11/29/2023 History of Canon Even in this world of diverse voices and opinions, we realize that, when it comes to questions about life's most foundational questions, all voices are reduced to mere speculations, and that no voice in an objective sense deserves to be given a greater weight. When a voice claims to have some secret knowledge of the unknown realm and have the correct answers, they deserve no credibility unless they can demonstrate that the authority by which they make their truth claims transcends the human plane, that they in fact have the authority from above. So who can tell us the truth about the secret things of the universe? Who can tell us about our Creator? Who can tell us our purpose of existing? Who can tell us what happens to us after death? Who can tell us what is morally right or wrong? The answer is: no ordinary man can. Whoever claims to be a prophet of God and dares make truth claims of the unknown realm must first earn the credibility by demonstrating that he is no ordinary man. "If I do not do the works of My Father, do not believe Me; but if I do them, though you do not believe Me, believe the works, so that you may know and understand that the Father is in Me, and I in the Father" (Jn 10:37,38). In order to have the credibility of divine authority, the spokesman of God must first demonstrate some supernatural power in the visible realm such as correct fore-telling, or a suspension of natural laws. For instance, Moses demonstrated beyond doubt that he spoke for Yahweh through a series of God-given miraculous powers. It is important to note however that the power does not come from the man himself, but from God who is the One who performs the miracles on behalf of the man. Thus, it stands to reason that whoever can be given the trust to speak for God are the same ones whom God empowers to do wondrous things beyond the normal plain of human existence. Consider Jesus. In addition to His claim that He is God Incarnate -- which, by the way, was irrefutably authenticated again and again by His countless demonstrations of His power -- He consistently attributed His works of power, both His will and His power, not to His own self but to other members of the Triune God: the Father and the Holy Spirit (Mk 3:29,30; Jn 5:19,30). There is much paradoxical mystery in regard to the Triune unity that cannot be discovered by the human mind and yet nevertheless exists as truth: Jesus shares one will and one power with the Father and the Holy Spirit, and yet He is a Son who submits to the Father. Anyway, the main point here is that the man Jesus of Nazareth could fully be trusted to speak for God, because God authenticated His claims by performing miracles through His person. You are of God's household, built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets (Eph 2:19,20). Secondly, the spokesman of God must affirm the divine revelation that are already given. The universe is not made of just a material realm, but also of a spiritual realm; and there exist creatures at work in the spiritual realm who are just as malicious as some creatures in the material realm. As such, simply demonstrating supernatural powers is not the "be-all and end-all" criterion for a prophet's credibility. The man who is apparently endowed with great powers from on high must also affirm and be consistent with what was already revealed about the one true God (Dt 13:1-5). Again, consider Jesus. He had not come to contradict or misinterpret the word of God (Mt 5:17). As the Messiah and the Son of God to whom all the prophets of old pointed, He certainly fulfills all the types and prophecies previously foretold about Him (Jn 5:39); but the main point here is that Jesus affirms the truthfulness and the divine inspiration of the entire Scripture previously given to the people (Jn 10:35). The grass withers, the flower fades, but the word of our God stands forever (Is 40:8). The reason why people generally understand that the most reliable mode of transmission of information through different eras of human history is through a written word is because a written word cannot be edited and is not easily tainted by human errors. People who wish to communicate an absolute truth to the world does not carve on a wall some abstract art which is left open to different interpretations. Neither do they rely on verbal traditions to be able to carry out a series of lossless echoes of the original voice down through their generations, because people forget and confuse and deny. People employ a written form of their language and keep the information external to human brains as much as