Bible

[ChoirDir]

I am curious as to the reasons the early reformers chose the Hebrew over the Greek OT

[Jason1646]

I am curious as to the reasons the early reformers chose the Hebrew over the Greek OT

I would say for the same reasons that we go to the Greek for final analysis rather than the English or Latin. Our translations (and subsequent interpretations) should be based upon the original as closely as possible.

Regards,

~Jason

[ChoirDir]

I would say for the same reasons that we go to the Greek for final analysis rather than the English or Latin. Our translations (and subsequent interpretations) should be based upon the original as closely as possible.
So by this shouldn't the Greek or Septuagint (LXX) be the correct version of the OT

[Lotar]

The OT was originally written in Hebrew, not Greek.

[ChoirDir]

But didn't the Council of Jamnia in 90AD remove certain books in order to preserve the Jewish from the strengthning Christian movement at the time?
This would make the Hebrew texts are revised edition.

[Lotar]

They never removed books, they chose to use the Hebrew over the Greek. The Apocrypha was never part of the Hebrew texts.

[ChoirDir]

Lotar
Do you think it is true that the Hebrew canon as we know it today (often referred to as the Masoretic text) was established by Jewish rabbis at the Council of Jamnia. Early Christian apologists like Justin Martyr attacked the canon of the council of Jamnia. Rejecting Jewish claims that the Septuagint was a bad translation, these apologists claimed that the Council of Jamnia translation had deliberately altered some text and decided upon criteria of canonicity so as to combat the spread of Christianity.

[BBAS 64]

I am curious as to the reasons the early reformers chose the Hebrew over the Greek OT
Good Day, ChoirDir

I would say because the OT Scripture was given to the Jew "hebrew". I am finding to very hard to find a Jew of any stripe to accept any Greek Book as carring the weight that would classify it as Scripture in the traditional view of the Jews.

For His Glory Alone! :clap:

BBAS

[Polycarp1]

A couple of points:

1. Jews in the Holy Land held to the Hebrew canon reflected in the Protestant Old Testament. Jews in the Diaspora up through the time of Christ adhered to the broader canon of books found in the Septuagint. At least some of these were originally written in Hebrew, but only the Greek texts have survived the ages (although see #2).

2. The original Hebrew text of the book called "The Wisdom of Jeshua the Son of Sirach" -- usually shorthanded as Sirach or Ecclesiasticus -- was rediscovered. However, it's not in the Jewish or Protestant canons.

3. It was well after the time of Christ when anyone defined the outer limits of the canon. The Law and the Prophets were established well before this time -- but what was in the Writings, the third category, was still up in the air. The early church accepted all the books of the Septuagint, and the Orthodox and Anglicans continue to do so.

[wysiwyg]

Comments concerning the "Council" of Jamnia from Jesuit scholar Daniel F. Harrington:

"To explain these developments, modern scholars have proposed that the Jewish canon was fixed and closed at the Council (or Synod) of Jamnia/Yavneh in the late first century C.E., and that early Christians were following the more inclusive canon current in the Jewish community of Alexandria. These two explanations suffer from lack of hard evidence. While there was surely a movement to reconstruct Jewish life after 70 C.E. that was based in Jamnia/Yavneh, the idea of a special meeting analogous to a church council or synod to determine authoritatively the limits of the Hebrew canon of scripture has no firm foundation. The theory that the wider Christian canon was borrowed from the Jews of Alexandria also lacks any firm foundation. The historical realities were undoubtedly more complex." in Lee Martin McDonald and James A. Sanders, eds., The Canon Debate (Peabody: Hendrickson Publishers, 2002), p. 203.

From FF Bruce "So far as the scriptures are concerned, the rabbis at Jamnia introduced no innovations; they reviewed the tradition they had received and left more or less as it was. It is probably unwise to talk as if there was a Coucil or Synod of Jamnia which laid down the limits of the Old Testament canon." The Canon of Scripture (Downers Grove: Intervarsity Press, 1988), p. 34.

[Oblio]

I am finding to very hard to find a Jew of any stripe to accept any Greek Book as carring the weight that would classify it as Scripture in the traditional view of the Jews.


Except of course the Jewish scholars that translated the OT into Greek, and the Jews that could not read Hebrew; which was the practical reason for the translation. The Divine reason of course was that it would be the Gentile (Greek) Church and not the Jews (as a faith) that would spread the Gospel and be the Glory of God after the Advent of our Lord.

[wysiwyg]

Posted by Polycarp1
3. It was well after the time of Christ when anyone defined the outer limits of the canon. The Law and the Prophets were established well before this time -- but what was in the Writings, the third category, was still up in the air.
More recent studies are arguing that the OT canon was defined no later than 50AD.

Earle Ellis in The Old Testament in Early Christianity: Canon and Interpretation in the Light of Modern Research argues that the OT canon was defined no later than 50AD.

Andrew Steinmann in the The Oracles of God argues that the OT canon was defined by 150BC.

[Lotar]

Apocrypha
(Gk. (http://www.lcms.org/ca/www/cyclopedia/a/abbrev.html#ABBR.GK) “hidden things”).

A. Term applied in patristic literature to esoteric or otherwise obscure writings and to books whose quthorship was unknown (extended to mean “spurious”); gradually came to be identified with the books excluded by non-Hellenistic Jews from their canon as “outside books.” Prot. (http://www.lcms.org/ca/www/cyclopedia/a/abbrev.html#ABBR.PROT) scholars of the Reformation period narrowed the application of the term to the uncanonical books in the Vulgate and called other outside books “pseudepigrapha” (Gk. (http://www.lcms.org/ca/www/cyclopedia/a/abbrev.html#ABBR.GK) “falsely ascribed”).

