KFC PostS: Just show me where Christ, Peter, Paul or any other NT writers quoted from the Apocrypha which is what we started discussing.


I think we have established and agree that from the time it was translated into the Greek around 200BC, the Septuagint OT Canon was used by all the Jews except the Palestinians who formed their own list based on their own criteria about 100 years after Christ.

Have we an "Amen" on that???

Christ, His Apostles, all the other Jews outside Palestine, Gentiles and early Christians accepted the Septuagint (all 46 Books) as authoritative and inspired. I know this by virtue of the fact that they quoted from them. Even your fellow Protestant say so. Thomas Hartwell Horne, a Protestant writer says that the NT writers quoted most often from the Septuagint and the reason given is because many of the Jews were ignorant of Hebrew. Peloubet’s Protestant Bible Dictionary pages 604-5 has the Septuagint “was manifestly the chief storehouse from which Christ and the Apostles drew their proofs and precepts”.

Here are but a few.

Hebrews 1:3 “Who being the brightness of his glory, and the figure of his substance, and upholding all things by the word of his power, making purgiation of sins, sitteth on the right hand of the majesty on high.”
Wisdom 7:26, “For she is the brightness of eternal light, and the unspotted mirror of God’s majesty, and the image of his goodness.”
--------------------------------------------------------
Hebrews 4:13, “Neither is there any creature invisible in his sight; but all things are naked and open to his eyes, to whom our speech is.
Sirach 15:20, “The eyes of the Lord are towards them that fear him, and he knoweth all the work of man.”
------------------------------------------------
Hebrews 11: 5, “By faith Hanoch was translated that he should not see death, and he was not found, becasue God had translated him; for before his translation, he had testimony that he pleased God.”
Sirach 44:16, “Henoch pleased God and was translated into paradise, that he may give repentence to the nations.”
and Wisdom 4:10, “He pleased God and was beloved, and living among sinners he was translated.”
-----------------------------------------------
Sirach 44:19, “the covenants of the world were made with him, that all flesh should no more be destroyed with the flood.”
Hebrews11:7, “By faith Noe, having received an answer concerning these things which as yet were not seen, moved with fear, framed the ark for the saving of his house, by the which he condemned the world, and was instituted heir of the justice which is by faith.”
---------------------------------------------------
Hebrews 11:17, “By faith, Abraham when he was tried, offered Isaac: and he that had received the promises, offered up his only begotten son.”
Sirach 44:21,”In his flesh he established the covenant and in temptation he was found faithful.”
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tobias 4:7, “Give alms out of thy substance and turn not away thy face from any poor person; for so it shall come to pass that the face of the Lord shall not be turned from other.”
St.Luke 14:13, “When thou makest a dinner or a supper, call not thy friend, nor thy brethren, nor thy kinsmen, nor thy neighbors who are rich, lest perhaps they also invite thee again and recompense be made to thee.”
------------------------------------------
Here is Tobias that was well before Jesus day. Tobias 4:16, “See thou never do to another what thou wouldst have to have done to thee by another.”
and Jesus quoted Tobias in St. Matt.7:12, “All things therefore, whatsoever you would that san should do to you, do you also to them, for this is the law and the prophet.”
and agains Jesus quoted Tobias in St.Luke 6:31, “And as you would that men should do to you, do you also to them in like manner.”
--------------------------------------------
Tobias 4:17, “Eat thy bread with the hungry and the needy and with thy garments cover the naked.”
St.Luke 14:13, “But when thou makest a feast, call the poor, the maimed, the lame and the blind.”
--------------------
Wisdom 1:6 is to Gal. 5:22; Wisdom 2:5 is to 1Cor.15:32; Wisdom 2:13 , “He boasteth that he hath the knowledge of God, and calleth himself the son of God.” is to St.Matt.27:42

Wisdom 2:14 is to St.John 7:7; Wisdom 3:7 is to St.Matt.13:43; Wisdom 3:8 is to 1Cor.6:2; Wisdom 3:14 is to St. Matt.7:27 Wisdom 5:18 is to Eph. 6:13; Wisdom 6:4 is to Rom.13:1; Wisdom 6:8 is to Acts 10:34; Rom.2:11; Gal.2:6; Eph.6:9; Col.3:25; 1StPeter1:17

