Canonicity of Scripture

[Rebirth In Flames]

I couldn’t think of a better place to ask this question than a denomination directly under Martin Luther, so here it goes. Why is it that we don’t have the books canonized in our bible that the Catholics do? Does any body have any EXACT facts that back up the protestant’s removal of these scriptures? (i.e. the Apocrypha, etc.)



I’ve been a Christian my whole life but never really studied the reformation to the extent that I understood why it is that we threw out those scriptures that are still being studied by the Catholics.

[LuxPerpetua]

Hello, Rebirth in Flames! Welcome. :)

Unfortunately, some of our members who are the most educated in early church history are MIA right now, so I am not sure how thorough of an answer you will be able to get.

I got this from the LCMS website:
Q. What is the Lutheran Church's position or teaching regarding the Apocrypha as found in Roman Catholic Bibles?

A. Martin Luther regarded the Apocrypha as "useful historical" writings which Christians should be familiar with and which should even be read in public worship from time to time. But neither Luther nor the Lutheran church has ever regarded these writings as canonical--i.e., as part of the inspired and inerrant Word of God--since they do not meet the criteria discernible from the Scriptures themselves regarding what constitutes those books belonging to the canon of Scripture.

In addition, this is what I know:

The additional books in question contain historical errors and some in the early church also questioned their canonicity. Protestants follow the books of the Old Testament that were considered canonical by the Jews in Palestine in the 1st century. Both the RCC and the EOC follow the canon of Greek Jews, which includes the extra books (7, I think).

Sorry that I cannot be of more help. This is an area that I really should learn more about. I hope that some of our other members here can do a more thorough job than I did in explaining this. :)

[BBAS 64]

I couldn’t think of a better place to ask this question than a denomination directly under Martin Luther, so here it goes. Why is it that we don’t have the books canonized in our bible that the Catholics do? Does any body have any EXACT facts that back up the protestant’s removal of these scriptures? (i.e. the Apocrypha, etc.)



I’ve been a Christian my whole life but never really studied the reformation to the extent that I understood why it is that we threw out those scriptures that are still being studied by the Catholics.
Good Day, Rebirth in flames

Where did you get the Idea that Luther "took them out" by what historical standard should they be included, I will submit that there were some before Luther who did not see these books as Scripture, and even RC's of his time who did not and some after his time.

You must rember that Luther was a historian as well as a priest and a monk, he was motivated to protect the faith once given to the saints which is born out in history and the study there of.


Our analysis has shown that the vast weight of historical evidence falls on the side of excluding the Apocrypha from the category of canonical Scripture. It is interesting to note that the only two Fathers of the early Church who are considered to be true biblical scholars, Jerome and Origen (and who both spent time in the area of Palestine and were therefore familiar with the Hebrew canon), rejected the Apocrypha. And the near unanimous opinion of the Church followed this view. And coupled with this historical evidence is the fact that these writings have serious internal difficulties in that they are characterized by heresies, inconsistencies and historical inaccuracies which invalidate their being given the status of Scripture. New Catholic Encyclopedia, vol. I (Washington D.C.: Catholic University, 1967), p. 390.

Peace to u,

Bill

[BBAS 64]

Good Day, Rebirth in flames

Here is one more Catholic document that may help you understand.


19. To the Jewish Scriptures which it received as the authentic Word of God, the Christian Church added other Scriptures expressing its faith in Jesus, the Christ. It follows then that the Christian Bible is not composed of one “Testament”, but two “Testaments”, the Old and the New, which have complex, dialectical relationships between them. A study of these relationships is indispensable for anyone who wishes to have a proper appreciation of the links between the Christian Church and the Jewish people. The understanding of these relationships has changed over time. The present chapter offers firstly an overview of these changes, followed by a more detailed study of the basic themes common to both Testaments.

They were added by the Church of Rome to the Jewish Scriptures, thus changing the view of the oracles of God that was given to the Jews.