B. Old Testament.

1. The Jews at an early date distinguished bet. (http://www.lcms.org/ca/www/cyclopedia/a/abbrev.html#ABBR.BET) canonical books for gen. (http://www.lcms.org/ca/www/cyclopedia/a/abbrev.html#ABBR.GEN) use and others reserved (“hidden”) for the wise (cf. (http://www.lcms.org/ca/www/cyclopedia/a/abbrev.html#ABBR.CF) F. Josephus, Contra Apionem, I 8; Antiquitates Judaicae, XI 1–vi; 2 Esd [not Neh, but 4 Esd of the apocrypha in the old Vulgate, or The Ezra Apocalypse] 12: 37–38; 14:4–16, 42–47). The fall of Jerusalem 70 AD (http://www.lcms.org/ca/www/cyclopedia/a/abbrev.html#ABBR.AD2) (see also Christian Church, History of the (http://www.lcms.org/ca/www/cyclopedia/a/c.html#CHRISTIANCHURCH.HISTORYOFTHE); Titus Flavius Sabinus Vespasianus (http://www.lcms.org/ca/www/cyclopedia/a/t.html#TITUSFLAVIUSSABINUSVESPASIANUS)) and increasing prominence of Christian literature led non-Hellenistic Jews to exclude the outside books from their canon. But the Hellenistic Jews preserved them in translations from which they passed into Christian usage and were gradually assimilated at various places in the OT (http://www.lcms.org/ca/www/cyclopedia/a/abbrev.html#ABBR.OT) canon. Alleged NT (http://www.lcms.org/ca/www/cyclopedia/a/abbrev.html#ABBR.NT) quotations from the apocrypha and pseudepigrapha have not been est. (e.g. (http://www.lcms.org/ca/www/cyclopedia/a/abbrev.html#ABBR.EG), Mt 23:34–35; Lk 11:49–51; 1 Co 2:9). But similarities are noticeable (e.g. (http://www.lcms.org/ca/www/cyclopedia/a/abbrev.html#ABBR.EG), cf. (http://www.lcms.org/ca/www/cyclopedia/a/abbrev.html#ABBR.CF) Heb 11:34–40 with 2 Mac 6:18–7:42; Ja 1:19 with Ecclus 5:13; 2 Ptr 2:4 and Jude 6 with Enoch 10:4–6; 19:1; 54:5; Jude 9 with Enoch 20:5; Jude 14–15 with Enoch 1:9; 5:4; 27:2; 60:8; 93:2 [cf. (http://www.lcms.org/ca/www/cyclopedia/a/abbrev.html#ABBR.CF) The Book of Jubilees 7:38–39]; Jude 16 with The Assumption of Moses 5:5; 7:4, 7, 9). Early ch. (http://www.lcms.org/ca/www/cyclopedia/a/abbrev.html#ABBR.CH) fathers quote the apocrypha as authoritative (e.g. (http://www.lcms.org/ca/www/cyclopedia/a/abbrev.html#ABBR.EG), Clement I, 1st Epistle to the Corinthians, chap LV, refers to “the blessed Judith”; cf. (http://www.lcms.org/ca/www/cyclopedia/a/abbrev.html#ABBR.CF) Epistle of Barnabas, XIX 9, with Ecclus 4:36; cf. (http://www.lcms.org/ca/www/cyclopedia/a/abbrev.html#ABBR.CF) Polycarp, Epistle to the Philippians, X, with Tob 4:10 and 12:9). Later fathers (e.g. (http://www.lcms.org/ca/www/cyclopedia/a/abbrev.html#ABBR.EG), Origen, Cyril of Jerusalem, and Jerome) did not accept them without reservation.

2. A. R. B. v. (http://www.lcms.org/ca/www/cyclopedia/a/k.html#KARLSTADT.ANDREASRUDOLFBODENSTEINVON) Karlstadt* (De canonicis scripturis; 1520) separated the apocrypha from the canon, named a number of them “holy writings” (following Jerome* (http://www.lcms.org/ca/www/cyclopedia/a/j.html#JEROME): Wis, Ecclus, Jdth, Tob, 1 and 2 Mac) and pronounced the rest deservedly subject to censorial strictures. The 1534 ed. (http://www.lcms.org/ca/www/cyclopedia/a/abbrev.html#ABBR.ED) of M. Luther's Bible (see Bible Versions, M (http://www.lcms.org/ca/www/cyclopedia/a/b.html#BIBLEVERSIONS.M)) contains the apocrypha (except 1 and 2 Esd, which are not included) after the OT (http://www.lcms.org/ca/www/cyclopedia/a/abbrev.html#ABBR.OT) canonical books and under the heading “Apocrypha. These are books not regarded equal to Holy Scripture and yet useful and good to read.” In the 1611 ed. (http://www.lcms.org/ca/www/cyclopedia/a/abbrev.html#ABBR.ED) of the KJV (http://www.lcms.org/ca/www/cyclopedia/a/abbrev.html#ABBR.KJV) (see Bible Versions, L 8 (http://www.lcms.org/ca/www/cyclopedia/a/b.html#BIBLEVERSIONS.L.8), 10–11 (http://www.lcms.org/ca/www/cyclopedia/a/b.html#BIBLEVERSIONS.L.10)) the apocrypha were included as a separate section bet. (http://www.lcms.org/ca/www/cyclopedia/a/abbrev.html#ABBR.BET) the OT (http://www.lcms.org/ca/www/cyclopedia/a/abbrev.html#ABBR.OT) and NT (http://www.lcms.org/ca/www/cyclopedia/a/abbrev.html#ABBR.NT). Some copies of the KJV (http://www.lcms.org/ca/www/cyclopedia/a/abbrev.html#ABBR.KJV) began to appear 1626 without apocrypha, and 19th-c. (http://www.lcms.org/ca/www/cyclopedia/a/abbrev.html#ABBR.C) movements in Eng. (http://www.lcms.org/ca/www/cyclopedia/a/abbrev.html#ABBR.ENG) (1825 and 1850) led to their more gen. (http://www.lcms.org/ca/www/cyclopedia/a/abbrev.html#ABBR.GEN) exclusion, beginning with an 1827 announcement by the BFBS (http://www.lcms.org/ca/www/cyclopedia/a/abbrev.html#ABBR.BFBS) and the ABS (http://www.lcms.org/ca/www/cyclopedia/a/abbrev.html#ABBR.ABS). The apocrypha have reappeared in some Eng. (http://www.lcms.org/ca/www/cyclopedia/a/abbrev.html#ABBR.ENG) Bibles (e.g. (http://www.lcms.org/ca/www/cyclopedia/a/abbrev.html#ABBR.EG), The Jerusalem Bible and some editions of The New English Bible and of the RSV (http://www.lcms.org/ca/www/cyclopedia/a/abbrev.html#ABBR.RSV)).

3. The following are gen. (http://www.lcms.org/ca/www/cyclopedia/a/abbrev.html#ABBR.GEN) included in the OT (http://www.lcms.org/ca/www/cyclopedia/a/abbrev.html#ABBR.OT) apocrypha: 1 Esd (sometimes called 3 Esd; compilation largely from Ez); 2 Esd (sometimes called 4 Esd and sometimes grouped with pseudepigrapha; Esdras receives information about future events from an angel); Additions to Est (Ap Est dream of Mordecai, edict of Artaxerxes, etc. (http://www.lcms.org/ca/www/cyclopedia/a/abbrev.html#ABBR.ETC)); Song of the Three Children (sung by Hananiah, Mishael, and Azariah after their deliverance; see also Canticles (http://www.lcms.org/ca/www/cyclopedia/a/c.html#CANTICLES)), including the Prayer of Azariah; Sus (a pious woman freed from an adultery charge by Daniel); Bel (Daniel shows the falseness of 2 idols); Man (cf. (http://www.lcms.org/ca/www/cyclopedia/a/abbrev.html#ABBR.CF) 2 Ch 33:18–19); 1 Bar and L Jer (Epistle of Jer; hist. (http://www.lcms.org/ca/www/cyclopedia/a/abbrev.html#ABBR.HIST) and exhortations from Babylonian Captivity period); Tob (Jew and Jewess aided by Raphael during the Assyrian Captivity); Jdth (a pious Jewess slays Holofernes and frees besieged “Bethulia”); 1 Mac (Jewish struggles for freedom under the Hasmonean brothers' leadership); 2 Mac; Ecclus, or (Wisdom of Jesus the Son of) Sirach (practical philos. (http://www.lcms.org/ca/www/cyclopedia/a/abbrev.html#ABBR.PHILOS)); Wis(dom of Solomon) (discussion of God-centered wisdom). The Song of the Three Children, the Prayer of Azariah, the History of Susanna, and Bel are sometimes collectively called Additions to Daniel. 3 Mac is sometimes included in the apocrypha, sometimes in the pseudepigrapha.