Wisdom 7:2 is to 1Tim.6-7; Wisdom 7:11 is to St.Matt.6:33; Wisdom 7:26 is to Hebrew 1:3. Wisdom 9:9 is to St.John 1:1; Wisdom 9:13 is to Rom. 11:34 and 1Cor.2:16. Wisdom 10:14 is to Acts 7:9; Wisdom 12:13 is to 1St.Peter 5:7; Wisdom 12:24 is to Rom.1:23; Wisdom 13:1 is to Rom.1:18; Wisdom 13:7 is to Rom.1:21; Wisdom 15:7 is to Rom.9:21;

Wisdom 16:20, “Instead of which things thou didst feed thy people with the food of angels and gavest them bread from heaven prepared without labor having in it all that is delicious and the sweetness of every taste.” is to St.John 6:31

Wisdom 16:22 is to St.Matt.4:4; Sirach 2:1, “when thou comest to the service of God, stand in justice and in fear, and prepare thy soul for temptation.” is to St.Matt.4:1 and 2Tim.3:12;

Sirach 2:18, “They that fear the Lord will not be incredulous to his word: and they that love him will keep his way.” is to StJohn 14:23; Sirach 3:9, “Honor thy father in work and word and all patience.” is to StMatt. 15:4; StMark 7:10; Eph.6:2; Sirach 6:2 is to Rom.12:6.
Sirach 7:5,”Justify not thyself before God, for He knoweth the heart and desire not to appear wise before the king.” is to St.Luke 18:11; Sirach 7:38 is to Rom.12:15; Sirach 7:39 is to St.Matt.25:36; Sirach 8:2 is to St.Matt. 25:25; Sirach 8:6 is to 2Cor.2:6; and Gal.6:1

Sirach (Ecclesiasticus) has 51 chapters so there's lots more. Baruch doesn't seem to have any and a quick glance at 1Machabees has 4:59, "And Judas, and his brethren and all the church of Israel decreed that the day of the dedication of the altar should be kept in its season from year to year for 8 days, and from the 5 and 20th day of the month of Casleu, with joy and gladness." is to St.John 10:22. Check it out and let me know what you think. I bet you are a wiz on the Jewish feast days!!

In any event, the quotes and references are certainly there, far too many for me to write out each one.

I'm not sure about the Palestinians, but yes, I'm ok with that.



No this is NOT true. Only 39 books were accepted.



first off, just because he's "Protestant" means nothing to me. I'm not like you Lula. It has nothing to do with Catholic or Protestant. I don't take sides.

You still cannot show me one verse from any of the NT writers that come out of the Apocrypha. It's not Septuagint we are talking but Apocrypha....and I know you know the difference. You can't lump them all together and just call it the Septuagint.

None of those you quoted in the NT are referring to any of the Apocryphal books. I've already bit by bit showed you this in Post #16 and these are the same. Just for kicks....let's look at one of your latest:

Hebrews 11:17, “By faith, Abraham when he was tried, offered Isaac: and he that had received the promises, offered up his only begotten son.”
Sirach 44:21,”In his flesh he established the covenant and in temptation he was found faithful.”

Hebrews is quoting and going back to Genesis, (written way before Sirach) not the Apocryphal book of Sirach.


Jesus always always...and I'll say again made it clear either by directly quoting by using the OT Prophet's name or by prefacing "it is written." You've not been successful here to prove your Apocrypha is on the same level as the other 39 books.

Com'on Lula, I could write a book and put in quotes similar to OT principles but it doesn't mean my book is inspired. The Quaran has some similar teachings and quotes from the OT, but I (nor you) don't believe it is inspired.

Another thought Lula. You said the Septuagint was written in 200BC correct? Well the story behind the Maccabees which is retold in the Apocryphal books of Maccabees I and II did not happen until 168BC. So how did that part of the Apocrypha come into play? If you're saying that the Septugint was accepted with 46 books in 200BC how can that be? Maccabees had not even come to be yet?


Remember Ezra put the OT together and this was in the 445BC time period well before the Apocrypha was written. These are the 39 books accepted by the Jews. Not the 46 books accepted by the CC only much later on.

You know, there's this nit I've got - just right here, I don't know if you can see it . . . but it's really bugging. Can you guys pick it?

not getting you SC...sorry.....care to elaborate?

Come on KFC. Women couldn't vote in the US until the last century. Don't start talking "context". Sure, Paul was focusing on a particular problem in a particular place, but the social values of the time are pretty well known.

Does belief in the apocrypha have any bearing on your relationship with God?