Peace to u,

Bill

[Rebirth In Flames]

Very interesting.. thanks for the quick replies! (=

God bless.
Matt

[BBAS 64]

Very interesting.. thanks for the quick replies! (=

God bless.
Matt
Good Day, Matt

No problem brother. :wave:

Bill leaves the Lutheran's room before they take my passsssssssssss. Or Lotar comes Backkkkkkkkkk.:P

Peace to u,

Bill

[Spence06]

They were added by the Church of Rome to the Jewish Scriptures, thus changing the view of the oracles of God that was given to the Jews.




Bill, I know this is not OBOB and I am not allowed to debate and I wont but I have to say that qoute is horrible taken out of context in the writing. The full writing can be found; http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/pcb_documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20020212_popolo-ebraico_en.html

That is dealing with the New and Old testament of scripture. Not the books in question on this thread. If that was your intention then I have to say thats incorrect.

Those 7 books were not added to scripture.

As for your first qoute, I am unable to find the context so I will be unable to agree or disagree but from two fathers, many other books were doubted and other books were thought to be inspired by Fathers. Fathers of the Church are not infalliable.

Protestants follow the books of the Old Testament that were considered canonical by the Jews in Palestine in the 1st century.
That could be up to debate because your probally talking about the “Council of Jamnia” which is qouted in Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church was not even a council nor did it have any authority to close such a canon. So that point can be debateable.

But I really just had to write about the first qoute, not start a flame debate because that was not my intentions.

[BBAS 64]

Bill, I know this is not OBOB and I am not allowed to debate and I wont but I have to say that qoute is horrible taken out of context in the writing. The full writing can be found; http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/pcb_documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20020212_popolo-ebraico_en.html

That is dealing with the New and Old testament of scripture. Not the books in question on this thread. If that was your intention then I have to say thats incorrect.

Those 7 books were not added to scripture.

As for your first qoute, I am unable to find the context so I will be unable to agree or disagree but from two fathers, many other books were doubted and other books were thought to be inspired by Fathers. Fathers of the Church are not infalliable.


That could be up to debate because your probally talking about the “Council of Jamnia” which is qouted in Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church was not even a council nor did it have any authority to close such a canon. So that point can be debateable.

But I really just had to write about the first qoute, not start a flame debate because that was not my intentions.Good Day, Spence

The document has to do with the view that Rome has with reguards to:


THE PONTIFICAL BIBLICAL COMMISSION

THE JEWISH PEOPLE
AND THEIR SACRED SCRIPTURES
IN THE CHRISTIAN BIBLE



INDEX



I would ask that it be read in context, I have no intention of misrepresenting the writing here only understanding them. I have many questions on this writting and should open a thread in OBOB on this document.

Peace to u,

Bill

[Spence06]

Yes, the Old and New Testament.

The section in that piece of work that deals with the book in question can be found in section, "E. The Extension of the Canon of Scripture"



16. The title “canon” (Greek kan(o-)n, “rule”) means the list of books which are accepted as inspired by God and having a regulatory function for faith and morals. We are only concerned here with the formation of the canon of the Old Testament.

1. In Judaism

There are differences between the Jewish canon of Scripture30 “Law”, Nebi'im, “Prophets”, and Ketubim, other “Writings”. 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 “protocanonical”. 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.



And it continues.

After that will come your qoute, in another section. That qoute does not deal with the books in question in the intention that the Catholic Church added those books.

Is your intention to show that the Catholic Church added these books or have I misunderstood?

Your more then welcome to open such a thread in OBOB, but the key to understand the focus qoute is that right after it says, " It follows then that the Christian Bible is not composed of one “Testament”, but two “Testaments”. Dealing with two testaments, (New and Old) not the books in question. So the New Testament was added by the Church.


God bless

[BBAS 64]

Good Day,

Just some more context, you all will have to read it for your selfs, if you are so moved to do so.



3. Formation of the Christian Canon





18. The Old Testament of the early Church took different shapes in different regions as the diverse lists from Patristic times show. The majority of Christian writings from the second century, as well as manuscripts of the Bible from the fourth century onwards, made use of or contain a great number of Jewish sacred books, including those which were not admitted into the Hebrew canon. It was only after the Jews had defined their canon that the Church thought of closing its own Old Testament canon. But we are lacking information on the procedure adopted and the reasons given for the inclusion of this or that book in the canon. It is possible, nevertheless, to trace in a general way the evolution of the canon in the Church, both in the East and in the West.