4. The Council of Trent* (http://www.lcms.org/ca/www/cyclopedia/a/t.html#TRENT.COUNCILOF) in 1546 affirmed the canonicity of the 14 writings gen. (http://www.lcms.org/ca/www/cyclopedia/a/abbrev.html#ABBR.GEN) regarded as apocryphal, except 1 and 2 Esd (called 3 and 4 Esd when Ez and Neh are called 1 and 2 Esd) and the Prayer of Manasseh. Catholics call the apocrypha “deuterocanonical” and the Pseudepigrapha “apocrypha.” The latter (pseudepigrapha, Cath. (http://www.lcms.org/ca/www/cyclopedia/a/abbrev.html#ABBR.CATH) “apocrypha”) include 3 and 4 Mac (but sometimes 3 Mac is included in the Prot. (http://www.lcms.org/ca/www/cyclopedia/a/abbrev.html#ABBR.PROT) apocrypha); Ps of Sol; The Sibylline Oracles; 1 and 2 Enoch; The Assumption of Moses; 2 Bar (or the Syriac Apocalypse of Bar) and are Gospel According to the Egyptians (perhaps ca. (http://www.lcms.org/ca/www/cyclopedia/a/abbrev.html#ABBR.CA) 130/150; ascetic); Gospel According to the Hebrews (2d c. (http://www.lcms.org/ca/www/cyclopedia/a/abbrev.html#ABBR.C), perhaps as early as 100/125; some think it may be a source, or the source, of the Logia [“Sayings of Jesus,” perhaps 3d c. (http://www.lcms.org/ca/www/cyclopedia/a/abbrev.html#ABBR.C)] found beginning 1897 at Oxyrhynchus, a 4th-c. (http://www.lcms.org/ca/www/cyclopedia/a/abbrev.html#ABBR.C) center of Christian culture ca. (http://www.lcms.org/ca/www/cyclopedia/a/abbrev.html#ABBR.CA) 10 mi. (http://www.lcms.org/ca/www/cyclopedia/a/abbrev.html#ABBR.MI) W (http://www.lcms.org/ca/www/cyclopedia/a/abbrev.html#ABBR.W) of the Nile, near modern Behnesa); Diatessaron* (http://www.lcms.org/ca/www/cyclopedia/a/d.html#DIATESSARON); Gospel of Peter (perhaps written in Syria ca. (http://www.lcms.org/ca/www/cyclopedia/a/abbrev.html#ABBR.CA) 150; Docetic); Gospel of Thomas (the lost Gk. (http://www.lcms.org/ca/www/cyclopedia/a/abbrev.html#ABBR.GK) original perhaps came from Gnostic sources ca. (http://www.lcms.org/ca/www/cyclopedia/a/abbrev.html#ABBR.CA) 150; later copies are probably abbreviations or condensations; found in Upper Egypt in a Coptic version 1945–46; Gospel (or Traditions) of Matthias (lost; mentioned by Origen* (http://www.lcms.org/ca/www/cyclopedia/a/o.html#ORIGEN) [Hom. 1 on Lk] and other early Christian writers; perhaps quoted by Clement* of Alexandria (http://www.lcms.org/ca/www/cyclopedia/a/c.html#CLEMENTOFALEXANDRIA) [e.g. (http://www.lcms.org/ca/www/cyclopedia/a/abbrev.html#ABBR.EG), Strom. II ix 45]); Gospel of, or According to, the Ebionites* (http://www.lcms.org/ca/www/cyclopedia/a/e.html#EBIONITES) (mentioned by Epiphanius* (http://www.lcms.org/ca/www/cyclopedia/a/e.html#EPIPHANIUS); perhaps essentially the same as the Gospel According to the Hebrews; sometimes confused with the Gospel of the Nazarenes [an Aramaic Targum of the canonical Gospel of Matthew, current in the 2d c. (http://www.lcms.org/ca/www/cyclopedia/a/abbrev.html#ABBR.C) in Aramaic-speaking N Syria]); Gospel, or Protevangelium, of James the Less (men- 3 Bar (or the Gk. (http://www.lcms.org/ca/www/cyclopedia/a/abbrev.html#ABBR.GK) Apocalypse of Bar); The Book of Jubilees* (http://www.lcms.org/ca/www/cyclopedia/a/j.html#JUBILEES); The Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs; The Books of Adam and Eve; The Martyrdom of Isaiah; The Testament of Abraham; The Testament of Job; 4 Esd (sometimes classified with apocrypha).

C. New Testament.

1. Here the terms “apocrypha” and “pseudepigrapha” are usually used interchangeably for all noncanonical writings that laid claim on canonical authority or were regarded by some as canonical. Some were written in the name of a famed believer of the past in order to borrow his authority to secure the acceptance of the content of the document. Others were frankly written to disseminate false doctrines. The New York apocrypha may be divided into 4 main groups (Gospels, Acts, Epistles, Apocalyptic) besides Gnostic writings and related subjects.

2. The Gospels were usually written to cover lacunae in the life of Christ and to advance private doctrines. They contain pure fiction, development of Godpel statements, words of Jesus tr. (http://www.lcms.org/ca/www/cyclopedia/a/abbrev.html#ABBR.TR) into action, traditions, parallels to OT (http://www.lcms.org/ca/www/cyclopedia/a/abbrev.html#ABBR.OT) miracles, literal fulfillment of prophecies. The most importanttioned first by Origen; principal source of the Feast of the Presentation; condemned as noncanonical in Decretum* Gelasianum (http://www.lcms.org/ca/www/cyclopedia/a/d.html#DECRETUMGELASIANUM)). Lesser Gospels include those of Pseudo-Matthew (rescript of Gospel of James and Gospel of Thomas; used by Roswitha* (http://www.lcms.org/ca/www/cyclopedia/a/r.html#ROSWITHA)), Arabic Gospel of the Infancy (probably of Syrian origin), of Basilides (mentioned by Origen et al. (http://www.lcms.org/ca/www/cyclopedia/a/abbrev.html#ABBR.ETAL)), of Judas Iscariot, of Truth, of Philip, of Nicodemus (Actus of Pilate), of Andrew, of Barnabas, of Bartholomew (the last 3 condemned in the Decretum Gelasianum).

3. The apocryphal Acts were evidently used extensively for the propagation of false views. They include Acts of Paul (2d half of the 2d c. (http://www.lcms.org/ca/www/cyclopedia/a/abbrev.html#ABBR.C); includes what was formerly known separately as Acts of Paul and Thekla Acts of John (probably 2d or early 3d c. (http://www.lcms.org/ca/www/cyclopedia/a/abbrev.html#ABBR.C); Docetic [see Docetism (http://www.lcms.org/ca/www/cyclopedia/a/d.html#DOCETISM)]); Acts of Peter probably 2d half of the 2d c. (http://www.lcms.org/ca/www/cyclopedia/a/abbrev.html#ABBR.C) or early 3d c. (http://www.lcms.org/ca/www/cyclopedia/a/abbrev.html#ABBR.C)); Acts of Thomas (perhaps composed in Syria, possibly Edessa, 3d c. (http://www.lcms.org/ca/www/cyclopedia/a/abbrev.html#ABBR.C), by disciples of Bardesanes [see Gnosticism, 7 h (http://www.lcms.org/ca/www/cyclopedia/a/g.html#GNOSTICISM.7.H)]; Gnostic; ascetic); Acts of Andrew (probably 3d c. (http://www.lcms.org/ca/www/cyclopedia/a/abbrev.html#ABBR.C); Encratite [see Encratism (http://www.lcms.org/ca/www/cyclopedia/a/e.html#ENCRATISM)]).

