The apocryphal books

[thessalonian]

bbas,

To what point am I making that you think basil refutes? :o Oh I suppose I have a guess. You are quite wrong if that is the case but I will let you answer.

Kind of funny how you have not posted your views on Jaminca??

Are you asking if it occured? I am not sure but I don't think it did. However I do think some Palestinian Jews got together and declared a canon around that time. I don't know that there was an established canonical list by the Jews before that time.

 

[phatcatholic]

bbas............why do you accept the canon of the Jews. i guess i am no longer clear on why that is. i thought u were saying that it was b/c early christians supported it, but you appeared to reject that interpretation of your position when you said: "I do not think I said a majority of christains said any thing, an appeal to the majority is useless in this issue IMHO."

also, i'm glad that we agree on the point that the reference (or lack of reference) to an OT book in the NT does not prove canonicity. the "NT reference" argument is one that alot of people try to use as a proof against the deuterocanonical books, which is why i brought it up.

thank you for your respectful response to my previous post.

pax christi,
phatcatholic

 

[bbas 64]

bbas............why do you accept the canon of the Jews. i guess i am no longer clear on why that is. i thought u were saying that it was b/c early christians supported it, but you appeared to reject that interpretation of your position when you said: "I do not think I said a majority of christains said any thing, an appeal to the majority is useless in this issue IMHO."

Good Day, Phat

I was responing to your question:

1. the majority of christians denied these books, thus we should too

I am not sure that a majority denied these books, It is clear some did and some did not I do not think there was a majority view. There were of course some people who did not address the issue and some that did directly address it, which is why I posted Jerome, who was cleay a biblical scholar in his day.

Historiclly the canon of the Jews is well established in both the realm of Jewish history and spoken of by the early church and in the NT itself.

also, i'm glad that we agree on the point that the reference (or lack of reference) to an OT book in the NT does not prove canonicity. the "NT reference" argument is one that alot of people try to use as a proof against the deuterocanonical books, which is why i brought it up.

thank you for your respectful response to my previous post.

pax christi,
phatcatholic

I hold just because it is quoted does not defacto make it part of the OT canon. Though the fact that it is may be part of a "reason" but by itself does not make it so.

Peace to u,

Bill

 

[bbas 64]

bbas,

To what point am I making that you think basil refutes? :o Oh I suppose I have a guess. You are quite wrong if that is the case but I will let you answer.

Kind of funny how you have not posted your views on Jaminca??

Are you asking if it occured? I am not sure but I don't think it did. However I do think some Palestinian Jews got together and declared a canon around that time. I don't know that there was an established canonical list by the Jews before that time.

Good Day, Thess

"However I do think some Palestinian Jews got together and declared a canon around that time."

Do you have a historical source for such a thought?

Peace to u,

Bill

 

[phatcatholic]

Good Day, Phat

I was responing to your question:

1. the majority of christians denied these books, thus we should too

I am not sure that a majority denied these books, It is clear some did and some did not I do not think there was a majority view. There were of course some people who did not address the issue and some that did directly address it, which is why I posted Jerome, who was cleay a biblical scholar in his day.

Historiclly the canon of the Jews is well established in both the realm of Jewish history and spoken of by the early church and in the NT itself.

so, you hold to the Jewish canon because it "is well established in both the realm of Jewish history and spoken of by the early church and in the NT itself." that's your reason? are there any other reasons? i am curious about this b/c this doesn't seem to make it any different or better than the Alexandrian canon. afterall, it too was well established in Jewish history and in the testimony of the early church fathers.

let me ask this another way: what makes the Jewish canon better than the Alexandrian canon, and thus the one to follow? surely you see something that differentiates the one from the other and that gives you reason to reject one for the other. so far, it seems that all you have said so far in support of the Jewish canon can just as easily be said about the Alexandrian canon.

i hope i'm making sense. maybe i'm just misunderstanding you. let me know.

pax christi,
phatcatholic

 

[bbas 64]

Good Day, Phat

I was responing to your question:

1. the majority of christians denied these books, thus we should too

I am not sure that a majority denied these books, It is clear some did and some did not I do not think there was a majority view. There were of course some people who did not address the issue and some that did directly address it, which is why I posted Jerome, who was cleay a biblical scholar in his day.