In the East from Origen's time (c. 185-253) there was an attempt to conform Christian usage to the Hebrew canon of 2422 books using various combinations and stratagems. Origen himself knew of the existence of numerous textual differences, which were often considerable, between the Hebrew and the Greek Bible. To this was added the problem of different listings of books. The attempt to conform to the Hebrew text of the Hebrew canon did not prevent Christian authors in the East from utilising in their writings books that were never admitted into the Hebrew canon, or from following the Septuagint text. The notion that the Hebrew canon should be preferred by Christians does not seem to have produced in the Eastern Church either a profound or long-lasting impression.

In the West, the use of a larger collection of sacred books was common and was defended by Augustine. When it came to selecting books to be included in the canon, Augustine (354-430) based his judgement on the constant practice of the Church. At the beginning of the fifth century, councils adopted his position in drawing up the Old Testament canon. Although these councils were regional, the unanimity expressed in their lists represents Church usage in the West.

As regards the textual differences between the Greek and the Hebrew Bible, Jerome based his translation on the Hebrew text. For the deuterocanonical books, he was generally content to correct the Old Latin (translation). From this time on, the Church in the West recognised a twofold biblical tradition: that of the Hebrew text for books of the Hebrew canon, and that of the Greek Bible for the other books, all in a Latin translation.

Based on a time-honoured tradition, the Councils of Florence in 1442 and Trent in 1564 resolved for Catholics any doubts and uncertainties. Their list comprises 73 books, which were accepted as sacred and canonical because they were inspired by the Holy Spirit, 46 for the Old Testament, 27 for the New.36 In this way the Catholic Church received its definitive canon. To determine this canon, it based itself on the Church's constant usage. In adopting this canon, which is larger than the Hebrew, it has preserved an authentic memory of Christian origins, since, as we have seen, the more restricted Hebrew canon is later than the formation of the New Testament.



II.
FUNDAMENTAL THEMES
IN THE JEWISH SCRIPTURES
AND THEIR RECEPTION
INTO FAITH IN CHRIST

19. To the Jewish Scriptures which it received as the authentic Word of God, the Christian Church added other Scriptures expressing its faith in Jesus, the Christ. It follows then that the Christian Bible is not composed of one “Testament”, but two “Testaments”, the Old and the New, which have complex, dialectical relationships between them. A study of these relationships is indispensable for anyone who wishes to have a proper appreciation of the links between the Christian Church and the Jewish people. The understanding of these relationships has changed over time. The present chapter offers firstly an overview of these changes, followed by a more detailed study of the basic themes common to both Testaments.

I would say that if the Church closed it own OT cannon, including some that were not in the Hebrew cannon, then yes they added them to the Hebrew cannon, to come up with thier own OT. I disagree with thier opition in "RED" I think one could make a historical case that they err in that opition. As have some Roman Catholic historians by the way as well as others per my quote from the Catholic encyclopedia.

I am sorry to have run up so much in the Lutheran Board, but I think this is kind of important. Please forgive me.:prayer:

Peace to u,

Bill

[LuxPerpetua]

I'm interested, Bill, so I hope both of you keep chatting. As I stated, I really need to learn more about this issue. :)

[BBAS 64]

I'm interested, Bill, so I hope both of you keep chatting. As I stated, I really need to learn more about this issue. :)
Good Day, Lux:hug:

I would recomend the great Debate of 2004. As it covers many things that surround this issue. As it is 4 hours long.

https://aomin.org/mp3/shop.html?shop=list3

You can Buy the MP3 for 3.00.

Peace to u,

Bill

[Spence06]

I personally don't like Gary Michuta. I would prefer Steve Ray or Dave Armstrong. I personally would love to see James White and Steven Ray to debate the Faith.

I would really ask that you ask your question on OBOB, because I feel that you've severly misunderstood the context because that is not the Catholic Church's position in any shape or form that the 7 books were added by the Church.

