, I’m putting in more time in the thread than I really have for posting in forums).

 

[francisdesales]

Francis,

I want to say something, and I want to try to be nice about it. However, one wonders if by toning things down in trying to be nice, the true significance of what is being said gets lost.

You are posting in this forum to defend Catholicism. However, if you do not read a position you want to respond to honestly and answer it for what it really says, then you actually make a negative impression of Catholicism. And when the issue is at the very foundation of what separates Protestants from Catholics, that impression is all the worse.

If you cannot make an honest assessment and response to the position you want to answer, I think you would do a greater service to Catholicism, if you merely found a way to step aside from the discussion, until you could find a legitimate answer through additional diligent study.

Therefore, let me begin by saying, that this discussion of the canon has gone on for centuries – and no one instance of it has adequately reviewed all the issues and relevant evidence. However, it is my opinion, that if Catholics want to be successful in reaching out to Protestants, they must take on the issues regarding canon and how it can be established by Scriptural principles. Usually, in my experience, Catholics have no knowledge whatsoever of how Protestants establish canon, and this remains true even after it is explained to them in detail.

What a shame that you accuse me of such things, when you are guilty of what you accuse me of!

ALWAYS in my experience, I find Protestant arguments are based upon old presumptions that have been proven false and a lack of consistency across the two testaments. Yes, the study of the development of the Canon has been ongoing for many years. But recent research has peeled away much of the fallacious assumptions made by Protestant apologists. In addition, even if we don't consider this, the compilation of the canon using "rules" is incomplete and inconsistently applied. In the rush to deny the Catholic accusation ("you are changing the canon accepted for the last 1500 years"), Protestant apologists ATTEMPT to come up with "rules" that makes the selection of Scriptures SELF-AUTHENTICATING. It is an effort to do away with the Church, pure and simple. If a person can have a stack of books in front of them along with some "rules" that are "unbiased", then this leads people to believe we don't NEED a Church to tell us what is Sacred and what is not.

At the end of the day, this is a denial on how Sacred Scriptures are compiled. Jews or Christians did not have clear-cut and exhaustive procedures for selecting the Canon, and it was always subject to what the Church had previously felt on the matter. Thus, the Canon depends upon the witness of men, a community of believers who look at the literature, and when pressed by external actions, decide "this is Scriptures" and "this is not".

In the case of the OT, this is established as canon through Christ and his references to it in the NT by itself.

As I said before, this is a false presumption. Christ does not detail the "Writings". Prior to the fall of the Temple, there is absolutely no indication of the contents OF these "Writings". Disagreement of this section of the OT Scriptures at Jamnia make it VERY obvious that even 60 years later, there still was disagreement on the content of these writings - IN THE EYES OF PHARISEES. Thus, you are being anachronistic and using circular reasoning, presuming that the "Writings", established with the writing of the Mishna at the end of the second century, was the EXACT SAME as the "list" that Jesus was talking about. Furthermore, your presumption says NOTHING about the REST of Judaism. Recall that Pharisee-ism was largely outnumbered by Hellenistic Greeks, Essenes, and other Gnostic Jews. Pharisees represented only a small piece of Judiasm. As such, we have no idea what the contents of "the writings" are.

As to the NT citing works, they also cite apocrypha and we do not have a complete citation of the "Writings", as some were never cited in the NT. Thus, on two counts, this logic fails.

I have already said this, but all you can do is tell me how much I don't know. Well, common sense dictates that you are incorrect.

The only issue is lexicographically, what was he referencing. He was not in Alexandria – but he was speaking to the most authoritative Jews, who were in control of the temple.

Apparently, you do not have a clue about what i wrote, since I addressed this, as well. Why are you repeating the same arguments that I already addressed and tore down? Either you are stubborn or you never read my post - and yet, I receive a lecture from you???

The Sadducees had control of the Temple prior to its collapse, and THEY only had a five book "canon". This is clear even in the Gospels when Jesus confronts them using the Torah, Scriptures.

I think that to state that Judaism never had a set canon is absolutely ridiculous,

I didn't say that. I said that the "Writings" content was not set. And not even every Jew accepted all of the Prophets (such as Ezekiel) prior to Jesus. As I wrote, I can cite evidence of this from eminent non-Catholic scholars, such as Professor Sandberg or Professor Cross. What is ridiculous is that you base your opinions on 19th century thinking and preach it as infallible gospel. If you want to discuss this without lecturing me on how ridiculous I am, fine. I can cite the evidence, because you appear clueless about ancient Palestine before the fall of Jerusalem on these matters.

The greatest abuse on putting in extra book to the canon was in Alexandria, Egypt, where the Apocrapha arose.

Again, you prove your lack of knowledge. Practically ALL of the so called Jewish Apocrypha was written in Palestine. The Dead Sea Scrolls include some of them, Christians retained some of them.

However, as Luther noted, according to principles of Scripture, the Septuagint or Latin translators are not inspired prophets.

The problem is that DURING the time of canonization, the LXX writers WERE INDEED considered inspired. Even Philo said so. You are aware of the story of the LXX writing? Whether this is NOW considered fable is inconsequential. The men of 100 AD "knew" that LXX was inspired by God. In addition, the same can be said for many of the "Writings" found in the Hebrew OT canon, as Prophetic utterance stopped with Malachi (which is WHY the "Prophets" were established in the first place).

And as I noted in the article, Josephus also supports an official closed canon, and in a manner that corresponds to what Jews accept today, but using language and expression from his own time.

Professor Sandberg and Cross both disagree with this opinion. Certainly, the Torah and the Prophets were set, but not the Writings. Hebrew resencions tell us otherwise. Josephus was expressing a POST Temple opinion that DISCOUNTS Christian writings. MAJOR inconsistency that Prot apologists ignore.

After the temple was destroyed, an authoritative body of Jews still existed, and they took control of the temple when it was rebuilt. After the temple was destroyed again, they were resettled to Jamnia.

Different sects "took" control of the Temple - are you familiar with Jewish history in the second century BCE??? During Christ, the Sadducees were in control. Many Pharisees were executed during this takeover.