Historiclly the canon of the Jews is well established in both the realm of Jewish history and spoken of by the early church and in the NT itself.

so, you hold to the Jewish canon because it "is well established in both the realm of Jewish history and spoken of by the early church and in the NT itself." that's your reason? are there any other reasons? i am curious about this b/c this doesn't seem to make it any different or better than the Alexandrian canon. afterall, it too was well established in Jewish history and in the testimony of the early church fathers.

let me ask this another way: what makes the Jewish canon better than the Alexandrian canon, and thus the one to follow? surely you see something that differentiates the one from the other and that gives you reason to reject one for the other. so far, it seems that all you have said so far in support of the Jewish canon can just as easily be said about the Alexandrian canon.

i hope i'm making sense. maybe i'm just misunderstanding you. let me know.

pax christi,
phatcatholic

Good Day, Phat

You are making sense, I hope I am. As to the view Alexandrian text of the OT having some expanded contents to that of the Hebrew canon, I find no historical warrant for such a statment. I would be interested in any quotes from the early church one this issue and the Alexandrian text. Better yet if you know of any historical writing from the Jewish prospective that would be great also as the only 2 Jewish historians that I know of the 1-2 nd centuy does not speak of an Alexandrian text.

As one document from the RCC puts it:

There are differences between the Jewish canon of Scripture30 “Lawâ€Â, Nebi'im, “Prophetsâ€Â, and Ketubim, other “Writingsâ€Â. The number 24 was often reduced to 22, the number of letters in the Hebrew alphabet. In the Christian canon, to these 2422 books correspond 39 books, called “protocanonicalâ€Â. The numerical difference is explained by the fact that the Jews regarded as one book several writings that are distinct in the Christian canon, the writings of the Twelve Prophets, for example.] and the Christian canon of the Old Testament.31 To explain these differences, it was generally thought that at the beginning of the Christian era, there existed two canons within Judaism: a Hebrew or Palestinian canon, and an extended Alexandrian canon in Greek  called the Septuagint  which was adopted by Christians.

Recent research and discoveries, however, have cast doubt on this opinion. It now seems more probable that at the time of Christianity's birth, closed collections of the Law and the Prophets existed in a textual form substantially identical with the Old Testament. The collection of “Writingsâ€Â, on the other hand, was not as well defined either in Palestine or in the Jewish diaspora, with regard to the number of books and their textual form. Towards the end of the first century A.D., it seems that 2422 books were generally accepted by Jews as sacred,32 but it is only much later that the list became exclusive.33 When the limits of the Hebrew canon were fixed, the deuterocanonical books were not included.

Many of the books belonging to the third group of religious texts, not yet fixed, were regularly read in Jewish communities during the first century A.D. They were translated into Greek and circulated among Hellenistic Jews, both in Palestine and in the diaspora.

http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congr ... %20Judaism

Peace to u,

Bill

 

[phatcatholic]

so, you hold to the Jewish canon because it "is well established in both the realm of Jewish history and spoken of by the early church and in the NT itself." that's your reason? are there any other reasons? i am curious about this b/c this doesn't seem to make it any different or better than the Alexandrian canon. afterall, it too was well established in Jewish history and in the testimony of the early church fathers.

let me ask this another way: what makes the Jewish canon better than the Alexandrian canon, and thus the one to follow? surely you see something that differentiates the one from the other and that gives you reason to reject one for the other. so far, it seems that all you have said so far in support of the Jewish canon can just as easily be said about the Alexandrian canon.

i hope i'm making sense. maybe i'm just misunderstanding you. let me know.

pax christi,
phatcatholic

Good Day, Phat

You are making sense, I hope I am. As to the view Alexandrian text of the OT having some expanded contents to that of the Hebrew canon, I find no historical warrant for such a statment. I would be interested in any quotes from the early church one this issue and the Alexandrian text. Better yet if you know of any historical writing from the Jewish prospective that would be great also as the only 2 Jewish historians that I know of the 1-2 nd centuy does not speak of an Alexandrian text.