[Michelina]

19. To the Jewish Scriptures which it received as the authentic Word of God, the Christian Church added other Scriptures expressing its faith in Jesus, the Christ. It follows then that the Christian Bible is not composed of one “Testament”, but two “Testaments”, the Old and the New, which have complex, dialectical relationships between them.

Hi, Bill! Long time no see!

"To the Jewish Scriptures which it received as the authentic Word of God" = OT

"the Christian Church added other Scriptures expressing ITS faith in Jesus" = NT

"It follows then that the Christian Bible is not composed of one “Testament”, but two “Testaments”, the Old and the New, " = Bible.

You are quoting a Catholic document, Bill. Do you really think they would intend the statement as you take it?

The second group "added" expressed the Church's faith in Jesus, i.e. the NT.

[Axion]

The Bible did not exist as one book until it was codified by the Church, which took place at the end of the 300s AD. Until then there was much dispute about the canonicity of various books, particularly of the New Testament.

For the Old Testament most Christians, including the Apostles, used the Greek Septuagint, which included the books still in Catholic Bibles. Only in the 1st and 2nd Centuries AD did the pharisaic Jews who rejected Jesus produce the shorter canon used in most protestant bibles today.

The original Christian Bible included the 73 books in Catholic Bibles today:

The Decree of Pope St. Damasus I, Council of Rome. 382 A.D.:

"It is likewise decreed: Now, indeed, we must treat of the divine Scriptures: what the universal Catholic Church accepts and what she must shun.
The list of the Old Testament begins: Genesis, one book; Exodus, one book: Leviticus, one book; Numbers, one book; Deuteronomy, one book; Jesus Nave, one book; of Judges, one book; Ruth, one book; of Kings, four books; Paralipomenon, two books; One Hundred and Fifty Psalms, one book; of Solomon, three books: Proverbs, one book; Ecclesiastes, one book; Canticle of Canticles, one book; likewise, Wisdom, one book; Ecclesiasticus(Sirach), one book; Likewise, the list of the Prophets: Isaiah, one book; Jeremias, one book; along with Cinoth, that is, his Lamentations; Ezechiel, one book; Daniel, one book; Osee, one book; Amos, one book; Micheas, one book; Joel, one book; Abdias, one book; Jonas, one book; Nahum, one book; Habacuc, one book; Sophonias, one book; Aggeus, one book; Zacharias, one book; Malachias, one book. Likewise, the list of histories: Job, one book; Tobias, one book; Esdras, two books; Esther, one book; Judith, one book; of Maccabees, two books.
Likewise, the list of the Scriptures of the New and Eternal Testament, which the holy and Catholic Church receives: of the Gospels, one book according to Matthew, one book according to Mark, one book according to Luke, one book according to John. The Epistles of the Apostle Paul, fourteen in number: one to the Romans, two to the Corinthians, one to the Ephesians, two to the Thessalonians, one to the Galatians, one to the Philippians, one to the Colossians, two to Timothy, one to Titus one to Philemon, one to the Hebrews. Likewise, one book of the Apocalypse of John. And the Acts of the Apostles, one book. Likewise, the canonical Epistles, seven in number: of the Apostle Peter, two Epistles; of the Apostle James, one Epistle; of the Apostle John, one Epistle; of the other John, a Presbyter, two Epistles; of the Apostle Jude the Zealot, one Epistle. Thus concludes the canon of the New Testament."


Again, you will notice that there is no substantial difference between what's in this decree and what's in the present Canon.

The Councils of Hippo in 393 AD, 3rd Carthage in 397 AD, and 4th Carthage in 418 AD, as well as the ecumenical councils of Florence and Trent, simply re-affirmed Damasus' orginal listing

[LuxPerpetua]

I personally don't like Gary Michuta. I would prefer Steve Ray or Dave Armstrong. I personally would love to see James White and Steven Ray to debate the Faith.

I would really ask that you ask your question on OBOB, because I feel that you've severly misunderstood the context because that is not the Catholic Church's position in any shape or form that the 7 books were added by the Church.

