Is the Old Testament as historically accurate as the NT?

Absolutely. The OT reveals the relationship God had with his choosen people. The apocrapha has also been shown to have historical value, while not inspired.

 

By all means. I show my bible study class the secular history references to the old and new testements so they will not few them as just stories ,but actual events that have value to their christian faith. also gives a very firm foundation for witnessing to people of other cultures espeacialy the middle east.

 

True.

In fact "scripture" as seen in the NT - is primarily the OT. We only have 1 or 2 references in the NT to scripture being anything but the OT.

If the OT is "unreliable" if it is an "account not to be believed" then the NT doctrines fail.

In Christ,

Bob

 

Hello all!

Can anyone please show me where the "apocrypha" are historically relevant but NOT inspired? What information/sources do you base this on? - thanks! - MIchelle

 

"Can anyone please show me where the "apocrypha" are historically relevant but NOT inspired?"
Something can a real good history book without it's writing being inspired by God.
The best example is 1 Maccabees.
http://www.hope.edu/academic/religion/bandstra/BIBLE/1MA/1MA1.HTM
Most historians I know, consider much of the OT as historically questionable, but 1 Maccabees is widely considered the best short description of that war for independance one could reasonably hope for.
For the jews 1 Maccabees and it's sequell also religiously relevant, because they are the basis for Chanoeka.
http://www.torahtots.com/holidays/chanuka/chanstr.htm
Nonetheless neither 1 Maccabees nor any of the others made it into the Jewish Bible. Allthough 1&2 Maccabees almost did and Esther almost did not.

Before the Reformation there was no 'official' list of what OT books made up the canonical OT within Christendom.
Protestantism needing a clearcut OT adopted the Jewish canon.
The CC adopted one of it's own making, partly because if the Protestants used the Jewish canon than obviously it had to be wrong.

Interesting historical detail. The books making up the Tenach (= the Jewish Bible) were probably established as 'the official Jewish canon' in response to the rise of Christianity.

 

Some Protestants rejected the 'Apocrypha' because of it's support for certain Roman doctrines. The 'Apocrypha' was part of the Canon of Scripture, and still is, yet most Protestants reject it's authority. Whether one accepts the Apocrypha as inspired or not, there are books there that are worth reading, especially 'Wisdom'.

 

BTW, the OT IS historically accurate, in every detail.

 

That's not entirely correct. The Council of Carthage at the end of the fourth century listed the books of the Canon and included the "Apocrypha". Canon 85 of the Apostolic Canons lists 3 Maccabees, Judith, and Sirach as parts of the OT. And the Council of Trullo in 692, considered in the East to be an extension of the 5th and 6th Ecumenical Councils, affirmed both the canons of Carthage and the Apostolic Canons. Althought there were individual disagreements (particularly after the Jews "closed" their canon) among Christians, as a whole the "Apocrypha" was accepted as Scripture. This is demonstrated by ample quotations from it by many of the earliest Church Fathers.

The Jewish canon was not fixed during the time of the Apostles. In fact, the Hellenistic Jews of the Dispersion used the wider canon contained in the LXX (which included the "Deuterocanonicals") compared to the generally narrower canon of the Palestinian Jews. We have to keep in mind that at the time the Jews excluded the Apocrypha, they also excluded the New Testament writings as well.

Exactly.

 

Ahh. History -- again.

In Christ,

Bob

 

"That's not entirely correct. The Council of Carthage at the end of the fourth century listed the books of the Canon and included the "Apocrypha"."
Local councils don't have quite the cloud of the ecumenical ones. So yes, while there was wide regional agreement about what was the OT canon, there was no official binding list, also the Eastern church and the Western church did not fully agree.
Nowadays, Catholicism, Eastern-orthodoxy and Oriental-Orthodoxy still all 3 have different definitions of what makes up the OT.

 

1 Christ accepted the Hebrew canon (Lk 24.44; Lk 11.51; Mat 23.35 with Gen 4.8 and 2 Chr 24.21).



2. Paul accepted the Hebrew canon (Rom 1.2; 3.2; 4.3; 1 Tim 5.18; 2 Tim 3.16).



3. The New Testament calls the OT Scripture (Mat 21.42; Jn 5.39; Acts 17.2; 1 Tim 5.18; 2 Tim 3.16; 2 Pet 3.15-16).



4. Extra-Biblical testimony to the OT canon.

§ Ecclesiasticus (ca 130 BC) recognized “The Law, and the Prophets and the other books of the fathers” (The Prologue to Ecclesiasticus, in The Apocrypha).

§ Josephus in Contra Apion said “no one has been so bold as either to add anything to them, to take anything from them, or to make any change in them;...to contain divine doctrines.”

§ Those at the Council of Jamnia (ca AD 90) discussed the OT books and all were acknowledged as Holy Scripture.

§ The Dead Sea Scrolls, which are documents written about 250 BC to AD 50 and were found near the Dead Sea between 1947-1956, “in general confirm the accuracy of the existing Hebrew text” (The Expositor’s Bible Commentary, LaSore 1.403). From cave four alone, manuscript portions from every OT book except Esther were found (The Expositor’s, Fisher 1.396).


In Christ,

Bob

 

1. The Apocrypha: The word means “hidden” or “concealed.” They are of differing value, accuracy, and purpose. They were never accepted until the Roman Catholic counter reformation Council of Trent in 1546. Jerome had rejected them, who translated the Bible from Greek and Hebrew into Latin (Vulgate). The Apocrypha includes Esdras, Tobit, Judith, Additions to Esther, The Book of Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, Baruch and The Epistle of Jeremiah, Additions to Daniel—The Song of the Three Children, Susanna, and Bel and the Dragon—, Maccabees, and The Prayer of Manasseh.



2. Pseudepigrapha: The word means “false writings” and refers to books that have fictitious authorship or falsely claim to have apostolic authorship. Examples of pseudepigrapha include The Gospel of Peter, The Gospel of Nicodemus, The Acts of John, The Acts of Paul, and The Apocalypse of Peter.

“..but for a practical demonstration that the Church made the right choice one need only compare the books of our New Testament with the various early documents collected by M. R. James in his Apocryphal New Testament (1924), or even with the writings of the Apostolic Fathers, to realize the superiority of our New Testament books to these others.” (The New Testament Documents, are they reliable? Bruce 27, Eerdmans, 1972).


In Christ,

Bob