4. Apocryphal Epistles include Epistle* of the Apostles (http://www.lcms.org/ca/www/cyclopedia/a/e.html#EPISTLEOFTHEAPOSTLES); letters from the Virgin Mary to Ignatius* of Antioch (http://www.lcms.org/ca/www/cyclopedia/a/i.html#IGNATIUSOFANTIOCH); two letters of Peter to James; Apocryphal Epistle of James; Epistles of Paul and Seneca; correspondence bet. (http://www.lcms.org/ca/www/cyclopedia/a/abbrev.html#ABBR.BET) Abgar of Edessa (see Abgar, Letters of (http://www.lcms.org/ca/www/cyclopedia/a/a.html#ABGAR.LETTERSOF)) and Christ.

5. NT (http://www.lcms.org/ca/www/cyclopedia/a/abbrev.html#ABBR.NT) apocryphal apocalyptic* literature (http://www.lcms.org/ca/www/cyclopedia/a/a.html#APOCALYPTICLITERATURE) includes Apocalypse of Peter (ca. (http://www.lcms.org/ca/www/cyclopedia/a/abbrev.html#ABBR.CA) 2d quarter of the 2d c. (http://www.lcms.org/ca/www/cyclopedia/a/abbrev.html#ABBR.C); regarded canonical by Clement* of Alexandria (http://www.lcms.org/ca/www/cyclopedia/a/c.html#CLEMENTOFALEXANDRIA) and the Muratorian* Fragment (http://www.lcms.org/ca/www/cyclopedia/a/m.html#MURATORIANFRAGMENT) [with doubts]); Sibylline Oracles (see Sibylline Books and Oracles (http://www.lcms.org/ca/www/cyclopedia/a/s.html#SIBYLLINEBOOKSANDORACLES)); Apocalypse of Paul (cf. (http://www.lcms.org/ca/www/cyclopedia/a/abbrev.html#ABBR.CF) 2 Co 12:2, 4); Apocalypse of Mary; Apocalypse of Thomas. See also Clementines, 1 (http://www.lcms.org/ca/www/cyclopedia/a/c.html#CLEMENTINES.1).

6. Gnostic writings include treatises found at Chenoboskion in the 1940s (see Gnosticism, 8 (http://www.lcms.org/ca/www/cyclopedia/a/g.html#GNOSTICISM.8)).

7. Related subjects include Agrapha,* (http://www.lcms.org/ca/www/cyclopedia/a/a.html#AGRAPHA) Apostolic* Constitutions and Canons (http://www.lcms.org/ca/www/cyclopedia/a/a.html#APOSTOLICCONSTITUTIONS), Cerinthus (see Gnosticism, 7 b (http://www.lcms.org/ca/www/cyclopedia/a/g.html#GNOSTICISM.7.B)), and Pistis Sophia (a group of works; probably ca. (http://www.lcms.org/ca/www/cyclopedia/a/abbrev.html#ABBR.CA) 250/300; Gnostic). EL HTM

See also Alms (http://www.lcms.org/ca/www/cyclopedia/a/a.html#ALMS); Canon, Bible, 2 (http://www.lcms.org/ca/www/cyclopedia/a/c.html#CANON.BIBLE.2); Roman Catholic Confessions, A 1 (http://www.lcms.org/ca/www/cyclopedia/a/r.html#ROMANCATHOLICCONFESSIONS.A.1).

The Oxford Annotated Apocrypha: The Apocrypha of the Old Testament, Revised Standard Version, ed. (http://www.lcms.org/ca/www/cyclopedia/a/abbrev.html#ABBR.ED) B. M. Metzger (New York, 1965); The Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha of the Old Testament in English, ed. (http://www.lcms.org/ca/www/cyclopedia/a/abbrev.html#ABBR.ED) R. H. Charles, 2 vols. (http://www.lcms.org/ca/www/cyclopedia/a/abbrev.html#ABBR.VOL) (Oxford, 1913); E. Hennecke, New Testament Apocrypha, ed. (http://www.lcms.org/ca/www/cyclopedia/a/abbrev.html#ABBR.ED) W. Schneemelcher, 2 vols. (http://www.lcms.org/ca/www/cyclopedia/a/abbrev.html#ABBR.VOL) (Tübingen, 1959, 1964), Eng. (http://www.lcms.org/ca/www/cyclopedia/a/abbrev.html#ABBR.ENG) tr. (http://www.lcms.org/ca/www/cyclopedia/a/abbrev.html#ABBR.TR) ed. (http://www.lcms.org/ca/www/cyclopedia/a/abbrev.html#ABBR.ED) R. M. Wilson (Philadelphia, 1963, 1965); B. M. Metzger, An Introduction to the Apocrypha (New York, 1957).


http://www.lcms.org/ca/www/cyclopedia/a/a.html

[ChoirDir]

It seems that the reformers chose Hebrew version, despite the fact that the Apostles and Early Fathers used the LXX. If the Hebrew version was altered to remove the references to Christ, then the Protestants would be using a version of the Bible would support Jewish claims that Christ was not the Messiah

[II Paradox II]

It seems that the reformers chose Hebrew version, despite the fact that the Apostles and Early Fathers used the LXX. If the Hebrew version was altered to remove the references to Christ, then the Protestants would be using a version of the Bible would support Jewish claims that Christ was not the Messiah
A question for you then - are you asserting that the Hebrew OT has had messianic references and types of Christ removed?

ken

[ChoirDir]

Just in relation to the books "removed" or should I say the difference between the Hellenist Jews and the Hebrew Jews.

[Jason1646]

It seems that the reformers chose Hebrew version, despite the fact that the Apostles and Early Fathers used the LXX. If the Hebrew version was altered to remove the references to Christ, then the Protestants would be using a version of the Bible would support Jewish claims that Christ was not the Messiah
This is an apples to orange comparison. The apostles quoted from the Septuagint (though not exclusively) due to their Greek speaking audience. If one applied this kind of anachronistic principle 500 years from now when people happened to speak a different language, they would conclude (erroneously) that we did not accept the Greek manuscripts for the NT because we quoted them in English.

~Jason

[Oblio]

A question for you then - are you asserting that the Hebrew OT has had messianic references and types of Christ removed?

ken


Here is something the Jews that denied Christ left out:

Wis 2:10-24 Let us oppress the righteous poor man; let us not spare the widow nor regard the gray hairs of the aged. (11) But let our might be our law of right, for what is weak proves itself to be useless. (12) "Let us lie in wait for the righteous man, because he is inconvenient to us and opposes our actions; he reproaches us for sins against the law, and accuses us of sins against our training. (13) He professes to have knowledge of God, and calls himself a child of the Lord. (14) He became to us a reproof of our thoughts; (15) the very sight of him is a burden to us, because his manner of life is unlike that of others, and his ways are strange. (16) We are considered by him as something base, and he avoids our ways as unclean; he calls the last end of the righteous happy, and boasts that God is his father. (17) Let us see if his words are true, and let us test what will happen at the end of his life; (18) for if the righteous man is God's son, he will help him, and will deliver him from the hand of his adversaries. (19) Let us test him with insult and torture, that we may find out how gentle he is, and make trial of his forbearance. (20) Let us condemn him to a shameful death, for, according to what he says, he will be protected." (21) Thus they reasoned, but they were led astray, for their wickedness blinded them, (22) and they did not know the secret purposes of God, nor hope for the wages of holiness, nor discern the prize for blameless souls; (23) for God created man for incorruption, and made him in the image of his own eternity, (24) but through the devil's envy death entered the world, and those who belong to his party experience it.