Actually, non-Lutherans are allowed to debate here in TC so long as things are done respectfully. So, any Catholics who wish to debate this issue or present info, should be, to my knowledge, welcome here. :)

[Bradford]

Catholics on this thread, please note TCCL rule number I

1) Non-Lutherans are reminded, that while their input is welcome and they are permitted to debate, they are not to denigrate, or be dis-respectful towards Lutheran doctrine. The guiding principle is this- "Don’t make a mess in another’s home"


You are premited to debate, as long as it is done in a respectful manner.

[theologia crucis]

Man, I need to get done with the house soon. This would be a good one (though I need to finish up with Ref first).

This (http://shop.cph.org/Product.pasp?txtCatalog=CPHProduct&txtCategory=&txtProductID=531041) is an interesting read and makes a strong argument that the OT canon was closed ~250 years BC...

[BBAS 64]

I personally don't like Gary Michuta. I would prefer Steve Ray or Dave Armstrong. I personally would love to see James White and Steven Ray to debate the Faith.

I would really ask that you ask your question on OBOB, because I feel that you've severly misunderstood the context because that is not the Catholic Church's position in any shape or form that the 7 books were added by the Church.
Good Day, Spence

Come on you have to love the BIG guy. I have seen many times in other internet rooms these debates for James and Dave or Steve have been offered by James, but never accepted. For a one on one full formal, moderated debate of about 3-4 hrs.

I will do that at some point I promise. I ddi not what to come off like I felt that the Roman Catholic church did not have a right to close her own cannon, cause IMO they do.

Peace to u,

Bill

[BBAS 64]

Hi, Bill! Long time no see!

"To the Jewish Scriptures which it received as the authentic Word of God" = OT

"the Christian Church added other Scriptures expressing ITS faith in Jesus" = NT

"It follows then that the Christian Bible is not composed of one “Testament”, but two “Testaments”, the Old and the New, " = Bible.

You are quoting a Catholic document, Bill. Do you really think they would intend the statement as you take it?

The second group "added" expressed the Church's faith in Jesus, i.e. the NT.
Good Day, Michelina :wave:

Hope you have been well, as it has been a while. Did you read post #10. The questioin for me at least is not what the intend, but what the document says. Now if the writters of the document feel that it fails to clearly present what they intended it to say, it is easy enough for them to go back and make notes of their ammendments and change what it says.

Peace to u,

Bill

[Michelina]

Good Day, Michelina :wave:
Hope you have been well, as it has been a while. Did you read post #10. The questioin for me at least is not what the intend, but what the document says. Now if the writters of the document feel that it fails to clearly present what they intended it to say, it is easy enough for them to go back and make notes of their ammendments and change what it says. Peace to u, Bill

Hi, Bill! Good to hear from you. It has been quite a while.

No, there isn't any reason for them to change the statement. It is perfectly clear. What the document says is that the Bible is composed of the OT and the NT. The part that you are misinterpreting is what the Church says about the Church adding the NT (i.e., the Church's expression of its faith) to the OT. The text is clear.

The text is about the relationship between the OT and the NT. Nothing else.

II. FUNDAMENTAL THEMES IN THE JEWISH SCRIPTURES AND THEIR RECEPTION INTO FAITH IN CHRIST

19. To the Jewish Scriptures which it received as the authentic Word of God, the Christian Church

added other Scriptures expressing its faith in Jesus, the Christ.


It follows then that the Christian Bible is not composed of one “Testament”, but two “Testaments”, the Old and the New... ,

which have complex, dialectical relationships between them. A study of these relationships is indispensable for anyone who wishes to have a proper appreciation of the links between the Christian Church and the Jewish people. The understanding of these relationships has changed over time. The present chapter offers firstly an overview of these changes, followed by a more detailed study of the basic themes common to both Testaments.

A. Christian Understanding of the relationships between the Old and New Testaments

1. Affirmation of a reciprocal relationship




Love and Prayers!

[BBAS 64]

Hi, Bill! Good to hear from you. It has been quite a while.