However, there is other evidence supporting OT books by internal content, and it is relevant to make reference to this, such as expressions of the nature, “Thus says the Lord.â€

Granted, this will suffice. However, we see these formulas, as well as "it is written" when referring to Sirach, Wisdom, 2 Maccabees, etc... BEFORE the canon was solidified in the fourth century. Christian men of the second century write this "It is written" and referring to these. They were taught that the Septuagint was sacred Word of God, it was widespread throughout PALESTINE, and they were quite comfortable using it, as opposed to a Hebrew text that the Masoretic text often is found inferior (comparing to the Dead Sea Scrolls or the LXX).

Francis, I think you recognize that if the Protestant position on establishing the canon is correct, then the authority of the RCC goes down the drain, as these biblical principles also establish Sola Scriptura as ultimate authority

First of all, Sola scriptura is self-defeating. There is no verse that tells us that everything we need to know is ONLY in the written pages of Scriptures (a scripture that is never defined!). Second of all, the Bible never tells us the SPECIFIC CONTENTS of Sacred Scriptures, to INCLUDE THE GOSPELS. On two fronts, you are already defeated.

The above tells us that the even on the position of the canon, you are wrong, inconsistently applying incomplete rules to THINK you can ascertain ALL of Scriptures. Sure, you can get SOME of Scriptures this way, but much of it, you will have to rely on the witness of men, not arbitrary rules.

and it is noted in Scripture in setting them out, that those who add to Scripture are actually to be put to death…

Please, this is just poor exegesis, which tells me of the desperate position you are in...

Revelation is refering to itself, not to a FUTURE canon that had not even been thought of yet!!! And Deuteronomy has this statement as well, so what does that say about the NT??? The Writings of the OT???

The Protestant position began just before the Reformation and it has been studied and debated extensively over the centuries since then. (At this point, I’m putting in more time in the thread than I really have for posting in forums).

the more you are open to what I am saying, the more you will find out you are incorrect, relying on old presumptions, a priori "Catholics cannot be correct" attitudes, coupled with inconsistent applications of your rules. But if you come to the table with "Catholics cannot be right", you will just choose to ignore my common sense remarks.

The Bottom line, the Gospels are not included in the Canon by your rules!!! If you cannot follow my arguments above, at least consider that...

Regards

 

[JamesG]

.
Francisdesales

I answered your PM on the 1 on 1.

JamesG

 

[dadof10]

M-Paul. Your turn. I hope you and Francis will keep this line going. It's very interesting.

 

[francisdesales]

.
Francisdesales

I answered your PM on the 1 on 1.

JamesG

Answered...

 

[francisdesales]

M-Paul. Your turn. I hope you and Francis will keep this line going. It's very interesting.

Here is something that I thought I would post that attacks the notion of a set canon before the destruction of the Temple in 70 AD...

"In sum, then, the three different descriptions of books other than the Law and the Prophets in the prologue of Sirach do not reflect a fixed third collection nor is a closed canon evident in 2 Maccabees description of Nehemiahs collected library of "books about the kings and prophets and the writings of David and letters of kings about sacred gifts." ... The post-70 dating of the rabbinic revision of the Scriptures holds Josephus claimed long-standing text and canon in question. The Qumran sect and early Christians had and used apocryphal writings in ways indistinguishable from their use of Law and Prophets; apocryphal literature appears to have circulated among Pharisees before 70 as well as after. It is probable that early Christians adopted the use of the apocryphal literature from what appeared to them as quite common usage in pre-70 Judaism. The Kaige Recension, including, as it did, Baruch and the long form of Daniel augurs against a closed rabbinic canon at the change of the era. The Book of Daniel, appearing, as it does, in usually non-canonical textual from at Qumran also counters a closed canon before 68 C.E. It therefore appears well founded that early Christianity received its heritage of religious writings including apocryphal writings from a practice in pre-70 Judaism that included Pharisees, the Qumran sect, and, perhaps, many nonaligned in Judaism."

http://department.monm.edu/classics/Speel_Festschrift/sundbergJr.htm

The notion that there was a closed canon prior to the fall of Jerusalem is very questionable, given the study of the use of Hebrew writings of the apocrypha prior to the fall of Jerusalem. Considering Josephus is not including the Christian writings should be a clarion call to those who think that the Pharisees are worthy of setting CHRISTIAN canon. It is entirely inconsistent.

Regards

 

[M-Paul]

Really, Francis, I think at this point you are just scratching and clawing to find any way to set out facts or a position to discredit the Protestant position for the sake of appearances. But what else can you do? And you say I am in the desperate position – now is the time to return the favor of laughing. When you said that you quoted verses you wanted to use for the basis of my statement you refuted, rather than the one I quoted as noted below.

As far as content, what the Jews accept today as canon has no real issues – and they will agree it comes from an official concept of Judaism. I think what you mean is, because it is not declared official by the RCC, then it cannot be. And for the NT, establishing content again is a science most involved from manuscript analysis, and an issue not having the significance you would like to attribute.

The Apocrapha was upheld as canon in Alexandria, and we have no evidence at all what Hebrew texts were used to make this translation.

As far as my lacking knowledge, my having a different position than you or a different basis of presenting information actually is not a lack of knowledge, but it is just one more straw man argument on your part. As far as my using the same techniques I allege you use, that is the standard response, along with forcing my posting to mean a straw man argument on my part. However, one part of your straw mans that was common was in refuting one piece of evidence to mean an entire argument was dealt with.

I already addressed what LXX quotations mean. Why did you repeat yourself? Is it that you do not have a clue what I wrote? Should I say now you are presumptuous, lack knowledge, cannot do proper exegesis, are using 19th century techniques, and on and on and on.... just any thing to make a discrediting statement. So why not throw in what Professor Sandberg and Philo thought.

Deuteronomy 18:20,-22 But the prophet, which shall presume to speak a word in my name, which I have not commanded him to speak, or that shall speak in the name of other gods, even that prophet shall die. And if thou say in thine heart, How shall we know the word which the LORD hath not spoken? When a prophet speaketh in the name of the LORD, if the thing follow not, nor come to pass, that is the thing which the LORD hath not spoken, but the prophet hath spoken it presumptuously: thou shalt not be afraid of him.
Good exegesis on these verses is that they does not apply to the RCC. Thus, I am ignorant. Maybe not. But basically that is your whole approach – the Protestant position cannot be right because Catholics have another view. Basically, what you are demonstrating is just the typical manner that Catholics respond to Protestant positions – just make up rules to answer anything and to change the true issues. Example of made up standard – “There is no verse that tells us that everything we need to know is ONLY in the written pages of Scriptures.†(However, you have not accused me yet of thinking the RCC is the whore of Babylon. So that is different.)