[Oblio]

You can see why they wanted to remove it ;)

[ChoirDir]

This is an apples to orange comparison. The apostles quoted from the Septuagint (though not exclusively) due to their Greek speaking audience. If one applied this kind of anachronistic principle 500 years from now when people happened to speak a different language, they would conclude (erroneously) that we did not accept the Greek manuscripts for the NT because we quoted them in English.
It is not apples to oranges, because if the LXX were inferior to the Hebrew, then they were preaching from a false Bible

[II Paradox II]

Just in relation to the books "removed" or should I say the difference between the Hellenist Jews and the Hebrew Jews.
It seems though that your argument is weakened significantly by what was left *in*. A few points:

1) The early church was nearly unanimous in it's use of what today would be considered rather obscure allegory for it's interpretation of Old Testament passages. A read through ancient sermons or biblical commentaries is quite enlightening as to their rather more open method of reading the OT text. As such, considering the way they saw christological significance all over the OT, why would removing a book or two here and there significantly impact the patristic argument regarding the validity of Christ in relation to OT prophecy and typology? Essentially, your argument revolves around the removal of the deuteros being a *significant* action that would impede the arguments of the Christian church. However, as they clearly did not rely on the disputed passages nor a literalist hermenetic as the keystone of their argument why would it be significant to remove those books?

2) If there really was a cabal of sorts to remove those books that caused such a ruckus then why not remove or obscure such passages that just as clearly portray Christ such as Isaiah 53 or numerous other messianic passages? Essentially, what I am getting at is that in order for your argument to have any sort of strength it has to be shown that it would be a probable way to solve a problem, namely the advancement of Christian interpretation of OT prophecy over and against Jewish interpretation. Just throwing out the deuteros would have very little effect on this problem therefore asserting this as a probable reason for their non-inclusion is questionable.

ken

[II Paradox II]

You can see why they wanted to remove it ;) See my response to ChoirDir. Essentially, I don't argue that there are no messianic references, but that in context of the issues at the time why would removing these few books have any significant effect on the Christian hermeneutical or evangelistic programme?

ken

[Oblio]

See my response to ChoirDir. Essentially, I don't argue that there are no messianic references, but that in context of the issues at the time why would removing these few books have any significant effect on the Christian hermeneutical or evangelistic programme?

ken

Any significant effect :confused:

c.f. the differences between modern Protestant theology and Ancient Christian Theology.

If there were no effect, why do Protestants cry foul/un-Biblical whenever the entire Scripture is used for apologetics ??

[II Paradox II]

Any significant effect :confused:

c.f. the differences between modern Protestant theology and Ancient Christian Theology.

If there were no effect, why do Protestants cry foul/un-Biblical whenever the entire Scripture is used for apologetics ?? You are missing my point - The significant effect you are pointing out has to do with *intra-christian* debates over things such as prayers for the dead. You are reading a modern context back into the debate.

My point was that in context of Jewsish/Christian struggles over the place of the messiah in OT prophecy the removal of the deuteros would not be significant.

If anything, you point strengthens the one I made because even without the deuteros all of our various communions essentially agree on what an orthodox christology comprises. The differences we do have are not established nor conditioned by any deuterocanonical passage to the best of my knowledge. Ergo - their significance is not that great with regard to either christology nor the relation of Christ to OT prophecy.

ken

[ChoirDir]

The early church was nearly unanimous in it's use of what today would be considered rather obscure allegory for it's interpretation of Old Testament passages.
I find this quote particularly amusing. Infering the scholars of today know more about interpretation, than those who walked with Christ.

[II Paradox II]

I find this quote particularly amusing. Infering the scholars of today know more about interpretation, than those who walked with Christ.
You missed my point ChoirDir. I was not inferring that we know more. My point was that in comparison to modern sensibilities their exegesis would be quite different and foreign.

ken

[Oblio]

If anything, you point strengthens the one I made because even without the deuteros all of our various communions essentially agree on what an orthodox christology comprises.


If that were true, Protestantism would not exist as an entitiy outside The Orthodox Church. I will not debate the issues however.

[II Paradox II]

If that were true, Protestantism would not exist as an entitiy outside The Orthodox Church. I will not debate the issues however.
Yes, I imagine some of this will get debated as we are arguing in a non-arguing forum...

anyways, have a good day...

ken

[Oblio]

My point was that in context of Jewsish/Christian struggles over the place of the messiah in OT prophecy the removal of the deuteros would not be significant.


My point was that by removing books from the Bible, there is a divergence from the faith once deliverd to the Saints. IOW, the Christian hermeneutical or evangelistic programme of the Early Christian Church would have been quite different if those books were removed. We would not have seen such things as a prayers for the dead and the belief in the Communion of the Saints in early Christianity if those books had not been Scripture.

[Oblio]

Uh ... simulpost. Have a good day also :)

[ChoirDir]

Point taken. But I have found, yourself and most others here excluded, that todays scholars are particularly lacking in their modern interpretations.

[II Paradox II]

My point was that by removing books from the Bible, there is a divergence from the faith once deliverd to the Saints. IOW, the Christian hermeneutical or evangelistic programme of the Early Christian Church would have been quite different if those books were removed. We would not have seen such things as a prayers for the dead and the belief in the Communion of the Saints in early Christianity if those books had not been Scripture.
ok, I wasn't arguing that issue at all, but whether the Jews at jamnia removed those books because they proved that Christ was the messiah.

ken

[II Paradox II]

todays scholars are particularly lacking in their modern interpretations.
ok. I would agree with this to some degree. I think today we have a tendency to overlook the spiritual significance of many verse because we are so caught up in finding the technical meaning. In that respect the early fathers were very good in that they emphasized the pastoral aspect of scriptural teaching.

ken

[Oblio]

Actually , and this is just MHO, I think those verses (From the Wisdom of Solomon)embarrased and offended them in addition to being prophesy of the coming Messiah that the Jews would torture and kill.

[II Paradox II]

Actually , and this is just MHO, I think those verses (From the Wisdom of Solomon)embarrased and offended them in addition to being prophesy of the coming Messiah that the Jews would torture and kill.
ok, I can see that.

anyways, have a good day, once again ;)

ken

[Oblio]

ok. I would agree with this to some degree. I think today we have a tendency to overlook the spiritual significance of many verse because we are so caught up in finding the technical meaning. In that respect the early fathers were very good in that they emphasized the pastoral aspect of scriptural teaching.

ken


Maybe this is common ground at least between us personally :)

This is the beauty of Eastern Christianity :bow:

[ChoirDir]

In that respect the early fathers were very good in that they emphasized the pastoral aspect of scriptural teaching.
Watch out Paradox you might make a Great Orthodox Christian LOL

[II Paradox II]

Maybe this is common ground at least between us personally :)
in this respect, yes. I do have great admiration for many of the ways the scripture is taught in the early church. I usually try to read a sermon or two every night before I go to bed and I have found it to be a great way of focusing my mind on the Lord. Just so you know, I find value in multiple approaches to scripture, but I don't despise the often very spiritualized interpretations of the fathers. Oftentimes their more visceral approach to scripture cuts me very deeply. Interestingly, another preacher who often has the same effect on me is Charles Spurgeon. His sermons are often highly spirtualized as well in a very similar, if not as extreme way.