possible so that the first-hand information is accessible to all people who speak their language even if the author is dead. Even if hand-written copies of the original writing are made (and they were), the accidental loss of information is far less likely to happen than were it to happen with mere verbal communication for obvious reasons. Furthermore, even if information becomes lost or jumbled, the reconstruction of what the original writing has said by comparing of all the existing copies is easily possible. Fuelled by the church's selfless zeal to share the word of the Lord to all churches everywhere, more than five thousand Greek manuscript copies of the New Testament were made and are preserved to this day, with some copies being dated as early as the second century in the years of our Lord. The Scriptures before the arrival of Christ, known as the Old Testament, have an even longer history of preservation, being meticulously copied by the scribes and kept safe. With these many copies in existence, we can reconstruct what the original text must have said, and that with almost irrefutable accuracy from the standpoint of textual criticism. Most variations between the copies are not more than spelling errors. This is precisely the reason why God chose to communicate through a written word. It is the closest thing we have that physically represents the concept of immutability, and God's truth is immutable. All the covenants God made with Israel are written. All the feats of the people of God throughout their history are written. All future prophecies relating to the earliest predicted event and the very end of history are written. Generations come and generations go, but God's word stands and remains unchanged through all generations. Now these were more noble-minded than those in Thessalonica, for they received the word with great eagerness, examining the Scriptures daily to see whether these things were so (Ac 17:11). This point is brief, obvious, and simple. It must be made in order to put to rest the asinine idea that no one should presume to speak with any biblical authority because no one has the ability to correctly interpret the Bible. It is one thing to hold to a differing interpretation of a given text, because this would actually mean that people do believe that the Bible can be understood and that an intelligent, reasonable debate amongst them could sort out the truth of the matter. It is entirely a different thing to be a lazy antinomian who tries to find a pretext for his indifference toward God's will and dismisses the Bible altogether. Given the first two premises -- that the Bible is a collection of books written by divinely authorized men whose express purpose was to transmit the infallible word of God to the world, and that God presided over the preservation of the same books through the ups and downs of human history (as history can attest) -- it would hint at the fact that God has the desire to make His revelation known to all His believers. If He desires to make His revelation known to all His believers, then it would make sense that He also expects them to understand it (Ezra 7:10; Mt 19:4; 21:42; Ac 17:11). Thus, there is a mutual trust (or faith) relationship formed between God and His people; the people put their trust in God and His word to be true and understandable through a normal hermeneutic, and God trusts His people to diligently seek after the knowledge of the truth through His written word and interpret them correctly. This mutual trust relationship yields a shared understanding amongst the believers that the word of God belongs to each believer equally, and that they each have a right to learn how to read and interpret the text as God intended. This open invitation to understanding the word of God solidified in the form of sermons in synagogues in Jesus' times and in churches today, and was fuelled by the axiom, "The Scripture can be and must be interpreted correctly, taught, and understood." Incidentally, this open attitude exposes the dishonest attitude of any power-hungry gatekeeper who would rob people of their right to understand the word of God so that he can manipulate them with false teachings; they do this by claiming that the Scripture can only be interpreted by a mystical, special method that trumps all normal hermeneutic, and that they alone have that special knowledge of how to interpret. All Scripture is inspired by God, and profitable for teaching, for rebuke, for correction, for training in righteousness, so that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work (2Ti 3:16,17). So far, we