I do not consider this conversation mature. You are actually just looking for ways to score points.

 

[francisdesales]

Really, Francis, I think at this point you are just scratching and clawing to find any way to set out facts or a position to discredit the Protestant position for the sake of appearances. But what else can you do?

Yawn... Have you been reading the posts??? Please...

When are you going to address all of the critique I am providing to your "article"? I realize you are probably offended that someone would question your work, but really, my questions are not based upon Catholic authority, etc., but rather, scholarship based upon the Dead Sea Scrolls and ancient Judaism, application of logic to your "rules" that show how inconsistent they are, and your lack of knowledge of ancient Judaism of the first century CE. Just the fact that you do not know who was in charge of the Temple during the time of Christ or the multiplicity of Jewish sects that existed alongside the MINORITY Pharisees is a good indication that you need to work on reading stuff that is not decidely Protestant apologetics in nature. It is perfectly clear who is "scratching and clawing".

When I first saw that you had a website with an article, I thought maybe you knew what you were talking about, but clearly, you just cut and paste from somewhere else. Well, let's see if we can salvage this discussion...

And you say I am in the desperate position – now is the time to return the favor of laughing. When you said that you quoted verses you wanted to use for the basis of my statement you refuted, rather than the one I quoted as noted below.

Please. When someone refers to "it is noted in Scripture in setting them out, that those who add to Scripture are actually to be put to death", this is a last-ditch gambit to try to establish something that cannot be supported. Literally following this means we must put to death the Apostles.

As far as content, what the Jews accept today as canon has no real issues – and they will agree it comes from an official concept of Judaism. I think what you mean is, because it is not declared official by the RCC, then it cannot be.

This is not about the "RCC". This is about a scholarly study of what led to the development of an official canon. Why must you ATTEMPT to make this a polemic issue of apologetics? I have not once invoked any sort of Catholic doctrine or determination of the Canon, nor its inherent authority given to it by Christ Himself... I am questioning YOUR understanding of things based upon other subjects. Go back and read my posts, if you doubt me...

And for the NT, establishing content again is a science most involved from manuscript analysis, and an issue not having the significance you would like to attribute.

Bring it. Don't threaten me. If you think you can prove it, why not put your money where your mouth is? It is my contention that NOTHING you say will prove that all 27 books can be found to belong to a NT based upon manuscript evidence. AGain, it is begging the question, which I am finding is your favorite tactic.

The Apocrapha was upheld as canon in Alexandria, and we have no evidence at all what Hebrew texts were used to make this translation.

You seem to think that because it is called the "Alexandrian Canon", it was entirely written in the city of Alexandria, and in one codice, as if there were no other Jews in the world who spoke Greek. In reality, more people adhered to the LXX than the Hebrew, EVEN IN PALESTINE! Modern sociologists state the fully 1/3 of Jews living in Palestine spoke Greek. Even some of the Apostles were Greek. Your presumption is based upon the false notion that there were two "canons", one in Hebrew and used ONLY by Hebrew Jews in Palestine, and one in the Diaspora used only by Hellenists. This idea was destroyed nearly 50 years ago with the finding of the Dead Sea Scrolls.

As far as my lacking knowledge, my having a different position than you or a different basis of presenting information actually is not a lack of knowledge, but it is just one more straw man argument on your part.

I don't think so. I had to tell you TWICE that the Saduccess were the custodians of the Temple during the time of Christ. You seem utterly ignorant of that, among other things.

I already addressed what LXX quotations mean. Why did you repeat yourself?

What specifically are you referring to?

The rest is just another Protestant v Catholic rant. Stick to the issues I bring up, please. I have not mentioned anything about Catholics. You claim you can know the Canon by "rules" established that make the Scriptures self-authenticating. When I question that, I become just another blow hard who only talks about Catholic this and Catholic that. In this post of yours, did you even address ONE question I raised??? No, it is about defending the party line by attacking me, completely ignoring several key things I bring up.

1. The Writings were not canonized before Josephus wrote. Jesus did not identify any "Writing". We don't know what consisted of the Writings, and your argument is purely anachronistic.
2. I have provided supporting evidence of a multitude of different Jews who had their own extensive "canons", all differing in some way. This questions the so-called "set canon" idea.
3. Not a single peep out of you regarding how we know the Gospels are Scriptures. THE PINNACLE of Christian writing, and you cannot prove it in any manner that it is from God (without a Church to witness to it)
4. Jewish sources that you rely on utterly reject the Christian writings. You don't even recognize that this damages your position and makes it untenable.
5. Christians who did not have an axe to grind with future Protestants select works that they thought came from an inspired source, the LXX. They used it and cite "apocrypha" just as if they were Isaiah or Jeremiah. They cite it because they were readily available IN PALESTINE and most were written in Greek AND Hebrew at some point.

If all you intend on doing is ignoring my critique of your article based upon the shortcomings and inaccuracies it offers, you are only proving that your position is worthless.

Regards

 

[dadof10]

M-Paul. Your turn. I hope you and Francis will keep this line going. It's very interesting.

Here is something that I thought I would post that attacks the notion of a set canon before the destruction of the Temple in 70 AD...

