The different Biblical canons.

[calm]

I'm interested in your opinion about the Biblical Canons.
Why do you think there are different ones? Are all right or is only one right but the rest wrong? But why does God protect one but not the other?
And which Biblical Canon do you use?

 

[Good-Ole-Rebel]

I hold to the Protestant Canon. I reject the Apocryphal books as inspired by God. This is because they were rejected by the Palestinian Jews. The Old Testament of the Protestant is the same as the Jews have in the Tanakh.

Good-Ole-Rebel

 

[Real-Subjectivity]

I reject the Apocryphal books as inspired by God. This is because they were rejected by the Palestinian Jews.

Jews did not reject what is known as the apocrypha until well after the emergence of Christianity, when both Christians and Jews had already been reading from and citing these books as authorities for a long time. We have citations, for example, of the Book of Sirach in the Talmud (Sanhedrin 100b; Hagigah 13a, Baba Bathra 98b, etc.).

 

[metis]

Like with so many things, different people and different groups have different opinions.

The process of selecting the canon used by most Christians in the west was quite a difficult and contentious process. Some books were pretty much slam-dunks, but some others were not.

What made it more difficult is that when this canon was pretty much decided upon (the books we call the "Apocrypha" were not decided upon at that time, so the decision on them was put off until much later), different local churches were using different books. Theologian William Barclay (Anglican) felt that only maybe a few as 1/3 of them actually were using the Book of Revelation, plus many churches weren't using the Book of Hebrews. OTOH, some churches were using the Books of Clement, which ended up not getting canonized.

The process of canonization took over 1/2 a century during the 4th century with still some reservations as to whether all the books selected were the best ones.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

... We have citations, for example, of the Book of Sirach in the Talmud (Sanhedrin 100b; Hagigah 13a, Baba Bathra 98b, etc.). [emphasis added - JS]

From Wikipedia: Sirach ...

The Babylonian Talmud occasionally cites Ben-Sira (Sanhedrin 100b; Hagigah 13a, Baba Bathra 98b, etc.), but even so, it only paraphrases his citations, without quoting from him verbatim. [emphasis added - JS]

It's always nice to acknowledge sources.

 

[Good-Ole-Rebel]

Jews did not reject what is known as the apocrypha until well after the emergence of Christianity, when both Christians and Jews had already been reading from and citing these books as authorities for a long time. We have citations, for example, of the Book of Sirach in the Talmud (Sanhedrin 100b; Hagigah 13a, Baba Bathra 98b, etc.).

Welcome.

The Alexandrian Jews accepted the apocrypha, yes. Not the Palestinian Jews. Allowing the books to be read, and seeing them as Scripture is not the same. The Apocrypha were included in the KJV Bible, but not as Scripture. Thus they were dropped later.

The questionable books involve the Old Testament. By the time of Christ, that Canon was closed. Which Canon you have in the Jews Tanakh. Which is exactly the Protestants Old Testament.

Good-Ole-Rebel

 

[Real-Subjectivity]

By the time of Christ, that Canon was closed.

What's your evidence for this?

 

[Twilight Hue]

I'm interested in your opinion about the Biblical Canons.
Why do you think there are different ones? Are all right or is only one right but the rest wrong? But why does God protect one but not the other?
And which Biblical Canon do you use?

It's a nice picture of what 'divine' inspiration really is.

 

[metis]

The questionable books involve the Old Testament. By the time of Christ, that Canon was closed.

Actually it was not done until the end of the 1st century at the Council of Jamnia around 70-90 c.e.

 

[Good-Ole-Rebel]

What's your evidence for this?

You have the Tanakh, which is the exact Old Testament the Protestants use. That exists today.

Good-Ole-Rebel

 

[Good-Ole-Rebel]

Actually it was not done until the end of the 1st century at the Council of Jamnia around 70-90 c.e.

Jamnia was a discussion of many things, among which were the Scriptures. They were not a council to determine the Old Testament Canon.

Good-Ole-Rebel

 

[Shiranui117]

Eastern Orthodox here. I don't have a problem with any of the wider Biblical canons including the Deuterocanonicals. I think excluding the Deuterocanonicals is sad. The Book of Enoch is a trip, and Wisdom of Sirach is probably one of my favorite books in the Bible. Calvin probably took Sirach out of his Bible because it so thoroughly shreds his ideas of double predestination.

You have the Tanakh, which is the exact Old Testament the Protestants use. That exists today.

Good-Ole-Rebel

That wasn't the question. The question was, where's your evidence that the Jewish canon was closed by the time of Christ?

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Actually it was not done until the end of the 1st century at the Council of Jamnia around 70-90 c.e.

Wikipedia notes: "The theory that Jamnia finalised the canon, first proposed by Heinrich Graetz in 1871, was popular for much of the 20th century. However, it was increasingly questioned from the 1960s onward, and the theory has been largely discredited."

In line with this, you might want to look at "Jamnia After Forty Years" by Jack P. Lewis (Hebrew Union College Annual, Vol. 70/71; 1999-2000, pp. 233-259). It summarizes a great deal of information, essentially in support of the following cation:

It seems to me that the question of whether the text was standardized in the first or second century and the question of whether that took place at "the Council of Jamnia" are two separate questions. The first of these questions I leave to the experts in Hebrew textual criticism. For the second, I point out that we are confronted with an assertion which has no support from ancient texts; which rests upon the assumption that there was such a council which assumption is unsound in itself; and which should not be allowed to become fact by the mere repetition without investigation of the assertion. ...