have laid down the premise that no mortal has any legitimate claim to know what is beyond their earthly realm apart from what God chooses to reveal to them through His chosen spokesmen, the chief among whom is His own Son. This forces the debate about what is true and what is false to be all about what books should be considered the Scripture, the word of God, and how the same Scripture should be interpreted. Enter the world of utter chaos of conflicting interpretations; Sola Scriptura means that God's word alone should be trusted and that God's word is able to be understood by all, which forces the understanding that it is better to be around people who have different interpretations but have the common understanding that Scripture alone is the authority and that it is a matter of correctly interpreting it, than to be around people with whom it is impossible to debate because they do not even believe it can be understood by a normal hermeneutic. To debate about who has the correct interpretation already assumes that Scripture alone should be trusted, and rightly so. To ignore the Scripture and lazily follow the words of a gatekeeper is to fall into heresies, such as the teaching that Mary is sinless despite the biblical teaching that the only sinless person who walked on earth is Jesus, or that Jesus is the spirit brother of the devil despite the biblical teaching that Jesus is God incarnate while the devil is a created being, or that baptism is necessary for salvation, despite the biblical teaching that baptism was once a Jewish ceremony for Gentile proselytes that was appropriated for Christian ceremony for all converts that in no way adds to their state of salvation. What is "all Scripture"? Canon : rule/measure/standard Primary rule of Canonicty 1. Jesus affirmed the OT canon and authorized His apostles the NT. Canon is Canon because God determines the canon. (2Ti 3:16; 2Pe 1:20-21) a) the entirety of OT (Mt 5:17-18; 23:34-35; Lk 11:49-51) b) historical reliability (Mt 10:15; 12:40; 19:3-5; 24:38-39) c) prophetic accuracy (Mt 26:54) d) sufficiency (Lk16:31) e)unity (Lk 24:27,44) f) inerrancy (Jn 17:17) g) infallibility (Jn 10:35) h) authority (Mt 21:13, 16, 42; Mk 7:8,13) i) perspicuity (Mt 21:42; 22:29; 26:54) 2. Jesus authorized the apostolic authority when He promised to give further revelation through the Spirit in the NT. (1Co 14:37; 1Th 2:13; 4:15; 2Pe 3:1,2,15-16; 1Jn 4:6) a) the gospels ( Jn 14:25,26 ); Mark, according to Papias of Hierapolis, wrote the memoirs of Peter as a son in the faith. Luke, the travelling companion of Paul, spent interviewing apostolic eyewitnesses. These two wrote under apostolic authority. b) additional revelations through the apostles (Jn 16:12-15); James the brother of Jesus was an apostle (Gal 1:19); Jude writes under apostolic authority of his brother James (Jude 1:1). Hebrews was recognized by the early church as connected to the apostle Paul's inner circle, though we do not know the author. 3. Since additional revelation was only promised through the apostles, the canon closed when the Apostles are gone. 4. The Church (the body of believers) submits to the Canon and recognizes - not creates - the Canon through the internal testimony of the Spirit (Jn 10:27; 1Co 2:10-16; 1Jn 2;27). Historical evidence Muratorian Canon (AD 170) attempts to build the canon, and lists 23 NT books, as heresies begin to rise. AD 363 Council at Laodicea, all 27 books are listed., 367 Athanasius in His Festal Letter lists all 27 books. Councils are not the beginning of the Canon. They merely serve to affirm what Christians already believed. Should the Apocrypha be included in the Canon? No. It obviously does not fit the standard. Jews of Jesus' days did not view Apocrypha as Canon. They held to 22 scroll Canon, which is modern 39 books of OT. Jesus affirms the Jewish canon as recognized by first century Jews. Josephus quote "We have but twenty-two [books] containing the history of all time, books that are justly believed in; and of these, five are the books of Moses, which comprise the law and earliest traditions from the creation of mankind down to his death. From the death of Moses to the reign of Artaxerxes, King of Persia, the successor of Xerxes, the prophets who succeeded Moses wrote the history of the events that occurred in their own time, in thirteen books. The remaining four documents comprise hymns to God and practical precepts to men" Origen, Ecclesisatical History "But it should be known that there are twenty two according to Hebrew tradition; the same as the number of the letters of their Alphabet.' Cyril of Jerusalem, Catechetical Lectures "Of the Old Testament, as we have said, study the two and twenty books." Jerome, Preface to Jerome's Works, "As, then, the Church reads Judith, Tobit, and the books of Maccabees, but does not admit them among the canonical Scriptures, so let it read these two volumes [Wisdom of Solomon and Ecclesiasticus] for the edification of the people, not to give authority to doctrines of the Church." 