Nope?

Didn't think so. So this whole thing is a moot point. She thinks it's scripture, you don't. And neither one of you is going to change it.

Mostly, I just laugh at the whole thing.

yes I agree Baker, but you're missing a very important component. Christ elevated women. Besides going by your logic, it also says we shouldn't do or we should do alot of things we don't do outlined in scripture. That doesn't make the bible wrong. It makes our application of it wrong.

Paul wrote about the equality of men and women as well. Gal 3:28 is just one example written by the same Paul who wrote Corinthians....

"There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond, nor free, there is neither male nor female: for you are all one in Christ Jesus."

In the unity of the Body of Christ differences of race, status, and gender lose their significance. Spiritual position is the same for all. But saying that, we also need to remember that although all are equal, there are diff roles for each.



well I'm glad we can serve to humor you SC. But there's nothing wrong with discussion. Isn't that what JU is all about? We agree on some points and disagree with others, but if you notice Lula and I do so with no animosity. We are truth seekers. One of us is right and one is wrong. Or we're both wrong. To me, it's all in the research and I love research. Who knows? Maybe you'll come away learning something. Keep laughing!! Laughter is like good medicine.

Didn't elevate any to be apostles, though. Odd, that.

ha,ha, ha, ---this is funny, my first laugh of the day. I imagine it does seem like nit-picking to some; down right boring to others. KFC and I know what it's all about though...and I don't think I'm being presumptuous to say that we actually like discussing our differences....at least I do.

That's true and very significant. Good, too, in my opinion.

Following that, since the bishops and prieshood are the Apostles successors, there are no woman priestesses in the CC and won't ever be although there is agitation for it. But that's not what Christ set up and therefore cannot be. Pope John Paul II infallibly declared that and the matter is closed. Women did have their special place though in both the Old and New Testament.

I think there are some Protestant sects who are still holding out as far as women pastors, aren't there, KFC? Although we are all equal in God's eyes, we are not equal in our nature, only complimentary....the woman has her own rightful place and purpose and the man has his own. That is just the way it is. Modern society, particularly radical feminism, is doing a good job blurring that. Wasn't the president of Harvard College forced to resign becasue he said that women weren't as smart as men in the math and sciences?

2 facts prove they are inspired. Jesus and the Apostles used and quoted from them, and they were included in the canon making it 46 Books as early 393AD.

The fact that these particular 7 Books of the Old Testament are there...included... contained in and part of the Bible proves that they are on the same level, that is, inspired, as the other 39 Books. These 7 Books were used with the other OT Books before Christ, at the time of Christ and after His Ascencion when He sent those out to complete His mission to "all nations" in the early days of the Church. Of course back then, they weren't put together as a "canon" as we have them now. The Greek manuscripts were gathered together and used and quoted from in the Apostle's teachings and for the early liturgy of the Holy Mass.

It was the Council at Hippo in 393 AD which first determined which books were inspired and were to be included in the BIble canon, a canon in every respect identical with the canon of the Council of Trent in 1546.

I can see your point and it has driven me back for more research. I was writing in general terms when I wrote the 200 BC for the date of the Septuagint.

The Septuagint is the ancient Greek OT. The term is derived from the Latin word, septuaginta, meaning 70 or LXX. It’s based on a legend that is given in the letter of Aristeas according to which the Greek translation of the Hebrew Pentateuch was the work of 70 (or rather, 72 actually) translaters. The term, Septuagint, was then extended to include the Greek translation of all the other books of the Hebrew and Aramiac OT and even the OT Books that were originally written in Greek. Together with the original 27 Greek books of the New Testament, the Septuagint is the official Bible of the CC.

The Septuagint was begun about 250 BC and completed about 100 BC. So this would explain the dates of the Books of Machabees. This translation was made for the Jews of Egypt so that they could read sacred books in Greek, the only language that most of them understood at the time. After that, the Septuagint was widely used in Palestine and distributed throughout the Greek speaking peoples of the Mediterranean world during the time of Christ and for the first century or longer of the Christian era.

The Douay Rheims historical index has this concerning the dates and going by Jewish years, year 1 being the year Adam, the first man of whom all mankind is propagated.

