The Apocrypha

[ohio jones]

The 27 Books of the NT that we have today was initially proposed by Athanasius, in his Easter Letter of AD367, which were to be regarded as Scripture. His list is the earliest list which corresponds with the canon of the New Testament as we now know it.

The earliest list that corresponds exactly. Origen (d. 254) and Eusebius (d. 340) list 5 or 6 that are disputed by some but state that all the rest are recognized. There are several other lists with minor variations, mostly regional, which is not unusual given the difficulty of communication due to distance and persecution. There was more agreement than disagreement.

Athanasius also listed the O.T. canon, without the Apocrypha. So if we are going to consider his list authoritative ...

It looks to me like acceptance of the Apocrypha generally* hinges on whether one considers the Hebrew Old Testament or the Septuagint authoritative. And in my view, giving the Greek translation priority seems a whole lot like calling the KJV inspired.

(* Roman Catholics are the exception of course, with the Hebrew OT and the Apocrypha. But even they did not officially declare the Apocrypha canonical until the Council of Trent c.1546, if I understand correctly.)

[Falco Knotwise]

You have missed my point. As far as the cannon of the Old Testament what the “Church Fathers “ if that is what you choose to call them, say does not matter at all. According to Romans 3:1-3, this was committed to the Jews, not the Church. They really lacked any authority in this area.

This may come as a surprise to you, but I had no idea I was addressing your point. I was just saying how odd it seems to me that the Church Fathers wouldn’t have heard if the Old Testament canon had been fixed by a 4th century bc Knesset of such note. That sounds to me like something they would have been very interested to know. Of course, they would have had no part in establishing it, and I obviously never suggested otherwise. What relevance to your point do you think any of that has?

[Judas Maccabeus]

Of note, none of the OT quotes in the New Testament are from the Apocrypha. There is an interesting piece on the subject in Walter Kaiser’s “The Uses of the Old Testament in the New.” Many of the Old Testament quotes are from the Septuagint, but clearly not all.

David doesn’t agree with you.
There is a reference to Tobit as well that make more sense where the pharisees question on who was married in heaven.
Anyway, Old Testament quotes are not always identified as quotes and if you had an Orthodox study Bible you might find more?

I would be interested in your opinion on the section from the book of wisdom I posted.

The Tobit allusion proves nothing, as it merely suggests that that was a common question. It is actually fairly easy to pick these quotes out, as most of the time they use the Septuagint, Matthew excepted perhaps, This makes sense, as many of them were ministering in Greek. I used Smith and Van Dyke when I ministered in Arabic. The fact that they used the Septuagint does not give it some kind of secondary inspiration.

Frankly, I could care less if David agrees with me or not. Frankly, we really don’t have any Hebrew Scholars in the Anabaptist world. And why would anyone want an Orthodox Study Bible? I reject virtually all of Eastern Orthodoxy’s distinctives. Especially their view of church state relations and where final authority lies. Like most study Bibles it contains the doctrinal views of those who put it together. If you like where the EO church, feel free to partake of their doctrinal views. I don’t.

[Judas Maccabeus]

You have missed my point. As far as the cannon of the Old Testament what the “Church Fathers “ if that is what you choose to call them, say does not matter at all. According to Romans 3:1-3, this was committed to the Jews, not the Church. They really lacked any authority in this area.

This may come as a surprise to you, but I had no idea I was addressing your point. I was just saying how odd it seems to me that the Church Fathers wouldn’t have heard if the Old Testament canon had been fixed by a 4th century bc Knesset of such note. That sounds to me like something they would have been very interested to know. Of course, they would have had no part in establishing it, and I obviously never suggested otherwise. What relevance to your point do you think any of that has?

One of the common views on the Septuagint is that the second and third century church fathers used some of it, and thereby it should be included in the OT cannon. I reject that argument as they had no such authority. Many if not most of them were really disconnected from Judaism by that point. Remember, information flowed very differently in the premodern world.

[Falco Knotwise]

You have missed my point. As far as the cannon of the Old Testament what the “Church Fathers “ if that is what you choose to call them, say does not matter at all. According to Romans 3:1-3, this was committed to the Jews, not the Church. They really lacked any authority in this area.

This may come as a surprise to you, but I had no idea I was addressing your point. I was just saying how odd it seems to me that the Church Fathers wouldn’t have heard if the Old Testament canon had been fixed by a 4th century bc Knesset of such note. That sounds to me like something they would have been very interested to know. Of course, they would have had no part in establishing it, and I obviously never suggested otherwise. What relevance to your point do you think any of that has?

One of the common views on the Septuagint is that the second and third century church fathers used some of it, and thereby it should be included in the OT cannon. I reject that argument as they had no such authority. Many if not most of them were really disconnected from Judaism by that point. Remember, information flowed very differently in the premodern world.