1. Internal evidence. 2. external evidence 3. authorship - The prophets would bring their writing to priesthood. They would affirm its authenticity, disseminate it. The people would hear, and affirm it. - The books that are quoted elsewhere in the Bible are canon. - the whole basis is that the true believers will KNOW what the word of God is, upon hearing it. The only test of canonicity is the testimony of God Himself, the organ of spiritual perception. It is circular reasoning. (jn 8:31; ac 13:48; php 1:29; Eph 2:8,9) - it must not contradict other passages of Scripture. - it must be historically accurate. - it must be from a prophet or apostle. - it must be accepted by the believers and their councils. - it must be affirmed by other books (quotes). What does everyone know already? that revelation has to come from God, or we are left in the dark. How do we know anything to be true? How do we ascertain the words of any man who claims to be a prophet? Why do we believe the Bible to be from one source, God? How can we believe the Scriptures are transmitted to us without error? Assumption: It requires faith to believe that the Scripture is God-breathed, infallible word of God. There is no way to prove that Scripture is inspired; it requires faith.
Assuming that Scripture is inspired, it is possible to reasonably defend the origins of the Bible, and find the criteria by which Scripture is compiled, and to know which book belongs in the Scripture; that does not require faith. Canonicity: determination of what books should be Scripture based on the criteria of divine inspiration. what’s the criteria to determine which OT books should be Scripture? - The prophets would bring their writing to priesthood. They would affirm its authenticity, disseminate it. The people would hear, and affirm it. - The books that are quoted elsewhere in the Bible are canon. - the whole basis is that the true believers will KNOW what the word of God is, upon hearing it. The only test of canonicity is the testimony of God Himself, the organ of spiritual perception. It is circular reasoning. (ac 13:48; php 1:29; Eph 2:8,9) - it must not contradict other passages of Scripture. - it must be historically accurate. - it must be from a prophet or apostle. - it must be accepted by the believers and their councils. - it must be affirmed by other books (quotes). How is God's word preserved? Ps 119:89,152; Is 40:8; mt 5:18; 24:35; lk 16:17; 1Pe 1:23 God preserves all the words insofar as it relates to His mind the importance of it in terms of doctrine. It does not mean that some letters will not be lost due to human weakness. But it will not affect the understanding of the passage. It does not mean that the original copies will not be lost; because it can be, and it did. Dt 12:32; Pr 30:5,6; Rev 22:18,19; (2Ch 34:14-21; Jer 36:1-32) We believers are the custodians, the stewards of God's word. How did Jesus view Scripture? From GENESIS to CHRONICLES, Jesus affirms the whole OT in Lk 11:50,51, the order of the OT in Jesus' days. "It is written... It is written... have you never read..." How did the Jews in Jesus’ days view Scripture? The OT Canon was decided in the time of Ezra. The Law (Torah) (Dt 31:9-11; Jos 1:7,8; 8:31,34; 24:26; 2Ki 14:6; Ezra 6:18; 7:10; 10:3; 2Ch 17:9; Ne 8:3,18; 9:3; 10:28,29; Da 9:11; Mal 4:4; Lk 2:22,23,24; Mt 12:5,26; Jn 7:19,23; Gal 3:10; Ps 1:2) Does the Scripture refer to itself as divine revelation (the internal witness of the Spirit within our hearts to affirm its certainty; the written revelation itself)? Or do we need outside authority to confirm the divine revelation of Scripture (infallible church committee; the church owes its existence to the word; therefore it cannot have authority over the word; Eph 2:20; 1Ti 3:15 church is responsible for sharing, proclaiming and preserving the truth; it doesn't create it)? Or do we depend on our own human reason to determine and ascribe and authenticate divine nature of Scripture (secular humanism, human ignorance masquerading as authority)? Therefore the Scripture has higher authority to church and human reason. How do we know what is Scripture? Ro 8:16 The internal testimony of the Spirit based on reason. 