The year was 3727 when Onias, Simon, Priscus, and Eleazar were high priests, the 72 interpretaters were sent by Eleazarus to Ptolemeus Philadelphus, king of Egypt, to translate Hebrew Scriptures into Greek.
In 3829, Onias, a most zealous Godly high priest, 2Mach.4 was persecuted by Simon, a church warden, slain by Adronicus, a courlty minion, v.34. And at his death prayed for all the people. 15. 12. Jesus, the son of Sirach, wrote the book of Ecclesiasticus, in the time of this Simon high priest as it seems from v. 50, 24 and 25. Another Jesus, nephew of the former, translated Ecclesiasticus into Greek. Philo, the elder, wrote the Book of Wisdom in Greek.
In 3834, Antiochus Epiphnaes persecuted the Church most cruelly, like as Antichrist will do near the end of the world. 1 Mach.1:11 and 2Mach.5,6:7.
In 3838, while Mathathias and Judas were high priests, in defense of the Church, Mathathias and his sons with others made war, killed and overthrew all his enemies, advanced religion, cleansed the temple, and delivered the people from persecution. Died, 1Mach.2:70.
In 3861, while Jonathan and Simon were high priests, After the wars, the Jews in Jerusalem wrote to the Jews in Egypt, exhorting them to keep the feasts, and other rites, as they were observed in Judea. 2Mach.1& 2.
In 3897, while Johannes and Hyrcanus were high priests, Pompieus the Great, taking Jerusalem subdued the Jews to the Romans. He entered into the holy place, called Sancta Sanctorum, there profaned holy things, carried away Aristobulus (who had been high priest), as prisoner and confirmed Hycranus in his place.
In 3898, Aristobulus was high priest.
In 3934, Alexander and Hycranus were high priests. After whom Cassius also spoiled the temple.

In A.D.1 Christ is born at Bethlehem. He is circumcised. St.Luke 2 The Wise men come and adore Him. St.Matt. 2. He is presented in the temple. St.Joseph and the Blessed Virgin Mary flee with the Holy Child into Egypt. The massacre of the infants by Herod. St.Joseph with the Blessed Virgin with her Son return from Egypt, but for fear of Archelaus, go and live at Nazereth in Galilee. St.Matt.2
In A.D. 12 Jesus is found in the temple disputing with doctors when He was 12 years old. St.Luke 2.

Oh c'mon KFC!! Let's put it all in perspective and chronological order. The 46 Books of the Old Testament contained in the Catholic OT Canon are those contained in the Greek Spetuagint translation of the Hebrew Bible. This was the translation made in Alexandria, Egypt that started in 250 BC. by the 70 Jewish scholars residing there. This translation was made during the 3 centuries before the birth of Christ. The Jews, even of Palestine accepted the Septuagint or list of books. The Jews began to deny its authority ONLY about a century AFTER Christ becasue they could not resist the arguments drawn from it and used against them by the early Christians. They said it was a bad translation and that it did not agree with the Hebrew text and they rejected it. (Again, this is 100 years after Christ this is going on.) But the use the Jews had made of it themselves for nearly 400 years (including the Palestinian Jews) rendered the Palestinian Jews objection too late.
So, it boils down to the fact that the Palestinian Jews were against the early Christians and their use of the Greek Septuagint and they tried to cast doubt on the Septuagint and ended up rejecting the Septuagint and accepted the current Hebrew copies of the Old Testament which omitted 7 of the Books contained in the
Septuagint, and 1500 years later, the Protestants followed suit.

I've done some more reading on the Jamnia meeting in 90 AD when the the Palestinian Hebrew Canon came into existence, (but wasn't actually settled even then) and would like to compare notes with what you have.

What I have posted is from an article written by Steve Ray entitled, "The Council That Wasn’t" from This Rock Magazine, Sept. 2004.


Many myths are believed not because they are true but simply because people want to believe them. But wishful thinking is a poor substitute for truth. It is always preferable to dig deep and discover the facts and not believe things only because you want them to be true.

For instance, it is popular in some Protestant circles to claim that the Jews had a closed canon of Scripture in the first century A.D. and that the early Christians accepted this final Jewish collection of inspired writings as final and binding upon the Church. Generally, the Council of Jabneh (usually referred to in Catholic literature as Jamnia) is assumed as the "proof" for this assertion. At the "Council of Jabneh," you see, the Jewish rabbis supposedly got together—something like an ecumenical council in the Catholic Church—to lay down specific criteria for inspired Scripture and to finally define and close the Old Testament canon.