"In sum, then, the three different descriptions of books other than the Law and the Prophets in the prologue of Sirach do not reflect a fixed third collection nor is a closed canon evident in 2 Maccabees description of Nehemiahs collected library of "books about the kings and prophets and the writings of David and letters of kings about sacred gifts." ... The post-70 dating of the rabbinic revision of the Scriptures holds Josephus claimed long-standing text and canon in question. The Qumran sect and early Christians had and used apocryphal writings in ways indistinguishable from their use of Law and Prophets; apocryphal literature appears to have circulated among Pharisees before 70 as well as after. It is probable that early Christians adopted the use of the apocryphal literature from what appeared to them as quite common usage in pre-70 Judaism. The Kaige Recension, including, as it did, Baruch and the long form of Daniel augurs against a closed rabbinic canon at the change of the era. The Book of Daniel, appearing, as it does, in usually non-canonical textual from at Qumran also counters a closed canon before 68 C.E. It therefore appears well founded that early Christianity received its heritage of religious writings including apocryphal writings from a practice in pre-70 Judaism that included Pharisees, the Qumran sect, and, perhaps, many nonaligned in Judaism."

http://department.monm.edu/classics/Speel_Festschrift/sundbergJr.htm

The notion that there was a closed canon prior to the fall of Jerusalem is very questionable, given the study of the use of Hebrew writings of the apocrypha prior to the fall of Jerusalem. Considering Josephus is not including the Christian writings should be a clarion call to those who think that the Pharisees are worthy of setting CHRISTIAN canon. It is entirely inconsistent.

Regards

Your posts here have been really interesting. I haven't delved too deeply into the whole "Canon" issue (I'm saving it for retirement) .

I've read articles written by Protestants that claim the OT Canon was set "before Jamnia", but none that really answer the main question for me, "who cares when the Jews closed the canon, they were wrong because they leave out the entire NT." I've never been able to find a reasonable answer to the questions of Jewish authority AFTER Pentecost, and why we, as Christians accept the whole idea of a Jewish "closed canon" in the first place, unless, of course, it can be proved that Christ did.

Anyway, it seems that M-Paul is pretty much done here. Too bad, it was getting really interesting.

 

[shad]

Anyway, it seems that M-Paul is pretty much done here. Too bad, it was getting really interesting.

Dad,

You and Francis belittle and ridicule posters who don't agree with you. Christians who are mature will not continue on with mockers because it is not a good practice as Jesus' followers.

 

[francisdesales]

Dad,

Here is some more stuff on why we as Christians are to reject Pharisaical determination of what was inspired...

Michael Barber suggests that "the canonical status of the books were decided, at least in part, on the grounds of the date of their composition—no books believed to be written later than the period of Ezra were included. This was based in large part on the Pharisaic thesis that prophetic inspiration ended after Ezra and Nehemiah." Barber points out that this thesis is a "problematic criterion for Christians who affirm that the Spirit inspired the books of the New Testament". He also points out that it is also "problematic for some scholars who believe that several canonical books—e. g., Daniel, Esther, Song of Songs, Proverbs, the books of Chronicles—date to a much later period. According to some, Daniel is even later than some of the “apocrypha.".

Loose Canons: The Development of the Old Testament.

So we are supposed to rely on men who claim that all inspiration by God has stopped hundreds of years BEFORE Christianity? Upon closer expectation, these rabbis did not even hold to their own rules, allowing the inspiration of books written much later than Ezra...

What were the Jewish motives?

Barber asserts that "one thing that is clear about the canonical process used by the rabbis is that it was motivated in part by an anti-Christian bias."

“Even the final closing of the Hebrew canon by the Pharisaic teachers, constituting themselves as rabbinate toward the end of the first century – a process that lasted into the middle of the second century with respect to individual books and that presupposes a long period of preparation reaching back into pre-Christian times – must be categorized as ‘anti-heretical’, indeed anti-Christian.â€
According to Barber, the various discussions in the Mishnah regarding the exclusion of Sirach and the latter apocrypha indicate that these texts were rejected because they were being read among the Christians. He asserts that it is well-known that the stabilization of the Masoretic Text and canon was shaped by an anti-Christian polemic.

Loose Canons: The Development of the Old Testament.

So we are told that we are to follow the determination of the Jewish survivors of the fall of Jerusalem and their determination of "what is inspired" when they obviously had an agenda and were inconsistent in the application of determining canon???

The argument must be set aside as spurious, especially when we consider the multiple Jewish sects that co-existed during the time of Christ and the free flowing acceptance of "Writings" by these multiple groups, to include the Pharisees, men who would have no problem with writings that included angels and talk about life after death.

Regards

 

[francisdesales]

Anyway, it seems that M-Paul is pretty much done here. Too bad, it was getting really interesting.

Dad,

You and Francis belittle and ridicule posters who don't agree with you. Christians who are mature will not continue on with mockers because it is not a good practice as Jesus' followers.

Shad,

If you have nothing to add to the topic of the thread, I would suggest you not say anything - as you are trolling now. Further such action will be reported to the Moderators and you will be counseled again.

 

[francisdesales]

I've read articles written by Protestants that claim the OT Canon was set "before Jamnia", but none that really answer the main question for me, "who cares when the Jews closed the canon, they were wrong because they leave out the entire NT." I've never been able to find a reasonable answer to the questions of Jewish authority AFTER Pentecost, and why we, as Christians accept the whole idea of a Jewish "closed canon" in the first place, unless, of course, it can be proved that Christ did.

Anyway, it seems that M-Paul is pretty much done here. Too bad, it was getting really interesting.

I did a lot of research about 6 years ago on this subject while at freerepublic.com. I am now posting that research here. It is interesting how the Fathers had no problems with citing these "apocrypha" as Scriptures...