1Jn 3:24; 4:1-6; Jas 1:22 certainty through righteousness Early manuscripts of OT -Dead Sea scrolls (from 300 BC to AD 50) - Samaritan Torah -Greek Septuagint -Aramaic Targums - Latin Vulgate (AD 390-404) -Syriac versions There is a TRADITION of transmission of the Scripture from Moses onwards, for teaching and preserving. Torah (1400 BC) >> 5 books Genesis Exodus Leviticus Numbers Deuteronomy (Dt 34:10 paves the way for all lesser prophets' writings below) Former Prophets (Neviim) >> 4 books Joshua Judges & Ruth Samuels Kings Latter Prophets >> 15 books Isaiah Jeremiah & Lamentations Ezekiel The Twelve (Malachi the last ca. 400 BC) (Mal 3:16-4:5; Ps 1 >> distinction b/w righteous vs. wicked relates to law of Moses ) Writings (Ketuvim) >> 11 books Psalms Job Proverbs Song of Songs Ecclesiastes Esther Daniel Ezra/Nehemiah Chronicles (2Ch 36:23 let him go up) OT Canon is bipartite (Lk 16:29,31) >> the law and the prophets OT Canon is tripartite (Lk 24:44) >> the law, the prophets, and the psalms The NT Historical books Matthew, Luke, Mark, John, Acts Epistles Pauline Non-Pauline Prophecy Revelation ======In his denial of the deity of Christ, Arius was arguably the most notorious heretic of the early church. Though Arius’s heretical views were soundly condemned by the Council of Nicaea (in A.D. 325), the controversy he sparked raged for another fifty years throughout the Roman Empire. During those tumultuous decades, the defenders of Trinitarian orthodoxy often found themselves outnumbered and out of favor with the imperial court. Yet they refused to compromise. Among them, most famously, stood Athanasius of Alexandria—exiled on five different occasions for his unwavering commitment to the truth. He was joined by the Cappadocian Fathers: Basil of Caesarea, Gregory of Nazianzas, and Gregory of Nyssa. But how did these early Christian leaders know that the doctrine they were defending was, in fact, a truth worth fighting for? How did they know they were right and the Arians were wrong? Was it on the basis of oral tradition, a previous church council, or an edict from the bishop of Rome? No. They ultimately defended the truth by appealing to the Scriptures. Gregory of Nyssa makes that point explicit in a letter to Eustathius. The Arians claimed that their tradition (or “custom”) did not allow for the Trinitarian position. Gregory responded with the following: What then is our reply? We do not think that it is right to make their prevailing custom the law and rule of sound doctrine. For if custom is to avail for proof of soundness, we too, surely, may advance our prevailing custom; and if they reject this, we are surely not bound to follow theirs. Let the inspired Scripture, then, be our umpire, and the vote of truth will surely be given to those whose dogmas are found to agree with the Divine words. (Dogmatic Treatises, Book 12. On the Trinity, To Eustathius.) When Arian custom ran contrary to Trinitarian custom, to what authority did Gregory appeal? The Scriptures. As Gregory rightly understood, Scripture is a higher authority than tradition. That is why he appealed to the Word of God as the final arbiter in the debate over Arianism. In so doing, Gregory provides a vivid illustration of the principle of sola Scriptura, twelve centuries before the Reformation. Of course, Gregory was not the only church father who shared in that conviction. Though many others could be cited, here is a small sampling from eight church fathers who shared Gregory’s perspective on the authority of Scripture. 1. Irenaeus of Lyons (d. 202) We have learned from none others the plan of our salvation, than from those through whom the Gospel has come down to us, which they did at one time proclaim in public, and, at a later period, by the will of God, handed down to us in the Scriptures, to be the ground and pillar of our faith. (Against Heresies, 3.1.1) 2. Tertullian of Carthage (c. 160–235) [in defending the truth of the Trinity against the heretic Praxeas:] It will be your duty, however, to adduce your proofs out of the Scriptures as plainly as we do, when we prove that He made His Word a Son to Himself. . . . All the Scriptures attest the clear existence of, and distinction in (the Persons of) the Trinity, and indeed furnish us with our Rule of faith. (Against Praxeas, 11) 3. Hippolytus (d. 235) There is, brethren, one God, the knowledge of whom we gain from the Holy Scriptures, and from no other source. For just as a man if he wishes to be skilled in the wisdom of this world will find himself unable to get at it in any other way than by mastering the dogmas of philosophers, so all of