Is this true? First, we will look at how various authors defend the Protestant exclusion of seven books based on a flawed understanding of the so-called "Council of Jabneh." Second, did the members of this "council" actually discuss the limit of the Old Testament canon, and third, if so, did they have the authority to close the canon? Fourth, did they actually compile a final list of accepted writings, and, fifth—and importantly—if such a decision had been made, would the Christians be bound by that decision? We will conclude with the teaching of the Catholic Church and why we can trust it.

Let’s clarify a few terms. The canon of Scripture refers to the final collection of inspired books included in the Bible. The Catholic Bible contains seven books that do not appear in the Protestant Old Testament. These seven writings are called the deuterocanonicals or the Second Law. Protestants usually call these writings the Apocrypha (meaning hidden), books they consider outside the canon. These seven writings include 1 and 2 Maccabees, Tobit, Judith, Sirach, Wisdom, and Baruch, along with additional passages in Daniel and Esther. Before the time of Christ, these writings were included in the Jewish Greek Septuagint (LXX)—the Greek translation of Jewish Scripture—but they were not included in the Hebrew Masoretic text.



The Jewish Canon


The vast majority of Jews in the first centuries B.C. and A.D. lived outside of Israel. They were called the diaspora, those dispersed throughout the Roman Empire. Many had become Hellenized—that is, they had taken on the Greco-Roman culture, including the Greek language. The Septuagint, containing the deuterocanonical books, was the main Bible used by these Jews of the diaspora.

Most non-Christian Jews of the first century A.D. considered the Church to be a heretical and misinformed Jewish cult, probably similar to the way Christians look at the Mormons or Jehovah’s Witnesses of today. In the first century, several decades after the life of Christ, the majority of early Christians were Gentiles, and they used the Greek Septuagint as their Old Testament, following the example of the Greek-speaking Jews, including Jesus and the apostles (note 1, sidebar, page 25).

When Christians began to use this Greek translation to convert Jews to the faith, the Jews began to detest it (note 2, sidebar, page 25). Does it surprise anyone that they would condemn the canon and translation the Christians used, even if it was originally translated, approved of, and put into circulation by the Jews themselves three hundred and fifty years earlier (c. 250 B.C.)? The early Church, following the Greek Septuagint and the apostles’ extensive use of it (Paul took most of his Old Testament quotations from it), accepted the deuterocanonical books. When the canon was finally closed by the councils of the Catholic Church, these books were included.

The so-called "Council of Jabneh" was a group of Jewish scholars who were granted permission by Rome around the year 90 to meet in Palestine near the Mediterranean Sea in Jabneh (or Jamnia). Here they established a non-authoritative, "reconstituted" Sanhedrin. Among the things they discussed was the status of several questionable writings in the Jewish Bible. They also rejected the Christian writings and made a new translation of the Greek Septuagint.

Since many Protestant authors have appealed to the "Council of Jabneh" in their case against the deuterocanonical books contained in the Catholic Bible, it will serve us well to look at a few examples.

In his popular book Roman Catholics and Evangelicals: Agreements and Differences (co-authored by Ralph MacKenzie [Baker Books, 1995]), Norman Geisler, dean of Southern Evangelical Seminary, denies the Catholic canon of the Old Testament, claiming that the Jewish rabbis at Jabneh excluded the deuterocanonical books received by Catholics and that the canon was fixed (meaning finalized) at Jabneh.

Geisler writes, "The Jewish scholars at Jabneh (c. A.D. 90) did not accept the Apocrypha as part of the divinely inspired Jewish canon. Since the New Testament explicitly states that Israel was entrusted with the oracles of God and was the recipient of the covenants and the Law (Rom. 3:2), the Jews should be considered the custodians of the limits of their own canon. And they have always rejected the Apocrypha" (169). And though Geisler seems to deny the authority of the rabbis at Jabneh in one place in his A General Introduction to the Bible (with W. E. Nix [Moody Press, 1996]), he later relays in a chart, "Council of Jabneh (A.D. 90), Old Testament Canon fixed" (286).

Geisler is not alone in his assertion that the Apocrypha was rejected and the final Old Testament canon was fixed at Jabneh. It seems to be a common legend that is used as "proof" to bolster up an historical and incorrect assumption. Before we take a look at the myth, we will demonstrate how it is often appealed to. A couple more quick examples of this false reliance on the "Council of Jabneh" will suffice:

"At the end of the first Christian century, the Jewish rabbis, at the Council of Gamnia [Jamnia], closed the canon of the Hebrew book (those considered authoritative)" (Jimmy Swaggart, Catholicism & Christianity [Jimmy Swaggart Ministries, 1986], 129).