No, there isn't any reason for them to change the statement. It is perfectly clear. What the document says is that the Bible is composed of the OT and the NT. The part that you are misinterpreting is what the Church says about the Church adding the NT (i.e., the Church's expression of its faith) to the OT. The text is clear.

The text is about the relationship between the OT and the NT. Nothing else.

II. FUNDAMENTAL THEMES IN THE JEWISH SCRIPTURES AND THEIR RECEPTION INTO FAITH IN CHRIST

19. To the Jewish Scriptures which it received as the authentic Word of God, the Christian Church

added other Scriptures expressing its faith in Jesus, the Christ.


It follows then that the Christian Bible is not composed of one “Testament”, but two “Testaments”, the Old and the New... ,

which have complex, dialectical relationships between them. A study of these relationships is indispensable for anyone who wishes to have a proper appreciation of the links between the Christian Church and the Jewish people. The understanding of these relationships has changed over time. The present chapter offers firstly an overview of these changes, followed by a more detailed study of the basic themes common to both Testaments.

A. Christian Understanding of the relationships between the Old and New Testaments

1. Affirmation of a reciprocal relationship




Love and Prayers!
Good day, Michelina

The OP here was asking about the Greek writtings that are out side the Hebrew OT. I am not disagree with you that the NT was added to the Catholic OT.

The question become broad in this way and this document clears it up. The Church waited for the cannon of the Jews to be "set" which they believe happened in the 2-3 rd century, we are not told how they came to belive this. After the Jewish cannon was set the church added books that were out side that Jewish cannon to form for them selfs an OT cannon as I have said here they have every right to do that, right or wrong, good or bad makes no differnce to me.

In the op the question was posed as to why they were in the Catholic cannon as compared to others, this is the reason. It is a basis of an historical veiw and the OT being that of Jewish back round, and there is no historical facts that place them among the Jewish cannon, but that does not deny that these other writtings did not exist.

Hope this will clear it up to some point.

Peace to u,:kiss:

Bill

[Michelina]

After the Jewish cannon was set the church added books that were out side that Jewish cannon

and there is no historical facts that place them among the Jewish cannon, but that does not deny that these other writtings did not exist.

All the books of the Hebrew canon are in the Catholic Scriptures. Some Jews removed the "Deutero-Canonicals" at their Coucil of Jamnia in @ 100 A.D..

But I am glad that it is clear that the Pontifical document you quoted has nothing to do with the deuteros. It simply, and with absolute clarity, states that the Church added the NT scriptures to the OT scriptures.

[BBAS 64]

All the books of the Hebrew canon are in the Catholic Scriptures. Some Jews removed the "Deutero-Canonicals" at their Coucil of Jamnia in @ 100 A.D..

But I am glad that it is clear that the Pontifical document you quoted has nothing to do with the deuteros. It simply, and with absolute clarity, states that the Church added the NT scriptures to the OT scriptures.Good Day, Michelina

With reguards to Jamina the document says that:



(33) The so-called Council of Jamnia was more in the nature of a school or an academy that sat in Jamnia between the years 75 and 117. There is no evidence of a decision drawing up a list of books. It seems that the canon of the Jewish Scriptures was not definitively fixed before the end of the second century. Scholarly discussion on the status of certain books continued into the third century.



Here:


There are differences between the Jewish canon of Scripture30 “Law”, Nebi'im, “Prophets”, and Ketubim, other “Writings”. 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 “protocanonical”. 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 “Writings”, 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.

Peace to u,

Bill

[Michelina]

It seems that the canon of the Jewish Scriptures was not definitively fixed before the end of the second century.

They were not definitively fixed, Bill, for the Jews, of the post-70 AD period. At the time of Our Lord, the deuteros were accepted by most Jews. That is why Christians accepted them. What the Jews did at Jamnia is completely irrelevant to us.

