Confused, did the early christians accept the non-canonized books?

First, give your evidence of the Apocryphal books that are quoted in the New Testament before stating that they are.

(quoted from the Dixon Analytical Bible helps)


It is obvious that these books were never in the Bible in the first place.
DHK

 

Some people would even think that Jonah living inside of a large fish would be a fairy tale as well.

Also some believe the exodus events in exodus are nothing but myths and fairy tales.

Even when James Cameron did his "Exodus Decoded", Baptists here scoffed at his discoveries when a thread was created for it. Over at Catholic Answers forum when the same thread was initiated there, there was nothing but kudos for Cameron for PROVING THAT THE EVENTS OF EXODUS INDEED DID HAPPEN!

Catholics cheering a discovery of proof that the events did take place but here Baptists ridiculing it and chiding it.

What's wrong with this picture?

 

Also the said missing books and fragments of said books were found and are part of the DEAD SEA SCROLLS. At least the Essenne Jews thought they were God's Word.

We all know how the NT depicts Pharisees and Sadducees. These were the ones responsible for the council of Jamnia.

 

I'm surprised no one mentioned the Council of Laodicea. Wasn't that when the Bible was, "Cannonized"?

"What are the lost books of the Bible? They were texts and letters suppressed by early "Church Fathers". There was an important historical event, back in the 4th century. It is called the Council of Laodicea. It changed history two significant ways. At this council they determined what would and would not be considered canon. They decided what would and would not be included in the Bible or read at church. (Canon #60.)"

 

A more accurate statement would be that it was not included in the Jewish canon decided by the Council of Jamnia. As others have stated, this council was said to have occurred around 90 AD with Jewish distinction from Christianity as part of its agenda.

Whether the Deuterocanon was accepted by Jews before this council is not clear. I would say there is some evidence that they may have been considered canon by 1st century Jews, but that evidence is not conclusive.

 

This is not entirely accurate. The LXX is a compilation of translations performed over a period starting (traditionally) in 270 or 272 BC and ending at about 70 BC. It cannot accurately be described as "a Greek translation of the Hebrew Old Testament", because the Hebrew Old Testament did not have the canon then which it has now.

Reading the NT, you will see references to the Law and the Prophets; these are two of the three parts of the Hebrew Bible, the Tanakh, and did not include Daniel, Ezra, Chronicles, Psalms, or any of the 'Wisdom' books (Proverbs, etc). The Septuagint, however, was a wide project: they translated many texts, including not only those which would, at the Council of Jamnia at the end of the C1st AD, come to be the third part of the Tanakh, the Writings, but also other texts which would not be so included, and would be described as 'apocypha' ("hidden things", but later a shorthand for 'inauthentic'). It should also be noted that the LXX is not just one collection: there are multiple versions, with some variation in the texts that appear in each. We should really say "Septuagints".

Note that the content of the 'apocrypha' depends on the content of the canon. Protestants, Catholics, Orthodox and others all have different canons, and so all have different lists of 'apocryphal' texts.

This is thoroughly in accurate. The apocrypha are all of the ancient writings about God which were not included in the Bible. The earliest, such as the Ethiopic Enoch and the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs most likely date from some time in the C2nd BC. The latest is probably the Apocalypse of Daniel, which may date from the C9th AD. Then there are all the NT apocrypha, also.

The Council of Trent officially sanctioned the books which Jerome included in the Latin Vulgate but the Jews did not include in the Tanakh: Sirach, Tobit, Judith, 1 & 2 Maccabees, Baruch, and the other bits of Daniel. They did this because they had always used those texts, and because the Protestants had just condemned those texts.

The Protestant reformers were setting up the Bible as an authority over the Catholic Church, and thus had a new need for unquestionable textual authenticity. They seized upon Jerome's hesitation about those texts, and excised them from the canon. Jerome was uncertain about them because he could not find a Hebrew source text for any of them, only Greek versions, and this led him to note his doubts in the Vulgate, in the prologue to each book.

 

We accept the events of the Bible by faith. I don't know half of what you are talking about--"Exodus Decoded"--I don't pay attention to junk like that. It is the Word of God that interests me. I know God's Word to be true because of its witness to me. It is alive, a living and powerful Word, It is timeless, unchangeable. It is 66 books written by about 40 different authors over a period of about 1500 years without any contradiction, and all speaking about the same thing--redemption through Christ.
DHK

 

Introduction to Bible Canons:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Books_of_the_Bible

Introduction to Jerome:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jerome

Introduction to the Septuagint:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Septuagint

Wikipedia can be a good introduction to all sorts of things, but its accuracy is less than perfect.

A collection of some of the apocrypha:
http://www.pseudepigrapha.com/

A Jewish source, on the canon of the Bible:
http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/vi...search=bibl e

 

Proving the events of Exodus did occur is Junk?

Sorry dude, Satan working thru the Jews at the council of Jamnia and Satan working thru the The American Bible Society in 1827 removed parts of God's holy word from his body of 72 books. Just as Satan worked thru the NIV convention to remove whole verses out of the main body of God's word and thrown on the ground as trash in the form of a footnote.

 

I don't think calling the ABS and IBS tools of Satan is going to win you too many friends here.

Both were carrying on traditions of what they understood to be God's Holy Word.

 

You might add, though, that Josephus is hardly an authoritative source on Jewish history. He was a pawn of the Romans, despised by most Jews, and not particularly noted for accuracy in his historical renderings. The manuscript evidence for the accuracy of Josephus is equivocal at best.