OT Deuterocanonicals explicitly accepted as Scripture

Epistle of Barnabas; Wisdom
Clement of Rome; Wisdom
Didache; Sirach
Polycarp; Tobit
Melito of Sardes; gives a list including Daniel and Wisdom, possibly Baruch
Irenaeus; Daniel (*see below) and Baruch
Tertullian; Wisdom, Daniel, and Baruch
Muratorian Fragment ; gives a list including Wisdom in the NT
Clement of Alexandria; Sirach, Baruch, Tobit and Wisdom
Hippolytus; Maccabees, Tobit, Wisdom, Baruch and Daniel
Origen; Maccabees, Wisdom, Baruch, Daniel, Tobit and Sirach
Cyprian; Maccabees, Wisdom, Daniel, Tobit and Sirach
Dionysius the Great; Wisdom, Sirach
Lactanius; Sirach
Alexander of Alexandria; Sirach
Aphraates the Persian Sage; Maccabees and Sirach
Cyril of Jerusalem includes a “canon†list with 2nd Esdras Daniel and Baruch. He later calls Wisdom Scripture, indicating that canon does not equal Scripture, as we define it. Canon means those books to be proclaimed at Mass. This is a common misunderstanding for some not familiar with the use of the difference between "inspired" and "canon".
Athanasius; Baruch, Daniel, Sirach and Tobit he calls Scripture explicitly. He also lists Wisdom, Judith, Tobit as among those to be read for new converts. Note Tobit is on both lists, so he, like Cyril, does not equate canon with Scripture as we do today. The second list are not to be proclaimed during the Liturgy.
Basil; Maccabees, Judith, Wisdom, Baruch, Daniel and Sirach
Hilary of Poitiers; Daniel, Baruch, Maccabees, and Wisdom. He also lists Tobit and Judith in his list of Scripture.
Gregory of Nazianzen; Daniel, Maccabees, Wisdom, Judith
Gregory of Nyssa; Wisdom, Daniel
Ambrose; Wisdom, Judith, Daniel, Baruch, Maccabees, Tobit and Sirach
John Chrysostom; Tobit, Baruch, Wisdom, Sirach, Maccabees, and Daniel
Jerome; lists 1st Maccabees and later Sirach (called “Parables†in Hebrew form) as Scripture and discounts the other Deuterocanonicals SOLELY on the grounds that there are no Hebrew versions of them (this is why he includes 1st Maccabees and later Sirach). He also equates Baruch with Scripture right along with Ezekiel.

Council of Rome, Decree of Pope Damasus (A.D. 382); All Deuterocanonicals of Roman Catholic Church included.

Council of Hippo; Canon 36 (A.D. 393).

Council of Carthage III; Canon 397 (A.D. 397).

* (all references to Daniel refer to the longer Septuagint, not Hebrew version.)

I stop at 400 AD. The above shows that there was a developing idea of these books and whether they were inspired works of God. As time continues, we see more of the Deuterocanonicals were declared as inspired Scripture, right alongside other Protocanonicals. A Father’s failure to mention a book as Scripture is not evidence of his exclusion. Also, there is NO evidence to suggest, besides Jerome, that ANY Father thought that the Deuterocanonicals were NOT inspired or Scripture. I have not found one instance of this negative being mentioned explicitly. With the evidence, it becomes clear that we can safely conclude that the Catholic Church correctly decided to incorporate the Deuterocanonicals into the Bible and declare all books thus as Scripture and inspired by God. We have no reason to believe that they were poorly informed or purposely mislead the future Church on the subject of what was Scripture. It becomes apparent that continuing to hold to this idea shows a philosophy without justification.

I hope all finds this useful...

Regards

 

[M-Paul]

Francis,

I brought up the importance of the issue of how the canon is established, as it explains the nature of your responses, and of how the Catholic Church responds in general.

Basically, our conversation resembles what happens when Protestants ask for an explanation from Catholics on why they made special celebrations of Hitler's birthday with parties in Berlin, and offered prayers to his honor on their altars, or why they signed a pact with Hitler and then declared neutrality during the war, or why they refused to denounce the mass executions of the Jews when confronted with the evidence of what was occurring, but did denounce the bombing of Rome by the Allies (mainly Protestant societies at that time) to move the Nazis out. There really is no explanation for it that is moral, but as it disgraces the authority of the RCC, there are responses by Catholics that give a never ending, unrelenting, continuous run around. (And if you say I reference what is not at issue, then delete first from your posts all your explanations for how I respond).

You have no choice but to invent methods to refute the Protestant position, as it destroys what the RCC claims to be. To note that the OT recognized by the Jews is not based on official Judaic authority that goes back even centuries before the Jamnia decision, which only confirmed what had existed for centuries, is nothing short of ridiculous. The Jamnia decision reflects what the people who were in control of the temple decided on Canon, many centuries earlier and continuing, which has not changed. No Jews in an official capacity have ever admitted to any other canon. However, it is convenient for the Catholic church to note, to grasp at, any facts that could possibly indicate otherwise.

To say that the NT could be referring to what splinter groups of Jews held as the canon is merely to exaggerate the significance of facts that might be found that are helpful to Catholics. In like manner, the bulk of evidence on the Apocrypha arises from Alexandria, and the Palestinian connection is subject mostly to speculation. However, as I noted, a translator does not qualify as an inspired prophet, and we do not have the Hebrew originals, nor do we know how many translations occurred, or how many revision there were.

In my article, I did not cut and paste. Again, you continue your personal attacks against me. It merely indicates the futility of your responses. My article is the result of years of study. I do not plagiarize – never, ever, ever. I have no motive to threaten you about anything, as I think the true nature of your responses are extremely obvious, and as I do not think threatening people is Christian – which I think is why you accuse me of it.

Your reference to putting the apostles to death on the basis of Deuteronomy is just as ridiculous. An apostle is the equivalent of a prophet, but with a mission outside the Jewish community. He still had to verify inspiration by being able to predict the future and miracles. His writings could not go in the temple, as by this time, the Jews rejected Christ. The temple books indicate OT canon. However, the NT writings are confirmed by internal evidence, and by the reliance of the early Christian community. That includes the Gospels.

The content of the NT is verified by thousands of manuscripts and quotations by the early fathers, and a majority of this evidence establishes what they consist of. This much is extremely common knowledge. However, Westcott and Hort put out a theory in the 19th century on why some of the content should be thrown out or changed. This went on to become the Critical Text – which is accepted by the RCC and basically Evangelical scholars. W&H noted that when the manuscripts were studied again on the basis of their theory, evidence would arise as proof. It is commonly taught that this evidence does exist – but that is a lie. After 130 years of study, we are still waiting for the evidence.

Francis, basically I have answered you most adequately, but you do not recognize it and you change the meaning of what I write.

Now, what is the basis of how the Catholics established the canon? Is it just that they are prophets, and what they say is the canon is the truth and does not need criterion? Then, why did they not include some good recipes from the Pope's kitchen at his palace, maybe for chicken soup, a lamb stew, or some pudding? Hmmm.... is it possible that they thought they were using Scriptural principles, but they got it wrong? I think they just said, they are the people with the authority, so what reasons they have are the truth, and no one has the right to question them. Hmm... but Philo was not a prophet, so I really don't care what he said. In fact, according to Deuteronomy 18:18-22, I only have to listen to a prophet of God. I do not have to be afraid of anyone else, who is not confirmed as a prophet, but who merely presumes to speak on the part of God – like the RCC. So all I have for an ultimate authority is the writings of the prophets, the Bible.