I see. Well, I suppose I don’t agree with that viewpoint, but then I don’t think Romans 3:1-3 necessarily means the Church has no authority whatsoever in such matters at least insofar as it pertains to the Church.

[Falco Knotwise]

Addendum: for the best, most informed summary I know of the Old Testament canon from a Catholic perspective, including the deuterocanonicals and Church authority in such matters, see the following article.

https://stpaulcenter.com/thoughts-on-th ... ent-canon/

[Soloist]

The Tobit allusion proves nothing, as it merely suggests that that was a common question. It is actually fairly easy to pick these quotes out, as most of the time they use the Septuagint, Matthew excepted perhaps, This makes sense, as many of them were ministering in Greek. I used Smith and Van Dyke when I ministered in Arabic. The fact that they used the Septuagint does not give it some kind of secondary inspiration.

Well you claim one thing, and others claim the opposite.
Neither side actually can prove it

Frankly, I could care less if David agrees with me or not. Frankly, we really don’t have any Hebrew Scholars in the Anabaptist world.

My friend is one.

And why would anyone want an Orthodox Study Bible? I reject virtually all of Eastern Orthodoxy’s distinctives. Especially their view of church state relations and where final authority lies. Like most study Bibles it contains the doctrinal views of those who put it together. If you like where the EO church, feel free to partake of their doctrinal views. I don’t.

I was pointing out that you are unaware of some of the references for the Apocrypha. I don’t espouse Orthodoxy or their doctrines but I don’t espouse Mennonite doctrine or teachings from blindness or ignorance either.
I reject the “400 years of silence” as one of those.

[Judas Maccabeus]

The Tobit allusion proves nothing, as it merely suggests that that was a common question. It is actually fairly easy to pick these quotes out, as most of the time they use the Septuagint, Matthew excepted perhaps, This makes sense, as many of them were ministering in Greek. I used Smith and Van Dyke when I ministered in Arabic. The fact that they used the Septuagint does not give it some kind of secondary inspiration.

Well you claim one thing, and others claim the opposite.
Neither side actually can prove it

Frankly, I could care less if David agrees with me or not. Frankly, we really don’t have any Hebrew Scholars in the Anabaptist world.

My friend is one.

And why would anyone want an Orthodox Study Bible? I reject virtually all of Eastern Orthodoxy’s distinctives. Especially their view of church state relations and where final authority lies. Like most study Bibles it contains the doctrinal views of those who put it together. If you like where the EO church, feel free to partake of their doctrinal views. I don’t.

I was pointing out that you are unaware of some of the references for the Apocrypha. I don’t espouse Orthodoxy or their doctrines but I don’t espouse Mennonite doctrine or teachings from blindness or ignorance either.
I reject the “400 years of silence” as one of those.

Does he have a Ph. D., preferably from a university that actually has a branch in Israel? Is he on the faculty of a grad school that has a language program In Hebrew? That is what I consider an “expert “ to be. If there is anyone like that in the Mennonite world, I would love to know who they are.

If you dig up my article on the subject, you will follow my complete argument for rejection.

[Judas Maccabeus]

This may come as a surprise to you, but I had no idea I was addressing your point. I was just saying how odd it seems to me that the Church Fathers wouldn’t have heard if the Old Testament canon had been fixed by a 4th century bc Knesset of such note. That sounds to me like something they would have been very interested to know. Of course, they would have had no part in establishing it, and I obviously never suggested otherwise. What relevance to your point do you think any of that has?

One of the common views on the Septuagint is that the second and third century church fathers used some of it, and thereby it should be included in the OT cannon. I reject that argument as they had no such authority. Many if not most of them were really disconnected from Judaism by that point. Remember, information flowed very differently in the premodern world.

I see. Well, I suppose I don’t agree with that viewpoint, but then I don’t think Romans 3:1-3 necessarily means the Church has no authority whatsoever in such matters at least insofar as it pertains to the Church.

I would say it says in Paul’s view they were entrusted to the Jews. Frankly, they did an outstanding job of preservation. Where the second century church would have that authority is beyond me.

[Soloist]

Does he have a Ph. D., preferably from a university that actually has a branch in Israel? Is he on the faculty of a grad school that has a language program In Hebrew? That is what I consider an “expert “ to be. If there is anyone like that in the Mennonite world, I would love to know who they are.

If you dig up my article on the subject, you will follow my complete argument for rejection.

I don’t know, but I know enough that academic credentials don’t mean truth. He teaches part time at a college and I know he worked in Israel for several years. He certainly knows a lot more about Hebrew then you and I.

I doubt your article says anything I haven’t already read. I’m content to disagree with you.