As one document from the RCC puts it:

There are differences between the Jewish canon of Scripture30 “Lawâ€Â, Nebi'im, “Prophetsâ€Â, and Ketubim, other “Writingsâ€Â. The number 24 was often reduced to 22, the number of letters in the Hebrew alphabet. In the Christian canon, to these 2422 books correspond 39 books, called “protocanonicalâ€Â. The numerical difference is explained by the fact that the Jews regarded as one book several writings that are distinct in the Christian canon, the writings of the Twelve Prophets, for example.] and the Christian canon of the Old Testament.31 To explain these differences, it was generally thought that at the beginning of the Christian era, there existed two canons within Judaism: a Hebrew or Palestinian canon, and an extended Alexandrian canon in Greek  called the Septuagint  which was adopted by Christians.

Recent research and discoveries, however, have cast doubt on this opinion. It now seems more probable that at the time of Christianity's birth, closed collections of the Law and the Prophets existed in a textual form substantially identical with the Old Testament. The collection of “Writingsâ€Â, on the other hand, was not as well defined either in Palestine or in the Jewish diaspora, with regard to the number of books and their textual form. Towards the end of the first century A.D., it seems that 2422 books were generally accepted by Jews as sacred,32 but it is only much later that the list became exclusive.33 When the limits of the Hebrew canon were fixed, the deuterocanonical books were not included.

Many of the books belonging to the third group of religious texts, not yet fixed, were regularly read in Jewish communities during the first century A.D. They were translated into Greek and circulated among Hellenistic Jews, both in Palestine and in the diaspora.

http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congr ... %20Judaism

Peace to u,

Bill

well, for one, i'm not really sure how this answers my question. what are you trying to prove with this: that an Alexandrian canon didn't exist? what you have to realize is that when scholars refer to an Alexandrian "canon" they are not referring to an exclusive and fixed list that existed alongside an exclusive and fixed Palestinian canon. instead, we are referring to one group of Jews having a more encompassing understanding than another group of Jews regarding what was considered as Scripture. the Catholic acknowledges that from among the books that the Hellenistic Jews respected, there were also books that even we do not include. so, the point in bringing up these "Jews of the diaspora" is not to prove that a fixed canon identical to the Catholic canon existed at the time of Christ. instead, we are simply attempting to show that it is incorrect to say that "the Jews rejected the deuterocanonical books." we know this b/c the Septuagint contained the deutercanonical books, and it was widely used by the Jews of Jesus' day, including Jesus and the apostles (most of their quotes of the OT line up w/ the Greek OT scriptures instead of the Hebrew).

i still have yet to get a reason from you as to why you hold to the canon that the reformers agreed upon, instead of the canon that the Catholic Church agreed upon. if i've missed it somehow, just point me in the right direction.

pax christi,
phatcatholic

 

[phatcatholic]

bump for bill :smt023

 

[bbas 64]

so, you hold to the Jewish canon because it "is well established in both the realm of Jewish history and spoken of by the early church and in the NT itself." that's your reason? are there any other reasons? i am curious about this b/c this doesn't seem to make it any different or better than the Alexandrian canon. afterall, it too was well established in Jewish history and in the testimony of the early church fathers.

let me ask this another way: what makes the Jewish canon better than the Alexandrian canon, and thus the one to follow? surely you see something that differentiates the one from the other and that gives you reason to reject one for the other. so far, it seems that all you have said so far in support of the Jewish canon can just as easily be said about the Alexandrian canon.

i hope i'm making sense. maybe i'm just misunderstanding you. let me know.

pax christi,
phatcatholic

Good Day, Phat

You are making sense, I hope I am. As to the view Alexandrian text of the OT having some expanded contents to that of the Hebrew canon, I find no historical warrant for such a statment. I would be interested in any quotes from the early church one this issue and the Alexandrian text. Better yet if you know of any historical writing from the Jewish prospective that would be great also as the only 2 Jewish historians that I know of the 1-2 nd centuy does not speak of an Alexandrian text.