This is the beauty of Eastern Christianity
Actually, my favorite part about the east is it's emphasis on mystery. Rationalism can only get you so far before you just have to accept a mystery as being a mystery...

ken

[II Paradox II]

Watch out Paradox you might make a Great Orthodox Christian LOL
heh. Just so you know, I don't always agree with you guys, but I don't despise you either. The east has many good things to say...

ken

[eldermike]

Was this thread reported?

[II Paradox II]

Was this thread reported?
I don't think so... we're getting along just fne now anyways...

ken

[Oblio]

:hug: s Paradox

See :)

[eldermike]

No debating! Respect our rules.

Thanks

[ChoirDir]

Paradox
John Chrysostom has some of my favorite Sermons. Don't know if you have read any of his

[II Paradox II]

Paradox
John Chrysostom has some of my favorite Sermons. Don't know if you have read any of his
Chrysostom is good, or at least what little I have read so far. Unfortunately I haven't read much from him yet. I've spent most of my time with western fathers and not so much with easterns.

However, I'm sure I'll get around to it in the next couple of years. I actually read some of Chrysostom's stuff in relation to some reasearch on Calvin's use of the fathers. Apparently he was quite a big fan of Chrysostom's exegetical preaching style.

ken

[Jason1646]

It is not apples to oranges, because if the LXX were inferior to the Hebrew, then they were preaching from a false Bible
Do you really not grasp the fact that if they quoted directly from the Hebrew Bible the audience would have no idea what they were saying? Are you suggesting that the Greek translation is, in itself superior to the text from which it was translated?!

~Jason

[ChoirDir]

I am suggesting that if the Hebrew Bible were superior to the LXX (at least the Hebrews thought it was according to the Council of Jamnia) then the Apostles were quoting from an inferior source. It has nothing to do with language

[Jason1646]

I am suggesting that if the Hebrew Bible were superior to the LXX (at least the Hebrews thought it was according to the Council of Jamnia) then the Apostles were quoting from an inferior source. It has nothing to do with language
Okay, so let me ask you, which 'Bible' is superior: The Greek text or the English translation of it?

~Jason

[ChoirDir]

Jason, I do not wish to break board rules and debate. Orthodox have their version of the bible and you have yours.

[BBAS 64]

Except of course the Jewish scholars that translated the OT into Greek, and the Jews that could not read Hebrew; which was the practical reason for the translation. The Divine reason of course was that it would be the Gentile (Greek) Church and not the Jews (as a faith) that would spread the Gospel and be the Glory of God after the Advent of our Lord.
Good Day, Oblio

Thank you for that information. Is there a current scholary institution that would represent these Jews and there fore up hold the historic Greek OT books as being on the same par as Hebrew Scripture? My understanding on this is that while they do hold some of that work as Historical it has never been veiwed as inspired.

If you have any information as to where these scholars are please do tell. Even if they are not considered as OT scholars and just represent a hebrew presepective on the historical writings of the Jews in that time frame.


Thank you,

BBAS

[Oblio]

Why would we care what modern day Jewish scholars (or there representatives) think WRT the inspiration of the LXX. The view of the Church, the heavenly Jerusalem, Christ's Body and authority on earth is what matters, not those of the Jews who have and continue to this day to deny Christ our God.

[countrymousenc]

In taking a very quick look at this thread, I haven't seen any quotations from the early Church fathers regarding why the Jews removed the "apocryphal" books from the OT Scriptures, so I thought maybe you all would find these interesting:

All quotes with ANF reference numbers, taken from A Dictionary of Early Christian Beliefs edited by David Burcott.

Justin Martyr (1.259) p. 209 I have not attempted to establish proof about Christ from the passages of Scripture which are not admitted by you [Jews] - which I quoted from the words of Jeremiah the prophet, Esdras, and David. But [I have proved this] from those which you even now admit. And, if your teachers had comprehended them, be well assured they would have deleted them, too - just as they did those [writings] about the death of Isaiah, whom you sawed asunder with a wooden saw.

Origen (4.388) p. 209 Probably you will reply, "Why, then, is the history [of Susannah] not in their Daniel - if, as you say, their wise men hand down such stories by tradition?" The answer is taht they hid from the knowledge of teh people as many of the passages as they could that contained any scandal against the elders, rulers, and judges. Some of these have been preserved in hidden writings.

Origen (4.389) p. 209 Let us now see if in these cases we are not forced to the conclusion that, while the Savior gives a true account of [certain events], none of the Scriptures are to be found that could prove what He speaks of.... "If we had been in the days of our fathers, we would not have been partakers with them in the blood of the prophets." In the blood of what prophets, can anyone tell me? For where do we find anything like this written of Isaiah, Jeremiah, Daniel, or any of the twelve [minor prophets]? What about Zachariah, the son of Barachiah, who was slain between the temple and the altar? We learn this only from Jesus, not knowing it otherwise from any Scripture. Accordingly, I think no other supposition is possible than that those who had the reputation of wisdom, along with the rulers and elders, took away from the people every passage that might bring the elders into discredit among the people.

Tertullian (4.16) p.85 [The book of Enoch] may now seem to have been rejected by the Jews for that very reason - just like nearly all the other portions that speak of Christ. Nor, of course, is this fact surprising...

The historical evidence bears witness that the Septuagint, with the so-called apocryphal books, was the body of Scriptures used by the apostles and by the early Church for at least 300 years. There are references to the book of Enoch in the New Testament: 2 Peter 2:4, Jude 6, and Jude 14, and there are other references to prophecies, even in the gospels, that can't be found in the Jewish/Protestant OT canon.

We should also keep in mind that at the time of Christ's ministry, the Sadducees and Pharisees were divided over the OT canon, the Sadducees accepting only the 5 books of the Law.

Personally, if I have to choose between what the post-apostolic Church deemed canonical and what their Jewish contemporaries deemed canonical, I'd side with the Church.

[countrymousenc]

oooh! (with my apology for posting twice in a row)

I just found this:

Wis. 2:14-20 He was made to reprove our thoughts, and he makes his boast that God is his Father. Let us see, then, if his words are true.... For if the just man is the Son of God, God will help him and deliver him from the hand of his enemies. Let us condemn him with a shameful death."

Remind anyone of anything?

[II Paradox II]

Justin Martyr (1.259) p. 209 I have not attempted to establish proof about Christ from the passages of Scripture which are not admitted by you [Jews] - which I quoted from the words of Jeremiah the prophet, Esdras, and David. But [I have proved this] from those which you even now admit. And, if your teachers had comprehended them, be well assured they would have deleted them, too - just as they did those [writings] about the death of Isaiah, whom you sawed asunder with a wooden saw. Technically, the Ascension of Isaiah (which is what he mentions here) is not an apocryphal book, but a pseudopigraphical book. None of our respective communions consider it to be canonical. Parts of the Ascension appear to have been written in the first century or later, with only the first third being very old. However, it is strongly suspected that it's story about Isaiah's martydom was long held in tradition or other lost books...