 

[francisdesales]

Francis,

I brought up the importance of the issue of how the canon is established, as it explains the nature of your responses, and of how the Catholic Church responds in general.

Right. Your first post was not about how the OT canon was established, but why Protestants are not understood by Catholics and presenting the usual propaganda. It mentions nothing about Judaism, rabbinical studies, Ancient Palestine or the relationship between the LXX and the "Palestinean Canon"... Then, you brought up the Waldenses. It is clear what your motives are here... Look at your posts. They are more about polemics between Catholics and Protestants (the Waldenses is just part of the attempt to circumvent the Catholic Church and its heritage in providing us the Scriptures).

Thus, your contribution is not about scholarly discussion on the canon, but rather, defending the Protestant party line by eliminating the NEED of a community to witness to a Sacred set of Writings. Thus, you attempt to put forth ANOTHER "community" that supposedly existed to Apostolic days.

Go look at your first post. It is more about Catholic v Protestant apologetics than any scholarly discussion...

Basically, our conversation resembles what happens when Protestants ask for an explanation from Catholics on why ...

Excuse me if I ignore this rant... I am the one offering evidence for my point of view, which is not dependent upon what the Catholic Church actually did or did not do in the fourth century. You are the one who refuses to address the issues on canonicity that I bring up. Thus, your continued tantrums and my asking you to respond to my critique.

To note that the OT recognized by the Jews is not based on official Judaic authority that goes back even centuries before the Jamnia decision, which only confirmed what had existed for centuries, is nothing short of ridiculous.

What "official Judaic authority" are you talking about? Again, you have no clue about ancient OR Rabbinical Judaism. Consensus is formed over many years of community use and acceptance. Judaism does not have an official authority a la Catholicism, which is why calling "Jamnia" a "council" or a "synod" is ridiculous. Esther, Canticles and Ecclessiastics were discussed WELL AFTER 90 AD!!! Have you read any recent (last 75 years) writings that have refuted the Graetz position (COUNCIL at Jamnia) from 1871??? EVEN GRAETZ admits that only with the writing of the Mishna in 189 CE was the canon "CLOSED". Your view is widely refuted as anachronistic, applying a Christian mentality (the ideas of synods and councils) upon rabbinical Judaism.

But by your word alone without any evidence, we must call such things "ridiculous", strictly based on the fact that you say so??? As we continue, it is becoming clear who is providing evidence and who is blowing smoke.

The Jamnia decision reflects what the people who were in control of the temple decided on Canon

I see you are not reading my posts. No, this is just more repetition of the "game plan" without any consideration in addressing reality...

This is the fourth time I have had to correct you on WHO was in charge of the Temple. The Sadducees were. Now, do some research on "Hasmonean Dynasty"... Even the Bible itself states that the Sadducees allied themselves with the Romans, and it was the Romans who destroyed the Hasmonean Dynasty in 63 BCE. The Sadducees, rich and upper class men, allied themselves with the Romans and established themselves as the ruling "party" over the Pharisees. The Sadducees were completely destroyed as custodians of the Temple and ruling party of Judea during the Fall of Jerusalem. Thus, IF the "Jamnia decision" (which there was none) reflected who controlled the Canon, then the Canon is relegated to five books, the Pentateuch.

many centuries earlier and continuing, which has not changed. No Jews in an official capacity have ever admitted to any other canon. However, it is convenient for the Catholic church to note, to grasp at, any facts that could possibly indicate otherwise.

I have not mentioned anything about the Catholic Church. YOU are the one jousting with windmills here... Address what I write, if you can...

To say that the NT could be referring to what splinter groups of Jews held as the canon is merely to exaggerate the significance of facts that might be found that are helpful to Catholics. In like manner, the bulk of evidence on the Apocrypha arises from Alexandria, and the Palestinian connection is subject mostly to speculation.

When discussing the Old Testament canon, what significance does the New Testament have? This is a red herring because you have nothing noteworthy to add, nor do you provide any evidence for your ideas. Note, again, you must bring up "Catholic", attempting to poison the well with any other person reading these posts.

In my article, I did not cut and paste. Again, you continue your personal attacks against me.

Your lack of knowledge makes it appear that you merely cut and paste from another Protestant apologetic website. I had really hoped that I was addressing someone who actually had some knowledge of recent scholarship, esp. based upon the findings at Qumran and the implication it meant for presumptions made in the 19th century and accepted as "infallible" by Protestant apologists (but not scholars).

Your reference to putting the apostles to death on the basis of Deuteronomy is just as ridiculous.

Why did you bring it up? Why would someone bring up allusions to Deuteronomy or Revelation about not adding to the what is written? Only a Protestant apologist who has not thought out the end result. A lack of proper exegesis twists the passage to ATTEMPT to make some case that the "apocrypha" is a late addition to the Bible, already "set in stone", so we must cast out these books. Obviously, it doesn't take into account that the New Testament was ALL added to Deuteronomy as Sacred Scriptures, so your "logic", if i may be so kind, is pitiful - it has us stoning the apostles.

An apostle is the equivalent of a prophet, but with a mission outside the Jewish community.

Haven't you read the New Testament?... The mission is to the entire world, TO INCLUDE the Jewish community. Over and over, we have Scriptural witness that the Apostles went to synagogues to preach and that the mission to Jews was carried out by the Apostles, esp. Peter.

He still had to verify inspiration by being able to predict the future and miracles. His writings could not go in the temple, as by this time, the Jews rejected Christ. The temple books indicate OT canon. However, the NT writings are confirmed by internal evidence, and by the reliance of the early Christian community. That includes the Gospels.

What an amazing "begging the question".

Because the Apostle's writings are in the New Testament, they must be canonical writings... See the internal evidence? They are in between a front and back cover called "THE BIBLE", so thus, it is plain to everyone that the internal evidence suggests that the Apostles MUST be divinely inspired and that their writings are all Scriptures...

What an amazing act of "logic"..