us who wish to practice piety will be unable to learn its practice from any quarter than the oracles of God. Whatever things then the Holy Scriptures declare, at these let us look; and whatsoever things they teach these let us learn. (Against Heresies, 9) 4. Dionysius of Alexandria (ca. 265): We did not evade objections, but we endeavored as far as possible to hold to and confirm the things which lay before us, and if the reason given satisfied us, we were not ashamed to change our opinions and agree with others; but on the contrary, conscientiously and sincerely, and with hearts laid open before God, we accepted whatever was established by the proofs and teachings of the Holy Scriptures. (Cited from Eusebius, Church History, 7.24.7–9) 5. Athanasius of Alexandria (296–373) [After outlining the books of the Bible, Athanasius wrote:] These are fountains of salvation, that they who thirst may be satisfied with the living words they contain. In these alone is proclaimed the doctrine of godliness. Let no man add to these, neither let him take ought from these. For concerning these the Lord put to shame the Sadducees, and said, ‘Ye do err, not knowing the Scriptures.’ And He reproved the Jews, saying, ‘Search the Scriptures, for these are they that testify of Me.’ (Festal Letter 39, 6–7) 6. Cyril of Jerusalem (315–386) [After defending the doctrine of the Holy Spirit]: We ought not to deliver even the most casual remark without the Holy Scriptures: nor be drawn aside by mere probabilities and the artifices of argument. Do not then believe me because I tell thee these things, unless thou receive from the Holy Scriptures the proof of what is set forth: for this salvation, which is of our faith, is not by ingenious reasonings, but by proof from the Holy Scriptures...Let us then speak nothing concerning the Holy Ghost but what is written; and if anything be not written, let us not busy ourselves about it. The Holy Ghost Himself spoke the Scriptures; He has also spoken concerning Himself as much as He pleased, or as much as we could receive. Be those things therefore spoken, which He has said; for whatsoever He has not said, we dare not say. (Catechetical Lectures, 4.17ff) 7. John Chrysostom (344–407) Let us not therefore carry about the notions of the many, but examine into the facts. For how is it not absurd that in respect to money, indeed, we do not trust to others, but refer this to figures and calculation; but in calculating upon facts we are lightly drawn aside by the notions of others; and that too, though we possess an exact balance, and square and rule for all things, the declaration of the divine laws? Wherefore I exhort and entreat you all, disregard what this man and that man thinks about these things, and inquire from the Scriptures all these things; and having learnt what are the true riches, let us pursue after them that we may obtain also the eternal good things; which may we all obtain, through the grace and love towards men of our Lord Jesus Christ, with Whom, to the Father and the Holy Spirit, be glory, might, and honor, now and ever, and world without end. Amen.” (Homily on 2 Corinthians, 13.4) 8. Augustine of Hippo (354–430) Whereas, therefore, in every question, which relates to life and conduct, not only teaching, but exhortation also is necessary; in order that by teaching we may know what is to be done, and by exhortation may be incited not to think it irksome to do what we already know is to be done; what more can I teach you, than what we read in the Apostle? For holy Scripture establishes a rule to our teaching, that we dare not “be wiser than we ought;” but be wise, as he himself says, “unto soberness, according as unto each God hath allotted the measure of faith.” Be it not therefore for me to teach you any other thing, save to expound to you the words of the Teacher, and to treat of them as the Lord shall have given to me. (The Good of Widowhood, 2) Augustine (again): For the reasonings of any men whatsoever, even though they be [true Christians], and of high reputation, are not to be treated by us in the same way as the canonical Scriptures are treated. We are at liberty, without doing any violence to the respect which these men deserve, to condemn and reject anything in their writings, if perchance we shall find that they have entertained opinions differing from that which others or we ourselves have, by the divine help, discovered to be the truth. I deal thus with the writings of others, and I wish my intelligent readers to deal thus with mine. (Augustine, Letters, 148.15) Clearly, the doctrine of sola Scriptura was championed