As one document from the RCC puts it:

There are differences between the Jewish canon of Scripture30 “Lawâ€Â, Nebi'im, “Prophetsâ€Â, and Ketubim, other “Writingsâ€Â. The number 24 was often reduced to 22, the number of letters in the Hebrew alphabet. In the Christian canon, to these 2422 books correspond 39 books, called “protocanonicalâ€Â. The numerical difference is explained by the fact that the Jews regarded as one book several writings that are distinct in the Christian canon, the writings of the Twelve Prophets, for example.] and the Christian canon of the Old Testament.31 To explain these differences, it was generally thought that at the beginning of the Christian era, there existed two canons within Judaism: a Hebrew or Palestinian canon, and an extended Alexandrian canon in Greek  called the Septuagint  which was adopted by Christians.

Recent research and discoveries, however, have cast doubt on this opinion. It now seems more probable that at the time of Christianity's birth, closed collections of the Law and the Prophets existed in a textual form substantially identical with the Old Testament. The collection of “Writingsâ€Â, on the other hand, was not as well defined either in Palestine or in the Jewish diaspora, with regard to the number of books and their textual form. Towards the end of the first century A.D., it seems that 2422 books were generally accepted by Jews as sacred,32 but it is only much later that the list became exclusive.33 When the limits of the Hebrew canon were fixed, the deuterocanonical books were not included.

Many of the books belonging to the third group of religious texts, not yet fixed, were regularly read in Jewish communities during the first century A.D. They were translated into Greek and circulated among Hellenistic Jews, both in Palestine and in the diaspora.

http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congr ... %20Judaism

Peace to u,

Bill

well, for one, i'm not really sure how this answers my question. what are you trying to prove with this: that an Alexandrian canon didn't exist? what you have to realize is that when scholars refer to an Alexandrian "canon" they are not referring to an exclusive and fixed list that existed alongside an exclusive and fixed Palestinian canon. instead, we are referring to one group of Jews having a more encompassing understanding than another group of Jews regarding what was considered as Scripture. the Catholic acknowledges that from among the books that the Hellenistic Jews respected, there were also books that even we do not include. so, the point in bringing up these "Jews of the diaspora" is not to prove that a fixed canon identical to the Catholic canon existed at the time of Christ. instead, we are simply attempting to show that it is incorrect to say that "the Jews rejected the deuterocanonical books." we know this b/c the Septuagint contained the deutercanonical books, and it was widely used by the Jews of Jesus' day, including Jesus and the apostles (most of their quotes of the OT line up w/ the Greek OT scriptures instead of the Hebrew).

i still have yet to get a reason from you as to why you hold to the canon that the reformers agreed upon, instead of the canon that the Catholic Church agreed upon. if i've missed it somehow, just point me in the right direction.

pax christi,
phatcatholic

Good Day, Phat

I have done the best I can to answer the first question.

As to the second, I am not a Roman Catholic why would I hold to their canon? I am not bound to their decrees of Trent.

I have posted others with in the RCC faith that hold to the canon of the Jews, one in the time of Luther, and Jerome who gives the historical insights of the church in his day.

Why do you disagree with the church of Jerome's day?

Peace to u,

Bill

Sorry been very busy...

 

[phatcatholic]

Good Day, Phat

I have done the best I can to answer the first question.

As to the second, I am not a Roman Catholic why would I hold to their canon? I am not bound to their decrees of Trent.

this is one of the stranger dialogues on the canon i think i have ever had. its like you hold to the protestant canon because...........well..........you just do. you are nowhere nearly as passionate about your reasoning for rejecting the catholic canon as most protestants who engage this topic. you don't even appear to have any reasons at all. its just odd i guess.

also, not being a Catholic is not a reason to reject it. you are more than allowed to accept the fuller canon. the Church would like that all men accept the canon as they have defined it, for it is the Lord's Scripture for all men. that's part of the reason why i defend it, b/c i feel that protestants are being deprived of a portion of God's word.

I have posted others with in the RCC faith that hold to the canon of the Jews, one in the time of Luther, and Jerome who gives the historical insights of the church in his day.

what are you trying to prove with this?

Why do you disagree with the church of Jerome's day?

as i've already said, i don't consider myself in disagreement with the church of Jerome's day, firstly b/c the canon was still up for debate during his lifetime and secondly b/c there were also a great many fathers who attested to the canonicity of the deuterocanonical books.

Sorry been very busy...

as have i. thank you for the gentle reminder to resume this conversation.

pax christi,
phatcatholic