quote:

ORIGINAL: Jb_Ca

quote:

So even though the canon wasn't set down in stone until later, it would seem obvious that the early Church recognized the deuterocanonical books as authoritive.

I agree - the early church did recognize the books as authoritive.

Now, why did Rome add to the books of the Bible hundreds of years later in the Apocrypha?

God bless

quote:

ORIGINAL: gtbecksr

I just recently went to an exhibit of the dead sea scrolls. It is interesting to note that the apocrapha is not found in the Hebrew texts based on some charts and information shown at the exhibit. This would lead me to believe that as such the Jews did not accept them. Since Christianity gets it foundations from Judasim shouldn't we consider that? I have heard the argument before that early church leaders quoted from them. I quote from many sources when I make a argument. That doesn't make them scripture. The other argument is that the catholic church "clarified" the canon at the council of Trent. I believe the reality was that they were fighting off the damage done by wrong doing exposed by Martin Luther. They were trying to justify their own actions and had to find a source that supported their positions.

quote:

ORIGINAL: shawng1

Actually, the evidence on "acceptance" of the Modern Catholic canon is mixed at best. If you want to see a good history of the debate on this issue, I'd suggest you read the chapter on the Deuteros in Hengel's "The Septuagint as Scripture." Catholics like to point to Carthage as evidence of early acceptance, but Carthage was subjected to widespread Western criticism precisely for attempting to elevate the Apocryphal works.

The term Apocrypha did not originate with the Protestants, or even Jerome--who first used it as a club, but goes back at least a full century before him and seems to be part of the larger Antioch-Alexandria controversy of the late 2nd, early 3rd centuries.

Because Carthage was subjected to ridicule, even in proto-Catholic circles, it was a well-known point throughout the Middle Ages that there was 'no' consensus on the Deuteros. But no one thought it too great an issue until Luther made it one. To say that Trent affirms an extent tradition when no consensus existed is begging the question.

The question of the Deuteros, and the LXX with regards to the early church in general, is a thorny one. Anyone seeking to claim simplistic answers, either including or excluding the books, on the basis of 'established tradition,' is not going to find pre-Trent surety on either side. IMHO, the best solution is the Anglican one. Accept them as devotional literature of high importance and historical significance. But base no doctrine independantly upon them. Every Christian 'should' read these works. They're better, as literature and spiritually, than any of the garbage passed off as devotional literature today.

In Christ~Shawn

quote:

ORIGINAL: shawng1

sdaw,

I would agree with the 1st. And I would say they would agree with what they 'perceived' as the Orthodox canon. The 'Orthodox canon' in truth has always been a more murky issue than the Western canon, since differing synods will hold to different versions. I would also say there was a two-fold theological motive. 1) To protect those doctrines they saw as having been derived from the Deuteros; 2) the denial of anything "Lutheran." :)

In Christ~Shawn

quote:

ORIGINAL: cristoiglesia

quote:

Why didn't God provide an inspired and infallible list of Old Testament books to Israel? Why would God suddenly provide such a list after Israel was destroyed in 70 AD?

The answer to the first question is , he did. The answer to the second question is, God did not.

I taught OT studies for many years and I am facinated that these kinds of leading questions are still asked given the scholarship available on the clarification of these issues.

The early Christian Church universally referred to the Greek version of the OT which includes the deuterocanonicals. It is no secret that the early Christian Church gained many converts from Judaism and this exodus from the Jewish faith was alarming to the Jewish leadership. In 90AD the Rabbi's met at the Council of Jamnia to discuss how to stop this exodus and conversion of so many. They decided that they must cast aspersion on the messiahship of Jesus. There were certain books in the Hebrew Canon that contained explicit prophecy of the prophesied Messiah. These are the books that are known as the Deuterocanonicals today or as the Protestants prefer to call them the Apocrapha. In response to this the Council changed the Canon excluding these books.

I find it interesting and intrigueing that after the Protestant Reformation that some Reformers removed these books from the Canon of Scriptures that had been used universally in the Church for fifteen hundred years. Actually the removal of the books is less that two hundred years old and was not done by the original Reformers, although they did question the veracity of the Deuterocanonicals. What intriques me is why the Reformers adopted the position of those that falsely accused, imprisoned and tried Jesus as to the Canon of Scripture per Jamnia and at the same time rejecting the work of the Christian Church in protecting the Canon against heresies throughout the centuries? It seems they were searching for contention when there should have been none. Could it be that they had their own selfish motives of syncretism of Christianity and secular Humanism in excluding these books of Canon. It is ironic that many of those that support the removal of the Deuterocanonicals accuse the Catholic Church of adding to Scripture when it is they who have erred in removing God's Word from their teaching. Why must they resort to sophistical arguments to support their arguments to deceive themselves and others? The answer to that question escapes me except to reason that it must be the work of the great deceiver and the author of confusion.

In Christ

quote:

ORIGINAL: 1Cor13

I was just wondering, what is the general consensus here on which OT Jesus and the Apostles used? The Septuagint or the Masoretic Texts? After a fairly brief internet search, it seems many believe it was the Septuagint.

quote:

ORIGINAL: cristoiglesia

quote:

Luther had criticized the Catholics for not having scriptural support for such doctrinesas praying for the dead.By canonizing the Apocrypha(which offers support in 2Maccaabees 12:45-46,the Catholics suddenly had "scriptural" support for this and other distinctly Catholic doctrines.

I have never heard this argument that I can recall. This does not sound at all like a position that Luther would have taken. Perhaps the author of this information had Luther confused with Zwingli or members of the anabaptists. I can not imagine how I could have forgotten that Luther took this position on asking for the prayers of the Church Triumphant. Is it possible that you could referrence where Luther had this view so that I could read what he said in this regards. This would put Luther in a completely different light than I have grown accustomed to believing.

In Christ