< -- snip -->​

... One does not wish to commit a fallacy in assuming that what is not attested could not have happened. However, in the face of our lack of specifics in the three areas we have considered, would it not be an act of wisdom to admit ignorance rather than having unsupported hypotheses become fact by their mere repetition? Henry Cadbury reminded us that "what begins as a very tentative guess becomes by repetition an assumed fact and represents "the consensus of scholarly opinion."

 

[metis]

Wikipedia notes: "The theory that Jamnia finalised the canon, first proposed by Heinrich Graetz in 1871, was popular for much of the 20th century. However, it was increasingly questioned from the 1960s onward, and the theory has been largely discredited."

In line with this, you might want to look at "Jamnia After Forty Years" by Jack P. Lewis (Hebrew Union College Annual, Vol. 70/71; 1999-2000, pp. 233-259). It summarizes a great deal of information, essentially in support of the following cation:

​

This is the first time I've run into this, so I'll check it out. Thanks for the heads-up.

 

[metis]

Jamnia was a discussion of many things, among which were the Scriptures. They were not a council to determine the Old Testament Canon.

However, it was increasingly questioned from the 1960s onward, and the theory has been largely discredited."

This is the first time I've run into this, so I'll check it out. Thanks for the heads-up.

While virtually all the Writings were regarded as canonical by the time of the destruction of the Temple in 70 C.E., arguments continued regarding the status of Proverbs, Song of Songs, Ecclesiastes, and Esther, and these disputes are attested in rabbinic literature. Second Temple literature indicates that a collection of Writings existed as early as the second century B.C.E. but was not regarded as formally closed.--Creating the Canon | My Jewish Learning

 

[Good-Ole-Rebel]

Eastern Orthodox here. I don't have a problem with any of the wider Biblical canons including the Deuterocanonicals. I think excluding the Deuterocanonicals is sad. The Book of Enoch is a trip, and Wisdom of Sirach is probably one of my favorite books in the Bible. Calvin probably took Sirach out of his Bible because it so thoroughly shreds his ideas of double predestination.


That wasn't the question. The question was, where's your evidence that the Jewish canon was closed by the time of Christ?

By the time of Christ, that was the Old Testament.

Good-Ole-Rebel

 

[Shiranui117]

By the time of Christ, that was the Old Testament.

Good-Ole-Rebel

No it wasn't. The existence of the Septuagint from the second century BC onwards, and a multitude of different Hebrew recensions, proves that much. The early Christian Church used the Septuagint, as did Greek-speaking Jews in the diaspora (the latter also used various other Greek translations).

 

[Good-Ole-Rebel]

While virtually all the Writings were regarded as canonical by the time of the destruction of the Temple in 70 C.E., arguments continued regarding the status of Proverbs, Song of Songs, Ecclesiastes, and Esther, and these disputes are attested in rabbinic literature. Second Temple literature indicates that a collection of Writings existed as early as the second century B.C.E. but was not regarded as formally closed.--Creating the Canon | My Jewish Learning

See the Tanakh.

Good-Ole-Rebel

 

[Good-Ole-Rebel]

No it wasn't. The existence of the Septuagint from the second century BC onwards, and a multitude of different Hebrew recensions, proves that much. The early Christian Church used the Septuagint, as did Greek-speaking Jews in the diaspora (the latter also used various other Greek translations).

There is nothing to prove any 'Septuagint' existed in the Second Century B.C. In fact, the whole idea of a 'Septuagint' is built on a lie.

Produce for me the oldest 'Septuagint' we have in our possession.

Good-Ole-Rebel

 

[Shiranui117]

There is nothing to prove any 'Septuagint' existed in the Second Century B.C. In fact, the whole idea of a 'Septuagint' is built on a lie.

...I'm sorry, what? Do you think that every single Biblical scholar just decided to make up the idea of a Greek version of the Old Testament with a greater number of books than the much later Masoretic recension? The existence, composition and dating of the Septuagint is a settled matter among scholars, regardless of denomination or even religion.

Produce for me the oldest 'Septuagint' we have in our possession.

Good-Ole-Rebel

Septuagint - Wikipedia

The date of the 3rd century BCE is supported for the Torah translation by a number of factors including the Greek being representative of early Koine Greek, citations beginning as early as the 2nd century BCE, and early manuscripts datable to the 2nd century.[16]

After the Torah, other books were translated over the next two to three centuries. It is not altogether clear which was translated when or where; some may even have been translated twice into different versions and then revised.[17] The quality and style of the different translators also varied considerably from book to book from a literal translation to paraphrasing to an interpretative style.

The translation process of the Septuagint itself and from the Septuagint into other versions can be broken down into several distinct stages, during which the social milieu of the translators shifted from Hellenistic Judaism to Early Christianity. The translation of the Septuagint itself began in the 3rd century BCE and was completed by 132 BCE[18][19] initially in Alexandria but in time elsewhere as well.[8] The Septuagint is the basis for the Old Latin, Slavonic, Syriac, Old Armenian, Old Georgian, and Coptic versions of the Christian Old Testament.[20]

Additionally, the oldest Christian Bibles that we have contain the books of the New Testament in the Septuagint ordering. For example, check out the Codex Sinaiticus, written in the mid-300's AD: Codex Sinaiticus - See The Manuscript | Genesis |