"After Jerusalem’s destruction, Jamnia became the home of the Great Sanhedrin. Around 100, a council of rabbis there established the final canon of the OT" (Ed. Martin, Ralph P., and Peter H. Davids, Dictionary of the Later New Testament and Its Developments [InterVarsity Press, 2000, c1997], 185).

Though many are now recognizing that Jabneh did not exclude the deuterocanonical books or authoritatively close the Old Testament canon, there are still plenty of sources that claim and assume that it did.


Did Jabneh have authority?


According to the Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church, the "council" in Jabneh in 90 was not even an "official" council with binding authority to make such a decision:

"After the fall of Jerusalem (A.D.70), an assembly of religious teachers was established at Jabneh; this body was regarded as to some extent replacing the Sanhedrin, though it did not possess the same representative character or national authority. It appears that one of the subjects discussed among the rabbis was the status of certain biblical books (e.g. Eccles. and Song of Solomon) whose canonicity was still open to question in the 1st century A.D. The suggestion that a particular synod of Jabneh, held c. 100 A.D., finally settling the limits of the Old Testament canon, was made by H. E. Ryle; though it has had a wide currency, there is no evidence to substantiate it" (ed. by F. L. Cross and E. A. Livingston [Oxford Univ. Press, 861], emphasis added).

Isn’t it interesting that the Jews did not have a "closed canon" of Scripture during the time of Christ, before 100, or even after Jabneh? Even during the time of Christ there were competing opinions on what books actually belonged in the Jewish Bible. There were various collections in existence. Sadducees and Samaritans accepted only the Pentateuch, the first five books, whereas the Pharisees accepted a fuller canon including Psalms and the prophets. The Masoretic text did not contain the deuterocanonicals, whereas the widely used Greek Septuagint did.

This uncertainty continued well into the second century. The discussion over the books of the canon of the Old Testament continued among the Jews long after Jabneh, which demonstrates that the canon was still under discussion in the third century—well beyond the apostolic period. The challenges to canonicity at Jabneh involved only Ecclesiastes and the Song of Solomon, but the debate over the canon continued past Jabneh, even into the second and third centuries. Even the Hebrew canon accepted by Protestants today was disputed by the Jews for two hundred years after Christ.

Some cautionary points should be noted here:

1. Although Christian authors seem to think in terms of a formal council at Jabneh, there was no such thing. There was a school for studying the Law at Jabneh, and the rabbis there exercised legal functions in the Jewish community.

2. Not only was there no formal council, there is no evidence that any list of books was drawn up at Jabneh.

3. A specific discussion of acceptance at Jabneh is attested only for the books of Ecclesiastes and the Song of Solomon. Even so, arguments regarding these books persisted in Judaism centuries after the Jabneh period. There were also subsequent debates about Esther.

4. We know of no books that were excluded at Jabneh. In fact, Sirach, which was read and copied by Jews after the Jabneh period, did not eventually become part of the standard Hebrew Bible (cf. Raymond Edward Brown, Joseph A. Fitzmyer, and Roland Edmund Murphy, The Jerome Biblical Commentary [Prentice-Hall, 1996, c. 1968], vol. 2, 522).


Why the Church rejects the Jewish canon


Even if the rabbis at Jabneh did have the authority to make such a canonical determination and had closed the canon, who says they had the authority from God to make such a binding determination? Why should Christians accept their determination? God had publicly turned aside from the Jews as his "prophetic voice" twenty years earlier when Jerusalem was destroyed and razed by fire. God judged them and rejected their old wineskins. The old wine and wineskin (Judaism) was now replaced by new wine (the gospel) and new wineskins (the Church). Why accept the unauthoritative rabbis’ determination rather than the Church’s?

There is a further reason we should not rely on the first-century Jews for their determination of the canon, even if they had made such a determination: The rabbis of Jabneh eventually provided a new translation in Greek to replace their previous translation of the Septuagint. Why? Because the Gentile Christians were using the Septuagint for apologetic and evangelistic purposes—in other words, they were converting the Jews using their own Greek Scriptures!