[BBAS 64]

All the books of the Hebrew canon are in the Catholic Scriptures. Some Jews removed the "Deutero-Canonicals" at their Coucil of Jamnia in @ 100 A.D.. 33) The so-called Council of Jamnia was more in the nature of a school or an academy that sat in Jamnia between the years 75 and 117. There is no evidence of a decision drawing up a list of books. It seems that the canon of the Jewish Scriptures was not definitively fixed before the end of the second century. Scholarly discussion on the status of certain books continued into the third century

They were not definitively fixed, Bill, for the Jews, of the post-70 AD period. At the time of Our Lord, the deuteros were accepted by most Jews. That is why Christians accepted them. What the Jews did at Jamnia is completely irrelevant to us.
Good Day, Michelina

First you say they were removed by Jamnia, then you say it is not relevant.:scratch:

I hope you can see the problem here. I say it is relevant, in so much as you say that this thing happened then say it does not matter if it did or did not. When surely for the sake of historical purposes it says much about the issue. In regaurd to what the Jews seen as their oracles of God though out the history of thier nation.

Peace to u,

Bill

[BBAS 64]

Good Day

Just to add here this is the earliest case that I know odf were the Scriptures of the Jews are documented.

Our books, those which are justly accredited, are but two and twenty, and contain the record of all time. Of these, five are the books of Moses. . . . The prophets subsequent to Moses wrote the history of the events of their own times in thirteen books [Joshua, Judges-Ruth, Samuel, Kings, Isaiah, Jeremiah-Lamentations, Ezekiel, the twelve minor prophets considered as one, Job, Daniel, Ezra-Nehemiah [considered as one], Chronicles, Esther]. The remaining four books contain hymns to God and precepts for the conduct of human life [Psalm, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Song of Songs]. [As for the apocryphal books] From Artaxerxes to our own time the complete history has been written but has not been deemed worthy of equal credit with the earlier records, because of the failure of the exact succession of the prophets. We have given practical proof of our reverence for our own Scriptures. For, although such long ages have now passed, no one has ventured either to add, or to remove, or to alter a syllable. And it is the instinct with every Jew, from the day of his birth, to regard them as the decrees of God. [Against Apion 1:37-42]

70 A.D. He wrote:
...we do not possess myriads of inconsistent books, conflicting with one another, [as the Greeks do]; but our books, those which are justly believed, are only 22




Now, maybe some one has an other that would be great.

Peace to u,

Bill

[Michelina]

First you say they were removed by Jamnia, then you say it is not relevant.:scratch:

Right, Bill. Both statements are correct:

1) they were removed by Jamnia (100 A.D.)
2) their removal is irrelevant to US CHRISTIANS.

... surely for the sake of historical purposes it says much about the issue. In regard to what the Jews seen as their oracles of God thoughout the history of thier nation.

Bill, what they did in 100 AD is irrelevant to us. The Jews at the time of Our Lord accepted them and so did the Church.

If you want to know what significance I see in Jamnia:
if you were a Jew in the period and had once again been kicked out of my homeland, you might be wondering what God was mad at. Once again, it might be ineracting with the Gentiles and being contaminated by them. So you would want to purify your religion of Gentile influences. The Deuteros were obviously written during the period of Hellenization. Therefore, you might mistakenly JUMP to the conclusion that they must be bad. Ergo, get rid of them.

BUT: what the Jews thought in 100A.D. is irrelevant to Christianity.

[BBAS 64]

Right, Bill. Both statements are correct:

1) they were removed by Jamnia (100 A.D.)
2) their removal is irrelevant to US CHRISTIANS.



Bill, what they did in 100 AD is irrelevant to us. The Jews at the time of Our Lord accepted them and so did the Church.

If you want to know what significance I see in Jamnia:
if you were a Jew in the period and had once again been kicked out of my homeland, you might be wondering what God was mad at. Once again, it might be ineracting with the Gentiles and being contaminated by them. So you would want to purify your religion of Gentile influences. The Deuteros were obviously written during the period of Hellenization. Therefore, you might mistakenly JUMP to the conclusion that they must be bad. Ergo, get rid of them.

BUT: what the Jews thought in 100A.D. is irrelevant to Christianity.
Good Day, Michelina

Thank you for the discussion, It is allways a pleasure to talk with you we should do it more often. Yake care of your self sister.

I will be posting other questions in OBOB and I look forward to our fellowship there.

Peace to u, :hug:

Bill