Origen (4.388) p. 209 Probably you will reply, "Why, then, is the history [of Susannah] not in their Daniel - if, as you say, their wise men hand down such stories by tradition?" The answer is taht they hid from the knowledge of teh people as many of the passages as they could that contained any scandal against the elders, rulers, and judges. Some of these have been preserved in hidden writings.

Origen (4.389) p. 209 Let us now see if in these cases we are not forced to the conclusion that, while the Savior gives a true account of [certain events], none of the Scriptures are to be found that could prove what He speaks of.... "If we had been in the days of our fathers, we would not have been partakers with them in the blood of the prophets." In the blood of what prophets, can anyone tell me? For where do we find anything like this written of Isaiah, Jeremiah, Daniel, or any of the twelve [minor prophets]? What about Zachariah, the son of Barachiah, who was slain between the temple and the altar? We learn this only from Jesus, not knowing it otherwise from any Scripture. Accordingly, I think no other supposition is possible than that those who had the reputation of wisdom, along with the rulers and elders, took away from the people every passage that might bring the elders into discredit among the people. These two quotes I don't think are really germane to our discussion as they are origen's speculation as to why the leadership of the Jews would repress books dealing with their own killing of the prophets. Our argument was over whether it was rational to suppress the apocrypha in particular over it's messianic references. I argued that it was not in light of the fact that there are many canonical references that are just as strong and numerous traditional referents that the people would have broad knowledge of anyways (such as the assertion in matthew 2:23 about the "nazarene")

Tertullian (4.16) p.85 [The book of Enoch] may now seem to have been rejected by the Jews for that very reason - just like nearly all the other portions that speak of Christ. Nor, of course, is this fact surprising... Of course, the church also rejected the "book of Enoch" as well for various reasons in addition to it's not being a part of the LXX. Only the Ethiopians kept it in the OT canon. In context, this quote is probably the most relevent to the discussion, though I still don't think tertullian's reasoning was any better as he essentially just repeats the same argument, that they removed it because of it's prophecy of Christ. Notice as well that that his position is also somewhat weaker in that he acknowledges the main reason people reject the book in that they don't think it could've survived the deluge. Personally, the case of enoch is interesting to me because it is a book not only rejected by the Jews, but by the church at large as well even with some of it's rather interesting prophecies and the fact it was quoted outright by Jude...

I am aware that the Scripture of Enoch23 (http://footnote/fn2.htm#P295_59083) which has assigned this order (of action) to angels, is not received by some, because it is not admitted into the Jewish canon either. I suppose they did not think that, having been published before the deluge, it could have safely survived that world-wide calamity, the abolisher of all things. If that is the reason (for rejecting it), let them recall to their memory that Noah, the survivor of the deluge, was the great-grandson of Enoch himself;24 (http://footnote/fn2.htm#P296_59561) and he, of course, had heard and remembered, from domestic renown25 (http://footnote/fn2.htm#P297_59660) and hereditary tradition, concerning his own great-grandfather's "grace in the sight of God,"26 (http://footnote/fn2.htm#P298_59790) and concerning all his preachings;27 (http://footnote/fn2.htm#P299_59848) since Enoch had given no other charge to Methuselah than that he should hand on the knowledge of them to his posterity. Noah therefore, no doubt, might have succeeded in the trusteeship of (his) preaching; or, had the case been otherwise, he would not have been silent alike concerning the disposition (of things) made by God, his Preserver, and concerning the particular glory of his own house.

If (Noah) had not had this (conservative power) by so short a route, there would (still) be this (consideration) to warrant28 (http://footnote/fn3.htm#P301_60385) our assertion of (the genuineness of) this Scripture: he could equally have renewed it, under the Spirit's inspiration,29 (http://footnote/fn3.htm#P302_60520) after it had been destroyed by the violence of the deluge, as, after the destruction of Jerusalem by the Babylonian storming of it, every document30 (http://footnote/fn3.htm#P303_60685) of the Jewish literature is generally agreed to have been restored through Ezra.

But since Enoch in the same Scripture has preached likewise concerning the Lord, nothing at all must be rejected by us which pertains to us; and we read that "every Scripture suitable for edification is divinely inspired.31 (http://footnote/fn3.htm#P305_61006) By the Jews it may now seem to have been rejected for that (very) reason, just like all the other (portions) nearly which tell of Christ. Nor, of course, is this fact wonderful, that they did not receive some Scriptures which spake of Him whom even in person, speaking in their presence, they were not to receive. To these considerations is added the fact that Enoch possesses a testimony in the Apostle Jude.32 (http://footnote/fn3.htm#P306_61441)
http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/ANF-04/anf04-06.htm


ken

[countrymousenc]

These two quotes I don't think are really germane to our discussion as they are origen's speculation as to why the leadership of the Jews would repress books dealing with their own killing of the prophets. Our argument was over whether it was rational to suppress the apocrypha in particular over it's messianic references. I argued that it was not in light of the fact that there are many canonical references that are just as strong and numerous traditional referents that the people would have broad knowledge of anyways (such as the assertion in matthew 2:23 about the "nazarene")

The quotes in and of themselves may not be directly germane to the discussion, but they do provide a window into how the ante-Nicene fathers themselves viewed the removal of the apocryphal books that were part of the Septuagint. The quote from Wisdom seems to me to give some creedance to their suspicions.

Also, while it is true that Enoch is not in that group, it looks as though certain things written in Enoch were generally accepted as reliable. My point is that it appears that the apostles and the early church accepted more books as inspired than we include in the Protestant Canon.

[ChoirDir]

My point is that it appears that the apostles and the early church accepted more books as inspired than we include in the Protestant Canon.
Good point countrymousenc!

[InquisitorKind]

Good point countrymousenc!It's not really any kind of foot-hold or "one-up" on the Protestant position concerning the extent of the OT canon. When you consider that multiple Early Church Fathers disagree with the current Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox canons, respectively, what kind of "Good point" is there to be made? Protestants could just as easily point out the fact that Early Church Fathers "seem" to have held to less books than the RCC and EOC, but it wouldn't be considered critical, or even significant, to most of the RCs and EOs.

~Matt

[II Paradox II]

The quotes in and of themselves may not be directly germane to the discussion, but they do provide a window into how the ante-Nicene fathers themselves viewed the removal of the apocryphal books that were part of the Septuagint. The quote from Wisdom seems to me to give some creedance to their suspicions.
I would generally agree with this at least in the case of these quotes. I still don't think it forms a sufficient ground for proving their accusations true however, considering the arguments I brought up earlier. There is no doubt in my mind that the Jews were probably suspicious of the LXX because of it's use by the Gentile Christian communities and some Jewish converts, but I think you'd need to establish a strong line of evidence to say they removed the books solely or primarily because of their messianic references. I should add that many pagans and gnostics make the exact same charge against the orthodox tradition in the christian church - that it repressed and removed their books because they were a threat to the leaders of the time. If we reject their claims as groundless why accept the same charge against the jewish authorities without strong evidence to the contrary?