For example, they were using it to prove the virginal birth of Jesus. In the Hebrew Bible, Isaiah 7:14 is rendered, "A young woman shall conceive and bear a son," whereas the Greek Septuagint, quoted by Matthew (1:23), renders it, "A virgin shall be with child and bear a son" (emphasis added). The rabbis who supposedly "determined" the final Protestant canon also authorized a new Greek translation specifically to hinder the gospel. Aquila, the Jewish translator of the new version, denied the Virgin Birth and changed the Greek word from virgin to young woman.

One of the key issues in the first-century Jewish mind regarding the canon was not necessarily inspiration but resisting the Christian evangelization of the Jews and Gentiles. It was an issue of Jew versus the new Christian teaching and the Christians’ use of the Jewish Greek Scripture. It would seem rather strange for a Protestant to choose the truncated canon chosen by the Jewish leaders and by so doing fall on the side of the anti-Christian, disenfranchised Jew in this matter.

We do not know much about the deliberations at Jabneh, but we do know that they mentioned the Gospels of the New Testament. They mentioned them specifically in order to reject them. F. F. Bruce writes, "Some disputants also asked whether the Wisdom of Jesus the son of Sira (Ecclesiasticus), and the gilyonim (Aramaic Gospel writings) and other books of the minim (heretics, including Jewish Christians), should be admitted, but here the answer was uncompromisingly negative" (The Books and the Parchments [Fleming H. Revell, 1984], 88).

Many Protestants accept the Jewish opposition to the Catholic canon of Scripture because it supports them in their anti-Catholicism. Catholics, on the other hand, have accepted the determination and canon of the new covenant people of God, those who are the new priesthood (cf. 1 Pet. 2:9), the new wineskin. As we noticed earlier, Geisler comments, "Since the New Testament explicitly states that Israel was entrusted with the oracles of God and was the recipient of the covenants and the Law, the Jews should be considered the custodians of the limits for their own canon" (Roman Catholics and Evangelicals, 169).

Am I supposed to accept the alleged determination of the rabbis as authoritative and binding upon my soul, when the mantle of authority has been passed on to the Church by an act of the Holy Spirit? Does Geisler give his readers this historical information and timeline, reminding them that God had turned aside from the Jewish people and destroyed their temple before their unauthoritative "council" rejected the Gospels and the "whole Christian canon," including the New Testament?

The Jewish people had no closed canon prior to 300, and they "built a wall around it" to keep the Christians out. Why rely upon them? I accept the canon of the apostles and the early Church, which was determined by the bishops of the Church. And, like them, I do not accept the canon of anti-Christian Jewish leaders.

(Several Fathers, such as Jerome, accepted the Jewish Masoretic canon, but it was never an individual Father that made binding decisions for the Church; only the councils could do so.)

The canon of the Old Testament was not closed at Jabneh, nor were the deuterocanonicals excluded from the Old Testament there. Who has the authority from God to determine and close the canon of Scripture? Simply put, the Church. The Jewish hierarchy during the time of Christ claimed authority to bind and loose, which was a clearly understood technical term, but Jesus specifically appointed a new hierarchy over the "new Israel"—the Church—and transferred to this new magisterium the power to bind and loose (Matt. 16:19; 18:18). The Church was thus appointed to speak for God, and the final canon of Scripture would thus fall under its authority.

Protestant author Paul Achtemeier tells us, "Eastern and Roman Catholic tradition generally considered the Old Testament ‘apocryphal’ books to be canonical. It was not until the Protestant Reformation that these books were clearly denied canonical status (in Protestant circles). The Roman church, however, continues to affirm their place in the canon of Scripture" (Harper’s Bible Dictionary, 1st ed. [Harper & Row, c1985], 69).

At the Council of Trent the Church put the matter to rest by listing definitively the accepted books, which included the deuterocanonicals, and the Catechism of the Catholic Church affirms this list (CCC 120). This is the Catholic Bible we have today.

Isn’t it interesting that Martin Luther acknowledged the Catholic Church as the custodian of sacred Scripture (note 5, sidebar, page 25) when he wrote, "We concede—as we must—that so much of what they [the Catholic Church] say is true: that the papacy has God’s word and the office of the apostles, and that we have received holy scriptures, baptism, the sacrament, and the pulpit from them. What would we know of these if it were not for them?"


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Steve Ray is a convert from Evangelical Protestantism. His books include Crossing the Tiber and Upon This Rock, and he is host of the video series The Footprints of God (Ignatius Press). He writes from Ann Arbor, Michigan.