by Christian leaders long before the Reformation. Those interested in studying this topic in more detail will benefit from William Webster's in-depth treatment of this subject, found here. ====== ================ Refutation Council at Jamnia by Rabbis only challenged the established canon of OT, not discuss what should be in the Canon. The challenge was defeated. AD 75-117. The discussion is whether Ecclessiastes, Song of Songs were part of canon. The Roman Catholic Bible uses Greek Septuagint called Alexandrian canon, the expanded (Deutero meaning second) canon that includes Apocryphal (hidden) books (14 of them). It should be called Pseudepigrapha (false claims of authorship). Protestant canon is called Palestinian canon. The study shows that there were two kinds of Septuagint, one that Jews used, and one that Christians used. The Jews used Palestinian Canon, which teh Protestants adopted. Christian Septuagint includes the 14 books. The Jewish Septuagint had the name of God written in Hebrew script. Christian one doesn't have that; it reads Kurios. JEwish Sept is found in scrolls, while the Christian one is found in codices (books). So there are two parallel traditions of the Septuagint in the first 3 centuries AD. Both Philo and Josephus used the LXX, but they both rejected the Apocrypha. Anathanasius the bishop of Alexandria, in 267 AD, rejected apocrypha books. Hilary of Poitiers, Cyril of Jerusalem, Gregory of Nazianzus, Basil the Great, Epiphanius of Salamis all reject Apocrypha. Augustine, beig ignorant of Hebrew canon, thought Apocrypha was part of Hebrew canon, being unable to read Hebrew. Gregory the Great, bishop of Rome, said 1Maccabees was not canon. Jerome, knowing Greek and Hebrew, rejects Apocrypha. The Jews to whom God ENTRUSTED with the oracles of God did not accept the Apocrypha as the word of God. Jesus and the apostles never cite from the Apocrypha in the same way they do from the Tanakh. Jude quotes from a pseudopigrapha. Many early church fathers, Jerome, Anathanasius, Pope Gregory the Great reject Apocrypha. Cardinal Cajetan (calling "a raw scholar" anyone bothered by Augustine), Pope Leo the X , who excommunicated Luther clearly rejected the Apocrypha as canon, following the lead of Jerome. Provincial Council of Hippo and Carthage did not accept the Apocryphal as canon (but only 6 of htem), and back up by Pope Innocent the First. Carthage used the LXX. In Bava Batra, we have a list of 19 books of OT excluding the Torah. Josephus talks about scrolls in the temple collections, excluding the Apocrypha. Josephus mentions 22 books. 1Maccabees 4:46; 9:27;14:41 says the prophecy had seized. Babylonian Talmud: Rabbis taught that after Haggai, Zechariah, Malachi, The Holy Spirit departed from Israel. Rabbi Samuel said the second temple lacks, fire, Urim and Tummim, the ark, oil of anointing, and the HOly Spirit of prophecy. Book of Ecclesiasticus makes references to the three partite of canon of OT. Melito of Sardis inquired of the church in Palestine about the OT canon. The canon did not include the Apocrypha. Glossa Ordinaria in the Medieval Period, the Bible commentaries, reject the Apocrypha as canon. This was the study Bible in the Medieval period. Complutensian Polyglot Bible by Cardinal Jimenez was approved by Pope Leo the X, reject Apocrypha. The Apocryphal books were officially canonized by Rome in April 1546 in Trent by 53 people. Many early church fathers accepted these books as Scripture. Trent used the Vulgate. They did so in direct response to the Reformation, and they anathemized anyone who rejected their decree. THey ignore the Jews' perspective that these are not canon; they recognize canon is closed and they are full of errors; they knew prophecy finished after Malachi. Roman Catholic lingo (Protestant lingo) >> canon , deuterocanon (Apocrypha), apocrypha (pseudepigrapha). Jesus held people accountable to knowing what the canon is. No writer of NT cites the Apocrypha. 1Sa 13:1 has error in it. The transmission has been severed, and the verse is missing full information. But this does not change any major doctrine. It does say that though Scripture was inerrant when given, it is possible to have the Scripture NOT preserved properly and get subsequently lost through the years. But there is possibility that the correct copy is still somewhere, and hidden somewhere (2Ch 34:14-21; Jer 36:1-32). Whoever destroyed the original is judged. But God makes sure to preserve a copy of the original. Comments are closed.
|
CategoriesAll Discourse Doctrines Gospel Humour NT Commentaries OT Commentaries Tactical Life Date
August 2023
|