The Apocryphal book of Enoch is mentioned by the writer of Jude. That is the only known New Testament reference of the Apocrypha, and while the rest of the New Testament writers do not mention any of them by name, there are places where some similarities in the writing might indicate that they had read them, or knew the contents of some of them.

There is evidence that the early church accepted, read, and used far more than just the canon of either the Old or New Testament. In some cases, heresy developed from some of these works, known as "pseudipigrapha," or "false writings" which claimed to have apostolic authority. Several New Testament books were written to counter their effect and deny their authenticity. It wasn't easy to determine what was authoritative.

When the Apostle Paul told Timothy that all "scripture" was "God-breathed," the scripture that existed at that time was the Jewish Old Testament. Paul was most likely referring to the Septuagint, which did contain the books in question.

 

You even misunderstand your own links. What your encyclopedia tells you is that the LXX, is so named for the 70 translators that translated the Old Testament from Hebrew into Greek in the third century. What was later added in (as they became avaible) were apocryphal books. As my previous post indicated the original Septuagint became corrupted. What we don't find is any apocryphal book being quoted in the New Testament, at least not the apocryphal books that the RCC claim to be inspired. Almost every source one can find states that the Septuagint was written (and finished) in the third century--approximately 250 B.C.

Just one of many sources that I have already given you.
DHK

 

Are we going to disregard the evidence I brought up for this premise: that before the Council of Jamnia, the Palestinian Jews still did not accept as Scripture any non-Scripture pre-New Testament books?

It looks like we have people who are going to simply cloud the issue with anti-Semitic remarks. WHERE ARE OUR MODERATORS?

 

Yes, I am aware that some early post-New Testament Christian writers used non-Scripture books as Scripture. Ignatius quotes a "Gospel of the Nazoreans," so-called 2 Clement quotes the Gospel of the Egyptians, etc., etc..

However, I am more concerned about what the New Testament church did.

Why that by necessity? Paul used both the Septuagint, but he also made his own translations of the Hebrew text.

Further, as in the post you quoted, I pointed out my practice of using the Douay-Rheims Version translated from the Latin Vulgate for Scripture in some cases. Does that mean that I accept the added books in it? No. It means that its renderings of Scripture texts is of interest to me. Same for when Palestinian Jewish-Christians quoted the Septuagint to Greek-reading/hearing Christians; they found its translation of Bible texts to be useful, but did not accept the added books.

Certainly the testimony of Josephus can be discredited on personal grounds. Maybe the Romans loved him and the Jews hated him for defecting to the Romans. He did include some legendary material in his narrations. I do not see what this has to do with his report over what books the Jews had considered Scripture at the time of his writings and before. Historians still refer to the writings of Josephus, so I do not believe he is as unreliable as you seem to be suggesting.

I also believe Paul meant parts of the New Testament. Compare a passage cited as "Scripture" at 1 Timothy 5:18 with Luke 10:7 :
Luke 10:7 αζιος γαρ ο εργατης του μισθου αυτου
1 Timothy 5:18 αζιος ο εργατης του μισθου αυτου
Awfully similar; the omission of γαρ = "for" is a grammatical adjustment. As was done in The Believer's Study Bible, I propose that at least part of the New Testament was considered Scripture in the New Testament period.

 

Sorry "dude".
Jacobovici, in his movie "Exodus Decoded" didn't prove anything but his own ignorance. The most valuable hisorical reference book in the history of mankind that we possess today is the Bible. The accuracy of those events go unattested. If you can't believe those events by faith, where does that leave your Christianity? Are you a believer. By some of the remarks made by your last post I would admonish you with the words of Paul: "Examine yourself to see whether you are in the faith?" I am not calling you unsaved, so no false accusations. Just take heed to a Biblical admonition. Here is just part of one write up of Jacobovici's movie:

I laugh. :laugh: :laugh: He suggests that they crossed at the Reed Sea--a now dried body of water. Why not believe the Bible? The "waters opened" before them. There was no earthquake. There were walls of water on both sides. This is described in detail. A tsunami could not have drowned the Egyptians. If it was an earthquake like he contends, then a tsuamani would come from the oceans (as he says). But the Bible says that the walls caved in on the Egyptians, not that they were swept away by waters coming in from the west, from the Mediterranean. The geography is all mixed up according to what is told in the Bible. The purpose of Jacobioviich is plain:

http://www.the-tidings.com/2006/0818/exodus.htm

It is plain. He doesn't believe in miracles. He is a liberal that really doesn't believe in the Word of God. He is trying to do away with the miraculous of the Word of God. It is not that he doesn't believe in it; it is the opposite. He is trying to discredit it.

Your anti-semitic remarks will get you nowhere but banned. Becareful what you say in the future.
DHK

 

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

The Christians used this Bible passage often enough in dispute with the Jews that the Pharisees cut the whole book (The Wisdom of Solomon) out of their Scripture canon at Jamnia.

 

Hello? The original translation did not contain Joshua through Malachi. So what?

Huh? The LXX is a Jewish work, how can you say they didn't accept their own work? Proof?

Others??? What "others"?

 

There may not be any actual quotes but there are many strong allusions. If you pick up a copy of the NA27 Greek text of the New Testament is lists a few hundred of them in the margins. Clearly the apostles were strongly influenced by the apocryphal books.

The first 5 books were, which is sometimes called the LXX proper (Being the part supposedly translated by LXX translators) but that doesn't apply to the rest.

 

They didn't accept as scripture any non-scripture?? LOL.

Where is the proof they didn't accept the apocrypha? I havn't seen THAT proof presented.

 

It's unlikely Luke was written before Paul, more likely it was part of the oral tradition. Anyway whatever, it doesn't help the case here.