Also, while it is true that Enoch is not in that group, it looks as though certain things written in Enoch were generally accepted as reliable. My point is that it appears that the apostles and the early church accepted more books as inspired than we include in the Protestant Canon.
Some did, some didn't. Enoch was on it's way out by 300 a.d., to be lost for almost a thousand years in the church. As you probably know, there was wide dispute over the status of many books, including whether books shuold be afforded a graded status of use in the churches (including another book in the quotes you provided, the ascension of isaiah). Enoch itself enjoyed a sort of proto-canonical status amongst the jews, though it was not afforded the status given to the law and prophets.

Ultimately though, our churches do share a common canon in all of the important areas (the law, the prophets and the NT). Whatever the status of the deuterocanon, I don't think it is viable to say that is a cornerstone of the Christian faith in the same way the other commonly accepted books are.

ken

[countrymousenc]

Ultimately though, our churches do share a common canon in all of the important areas (the law, the prophets and the NT). Whatever the status of the deuterocanon, I don't think it is viable to say that is a cornerstone of the Christian faith in the same way the other commonly accepted books are.

ken

And don't forget the "Writings" - Psalms, Proverbs, Job, etc. I'm not interested in any kind of "My Bible or your Bible" one-up-manship contest. Certain books were inherited by the early Church by virtue of being part of the LXX, and were generally accepted even among Jews of the Diaspora although they were not accepted "in the Land." Some of us will see it as God's providence; others as a happenstance that needed to be improved upon. Either way, those books are important to the Church, I think.

[II Paradox II]

And don't forget the "Writings" - Psalms, Proverbs, Job, etc. I'm not interested in any kind of "My Bible or your Bible" one-up-manship contest.
Neither am I. The issue of the canon is an important issue but also a very complex one as well. My main point was that that which we agree on is more important than that which we disagree on, as far as the extent of known scripture goes.

ken

[Bastoune]

Except of course the Jewish scholars that translated the OT into Greek, and the Jews that could not read Hebrew; which was the practical reason for the translation. The Divine reason of course was that it would be the Gentile (Greek) Church and not the Jews (as a faith) that would spread the Gospel and be the Glory of God after the Advent of our Lord.
All of the OT books, including the deuterocanonicals, were originally written in Hebrew. The thing is, we only have the Greek translations of the Hebrew for the deuterocanonicals books, not the original Hebrew words (whereas with the rest of the OT, we have them in the original Hebrew).

As for Canon in general, the early Church never disputed what was "worthy for teaching" per se, but just what was inspired. They used many works with orthodox content, but the councils later did not deem them inspired for whatever reason (because the Holy Spirit told them so!)

"Since, therefore, Christ was about to be manifested and to suffer in the flesh, his suffering was foreshown. For the prophet speaks against evil, `Woe to their soul, because they have counseled an evil counsel against themselves' (Isaiah 3:9), saying, `Let us bind the righteous man because he is displeasing to us' (Wisdom 2:12)." St. Barnabas ("Epistle of St. Barnabas" c. 70-100 A.D.)

"By the word of his might God established all things, and by his word he can overthrow them. `Who shall say to him, 'What have you done?'' or who shall resist the power of his strength?' (Wisdom 12:12)." St. Clement of Rome ("Letter to the Corinthians" c. 80 A.D.)

"Stand fast, therefore, in these things, and follow the example of the Lord, being firm and unchangeable in the faith, loving the brotherhood (1 Peter 2:17). . . . When you can do good, defer it not, because `alms delivers from death' (Tobit 4:10, 12:9). Be all of you subject to one another (1 Peter 5:5), having your conduct blameless among the Gentiles (1 Peter 2:12), and the Lord may not be blasphemed through you. But woe to him by whom the name of the Lord is blasphemed (Isaiah 52:5)!" St. Polycarp of Smyrna ("Letter to the Philadelphians" c. 135 A.D.)

"In Genesis it says, `And God tested Abraham and said to him, "Take your only son whom you love, Isaac, and go to the high land and offer him there as a burnt offering . . . "' (Genesis 22:1-2) ... Of this same thing in the Wisdom of Solomon it says, `Although in the sight of men they suffered torments, their hope is full of immortality . . .' (Wisdom 3:4). Of this same thing in the Maccabees , `Was not Abraham found faithful when tested, and it was reckoned to him for righteousness' ([i]1 Maccabees 2:52)." St. Cyprian of Carthage ("Treatises" c. 248 A.D.)

"The whole canon of the Scriptures, however, in which we say that consideration is to be applied, is contained in these books: the five of Moses . . . and one book of Joshua [Son of] Nave, one of Judges; one little book which is called Ruth . . . then the four of Kingdoms, and the two of Paralipomenon . . . . There are also others too, of a different order . . . such as Job and Tobit and Esther and Judith and the two books of Maccabees, and the two of Esdras . . . . Then there are the Prophets, in which there is one book of the Psalms of David, and three of Solomon. . . . But as to those two books, one of which is entitled Wisdom and the other of which is entitled Ecclesiasticus and which are called `of Solomon' because of a certain similarity to his books, it is held most certainly that they were written by Jesus Sirach. They must, however, be accounted among the prophetic books, because of the authority which is deservedly accredited to them." St. Augustine of Hippo ("Christian Instruction" c. 397 A.D.)

"We read in the books of the Maccabees (2 Maccabees 12:43) that sacrifice was offered for the dead. But even if it were found nowhere in the Old Testament writings, the authority of the Catholic Church which is clear on this point is of no small weight, where in the prayers of the priest poured forth to the Lord God at his altar the commendation of the dead has its place." St. Augustine of Hippo ("The Care to be Had for the Dead" c. 421 A.D.)

[II Paradox II]

All of the OT books, including the deuterocanonicals, were originally written in Hebrew. The thing is, we only have the Greek translations of the Hebrew for the deuterocanonicals books, not the original Hebrew words (whereas with the rest of the OT, we have them in the original Hebrew).
Only one quibble here... It seems to me that the claim that *all* of the OT, including the deuteros, were written in hebrew originally is doubtful from the evidence we have.

to establish the existence of hebrew originals for the deuterocanonical books it seems you would have to show one of a few lines of evidence which have not been brought forth to my knowledge:

1) actual fragments or full texts from hebrew copies of these books
2) quotes in secondary sources in hebrew from the deuteros
3) secondary source assertions that the books were originally in hebrew (such as statements from rabbis asserting that such was the case.) I should add that the theory of the hebrew origin of Matthew is strengthened by just such evidence from early fathers who verify that it was originally written in hebrew, then translated to greek.
4) internal evidence from the langauge itself that the greek is a translation and not original. Again, the case of matthew is illustrative. It's greek is clumsy and shows signs of more natural flow if translated back into hebrew, ergo, there is some evidence internally that it had hebrew literary structure in it's original form.

ken

[II Paradox II]

Only one quibble here... It seems to me that the claim that *all* of the OT, including the deuteros, were written in hebrew originally is doubtful from the evidence we have. correction here - Sirach was likely written in Hebrew first, then translated to greek. However, I'm not sure about evidence for the other books though I'm pretty sure at least a couple of others have decent hebrew pedigrees as well.

I guess it's kind of a pedantic question anyways besides just being an obscure one...

ken