So why isn't Thomas Scriptures?

Oh, yea, it's not between the covers of the Bible, so it doesn't belong in there... What an amazing circular argument.

Oh, the depths people will go to destroy the Church and her role in the life of a Christian...

The content of the NT is verified by thousands of manuscripts and quotations by the early fathers

None of which proves what actually belongs in a codice called "Sacred Scriptures". Having a manuscript AFTER the Bible has already been 'canonized' is putting the cart before the buggy. Having a manuscript BEFORE the Bible was canonized is meaningless, because we also have manuscripts of NON-CANONICAL works... Thus, the possession of manuscripts of individual writings is of no value in determining the canon.

Francis, basically I have answered you most adequately, but you do not recognize it and you change the meaning of what I write.

You have answered NONE of my questions!!!

You merely presume that number 1 is false without any supporting evidence. Just repeating it means nothing.
Same with number 2, but it is based upon incorrect or lack of knowledge that is readily available in any Jewish history book.
Number 3 is a huge circular argument, so it does not answer how the NT canon was ACTUALLY compiled.
#4 and 5 you ignore. Here they are again for you...


1.The Writings were not canonized before Josephus wrote. Jesus did not identify any "Writing". We don't know what consisted of the Writings, and your argument is purely anachronistic.
2. I have provided supporting evidence of a multitude of different Jews who had their own extensive "canons", all differing in some way. This questions the so-called "set canon" idea.
3. Not a single peep out of you regarding how we know the Gospels are Scriptures. THE PINNACLE of Christian writing, and you cannot prove it in any manner that it is from God (without a Church to witness to it)
4. Jewish sources that you rely on utterly reject the Christian writings. You don't even recognize that this damages your position and makes it untenable.
5. Christians who did not have an axe to grind with future Protestants select works that they thought came from an inspired source, the LXX. They used it and cite "apocrypha" just as if they were Isaiah or Jeremiah. They cite it because they were readily available IN PALESTINE and most were written in Greek AND Hebrew at some point.

To answer your question on how Catholics come to a realization of what the canon is, the answer is no big secret, as every other religion with sacred writings does the same thing. Over a course of time and useage, the community comes to gradually accept the writings of so and so as inspired by God. An external event triggers the need to distinguish and co-late these writings into one "book" while rejecting others. For Christians, it was largely Marcion, who wanted to get rid of the entire OT. Thus, to prevent a truncated faith from taking over, Catholic leadership began to compile what they felt was worthy of being called inspired and what was considered canonical (the two are not the same thing). It has survived the test of time because the Church of today considers the past judgment as guided by God's Spirit Himself.

Thus, it is a community that witnesses to the sacred writing's veracity, not some inconsistent, incomplete and fallacious "rules of thumb" like you try to pass off.

The good thing about this conversation is two fold: People are learing about ancient Judaism and work on how the canon came to be, and secondly, Protestant apologists cannot make a case for their presumptions. Admitting that the Catholic Church has provided the modern era with the Scriptures intact does not have to be an admittance that a Protestant is "on the wrong side of the fence". Many Protestants admit this, to include Martin Luther himself!

Regards

 

[dadof10]

Dad,

Here is some more stuff on why we as Christians are to reject Pharisaical determination of what was inspired...

Michael Barber suggests that "the canonical status of the books were decided, at least in part, on the grounds of the date of their composition—no books believed to be written later than the period of Ezra were included. This was based in large part on the Pharisaic thesis that prophetic inspiration ended after Ezra and Nehemiah." Barber points out that this thesis is a "problematic criterion for Christians who affirm that the Spirit inspired the books of the New Testament". He also points out that it is also "problematic for some scholars who believe that several canonical books—e. g., Daniel, Esther, Song of Songs, Proverbs, the books of Chronicles—date to a much later period. According to some, Daniel is even later than some of the “apocrypha.".

Loose Canons: The Development of the Old Testament.

So we are supposed to rely on men who claim that all inspiration by God has stopped hundreds of years BEFORE Christianity? Upon closer expectation, these rabbis did not even hold to their own rules, allowing the inspiration of books written much later than Ezra...

What were the Jewish motives?

Barber asserts that "one thing that is clear about the canonical process used by the rabbis is that it was motivated in part by an anti-Christian bias."

“Even the final closing of the Hebrew canon by the Pharisaic teachers, constituting themselves as rabbinate toward the end of the first century – a process that lasted into the middle of the second century with respect to individual books and that presupposes a long period of preparation reaching back into pre-Christian times – must be categorized as ‘anti-heretical’, indeed anti-Christian.â€
According to Barber, the various discussions in the Mishnah regarding the exclusion of Sirach and the latter apocrypha indicate that these texts were rejected because they were being read among the Christians. He asserts that it is well-known that the stabilization of the Masoretic Text and canon was shaped by an anti-Christian polemic.

Loose Canons: The Development of the Old Testament.

So we are told that we are to follow the determination of the Jewish survivors of the fall of Jerusalem and their determination of "what is inspired" when they obviously had an agenda and were inconsistent in the application of determining canon???

The argument must be set aside as spurious, especially when we consider the multiple Jewish sects that co-existed during the time of Christ and the free flowing acceptance of "Writings" by these multiple groups, to include the Pharisees, men who would have no problem with writings that included angels and talk about life after death.

Regards

Mr. Barber puts the "the final closing of the Hebrew canon" at a date "toward the end of the first century". That puts a hole in M-Paul's early canonization theory.

I have discussed the concept of a "closed canon" with many Protestants through the years and have yet to get a logical answer to the question; "why do you consider the canon closed at all?" Unless you have an authority that can close it, it should be assumed to be still open.

The canon was obviously open when Peter wrote his second letter.

"So also our beloved brother Paul wrote to you according to the wisdom given him, 16 speaking of this as he does in all his letters. There are some things in them hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do the other scriptures". (2Peter (RSV) 3)

According to Peter, a good Jew, Paul's letters COULD BE ADDED to Scripture, thus the open canon. Maybe EGW and Joe Smith are right.

 

[dadof10]

I've read articles written by Protestants that claim the OT Canon was set "before Jamnia", but none that really answer the main question for me, "who cares when the Jews closed the canon, they were wrong because they leave out the entire NT." I've never been able to find a reasonable answer to the questions of Jewish authority AFTER Pentecost, and why we, as Christians accept the whole idea of a Jewish "closed canon" in the first place, unless, of course, it can be proved that Christ did.

Anyway, it seems that M-Paul is pretty much done here. Too bad, it was getting really interesting.

I did a lot of research about 6 years ago on this subject while at freerepublic.com. I am now posting that research here. It is interesting how the Fathers had no problems with citing these "apocrypha" as Scriptures...

OT Deuterocanonicals explicitly accepted as Scripture

Epistle of Barnabas; Wisdom
Clement of Rome; Wisdom
Didache; Sirach
Polycarp; Tobit
Melito of Sardes; gives a list including Daniel and Wisdom, possibly Baruch
Irenaeus; Daniel (*see below) and Baruch
Tertullian; Wisdom, Daniel, and Baruch
Muratorian Fragment ; gives a list including Wisdom in the NT
Clement of Alexandria; Sirach, Baruch, Tobit and Wisdom
Hippolytus; Maccabees, Tobit, Wisdom, Baruch and Daniel
Origen; Maccabees, Wisdom, Baruch, Daniel, Tobit and Sirach
Cyprian; Maccabees, Wisdom, Daniel, Tobit and Sirach
Dionysius the Great; Wisdom, Sirach
Lactanius; Sirach
Alexander of Alexandria; Sirach
Aphraates the Persian Sage; Maccabees and Sirach
Cyril of Jerusalem includes a “canon†list with 2nd Esdras Daniel and Baruch. He later calls Wisdom Scripture, indicating that canon does not equal Scripture, as we define it. Canon means those books to be proclaimed at Mass. This is a common misunderstanding for some not familiar with the use of the difference between "inspired" and "canon".
Athanasius; Baruch, Daniel, Sirach and Tobit he calls Scripture explicitly. He also lists Wisdom, Judith, Tobit as among those to be read for new converts. Note Tobit is on both lists, so he, like Cyril, does not equate canon with Scripture as we do today. The second list are not to be proclaimed during the Liturgy.
Basil; Maccabees, Judith, Wisdom, Baruch, Daniel and Sirach
Hilary of Poitiers; Daniel, Baruch, Maccabees, and Wisdom. He also lists Tobit and Judith in his list of Scripture.
Gregory of Nazianzen; Daniel, Maccabees, Wisdom, Judith
Gregory of Nyssa; Wisdom, Daniel
Ambrose; Wisdom, Judith, Daniel, Baruch, Maccabees, Tobit and Sirach
John Chrysostom; Tobit, Baruch, Wisdom, Sirach, Maccabees, and Daniel
Jerome; lists 1st Maccabees and later Sirach (called “Parables†in Hebrew form) as Scripture and discounts the other Deuterocanonicals SOLELY on the grounds that there are no Hebrew versions of them (this is why he includes 1st Maccabees and later Sirach). He also equates Baruch with Scripture right along with Ezekiel.

Council of Rome, Decree of Pope Damasus (A.D. 382); All Deuterocanonicals of Roman Catholic Church included.

Council of Hippo; Canon 36 (A.D. 393).

Council of Carthage III; Canon 397 (A.D. 397).

* (all references to Daniel refer to the longer Septuagint, not Hebrew version.)

I stop at 400 AD. The above shows that there was a developing idea of these books and whether they were inspired works of God. As time continues, we see more of the Deuterocanonicals were declared as inspired Scripture, right alongside other Protocanonicals. A Father’s failure to mention a book as Scripture is not evidence of his exclusion. Also, there is NO evidence to suggest, besides Jerome, that ANY Father thought that the Deuterocanonicals were NOT inspired or Scripture. I have not found one instance of this negative being mentioned explicitly. With the evidence, it becomes clear that we can safely conclude that the Catholic Church correctly decided to incorporate the Deuterocanonicals into the Bible and declare all books thus as Scripture and inspired by God. We have no reason to believe that they were poorly informed or purposely mislead the future Church on the subject of what was Scripture. It becomes apparent that continuing to hold to this idea shows a philosophy without justification.

I hope all finds this useful...

Regards

Wow, at first glance this is irrefutable. I'll read more deeply when I have more time. Now what am I supposed to do when I retire???

 

[dadof10]

Anyway, it seems that M-Paul is pretty much done here. Too bad, it was getting really interesting.

Dad,

You and Francis belittle and ridicule posters who don't agree with you. Christians who are mature will not continue on with mockers because it is not a good practice as Jesus' followers.

By the tone of his last post, he seemed to be winding down. How is pointing this out "belittling"? Please point to where I "belittled" M-Paul. I'll give you a lesson on how you point something out here on these boards, because you seem to be having a hard time with this simple concept.

First, you make the accusation, for example:

You, Shad are attacking me personally.

Then you show them their words to prove it to them and everyone else.

Christians who are mature will not continue on with mockers because it is not a good practice as Jesus' followers.

Just consider this a service, you don't owe me anything. You're welcome...

 

[Physicist]

If you study The Bible first and become familiar with it, only then will you know how the Apocrypha books fall short. And you'll especially know about false works someone claims should be included in The Bible.

The reason is simple. The existing Books of The Bible weave together and support each other in doctrine and events to a degree that is unmistakeable when compared to each other. That was one of the measures to show they belong. But the Apocryphal books don't do that. The Book of Enoch (Ehtiopic translation) has many comparable prophecies that align with The Bible canon, but it also includes events that have little support or no mention in The Bible.
.

If I interpret your argument correctly, it seems somewhat factually false and also circular to me. Taking the latter first, the existing books were selected (and modified) because a particular Christian sect(Catholics,later Protestants) chose those that supported their stance while rejecting others. Earlier, the Marcionites put together a canon that did the same for their viewpoint. It appears to me that you are claiming that your viewpoint is corrrect because it agrees with your viewpoint.

However, since the early Catholic church was a mixture of philosophies that had to be reconciled politically, some variance in thought shows through. if one examines the roots of the NT texts, one can detect hints of original disagreements between the authors. While later scribes modified the works to paper over the differences, one cannot fail to recognize the differences between, say, the Mark Jesus and the John Jesus.