Biblical Canon?

[Guest]

So I know I posted this here somewhere but I can't find it at the moment.

 

 

[Willa]

Only the Ethiopian church has added the writings of some church fathers according to their church tradition. The reference to the book of Laodicia was even said by Jerome that it was thought to be spurious by "everyone". A genuine one may have existed at one time but no greek manuscripts exist for it.

A few books were not included as yet by some portions of the Church. The Peshitta was translated very early, perhaps around 150 AD, before the full cannon was established by all the churches. This began to occur about the same time.

Most of the rest of the books in question pertain to the Old Testament. The aprocrapha was written between the writing of Daniel and the time of Christ. It contains some Jewish history, some apocaslypse that read like Revelations, and some things that might be described as poetry. They are not accepted by the Jewish Rabbinical tradition cannon. We base our Old Testament after the more orthodox Masoretic Text. There are Jewish branches that are apt to be considered cults by the Orthodox. Just as we have cults that subscribe to other books, like the Book of Mormon, the Jews and Christians alike have groups that have become isolated due to their peculiar beliefs that differ greatly from that of the Bible as to Who God is and how we may be saved.

For instance, the Saducees did not believe in a resurrection, so we may today consider them a cult. The Samaritans also were banned because of their peculiar blending of paganism with Judism. That does not mean they cannot be saved. It means that they believed a false gospel and did not subscribe only to The One Living God of the Torah and that Prophets spoke by God.

Most of us come to God with strange ideas hanging on that fall off with years of reading the truth of God's Word. Some think man came from another planet. Some think we become angels after we die. Many think there is no hell. Most at one time thought that they were good people till the Holy Spirit convicted them of sin, righteousness and judgement. So we all need the enlightenment of the Holy Spirit as to the truth of Scripture, as well. Those who are sensitive to the Holy Spirit can easily discern the harmony in the Canon, and the disharmony in that which is not canon.

The Old Testament Apocrypha is considered good to read by most churches but we can't base doctrine on it. There are good parts such as history, there are false parts, and there is fiction. You can't base doctrine on Hollywood versions of Bible stories, either, or Jesus Christ, Superstar. If a church were to include the latter as a part of their canon, they would be considered a cult.

I believe that the Masoretic text of the Rabbinical Jews is the most conservative and factual list of holy scripture, Old Testament.

The early errant beliefs argued by the church fathers included all New Testament scriptures disputed today by modern translations but the Johanneum Comma; so I believe that the Majority Byzantine Text and textus Receptus to be more accurate than that considered "newest and best" manuscripts of the alexandrinus codex, which shows influence of gnosticism, and which still shows some influence in the Coptic church. In spite of this disagreement, I do not think it affects the salvation of any who trust in Christ as Lord and Savior, who love Him and follow Him. And I consider most versions accurate enough to bring people to salvation with the light of the Holy Spirit.

The New World Translation of the Jehovah's witness is one that has been altered to fit the beliefs of this cult. There is always danger when unbelievers who do not have the Holy Spirit try to translate Scripture using their own biases.

[WilliamL]

...So we all need the enlightenment of the Holy Spirit as to the truth of Scripture, as well. Those who are sensitive to the Holy Spirit can easily discern the harmony in the Canon, and the disharmony in that which is not canon.

 

This, of course, is the bottom line for discerning scripture from pseudo-scripture: the Holy Spirit, the Spirit of Truth. However, disagreement will still remain, because no one believer or conclave of believers is/are able to possess the fulness of that Spirit: only Jesus received the Spirit "without measure." John 3:34

 

I believe that the Masoretic text of the Rabbinical Jews is the most conservative and factual list of holy scripture, Old Testament.

 

Definitely the most conservative! But always remember, the rabbinical Jews are descended from the same Pharisees who rejected Jesus as being their Messiah. Not exactly an encouraging thought. For example, the Book of Enoch, which speaks massively about the pre- (and post-) incarnate Son of Man, certainly would not have received a warm reception from them, nor a book like 2 Esdras, which speaks similarly.

 

In sum, there is reason to believe that both the rabbinical Jews and the catholic Christians were more likely too conservative, rather than too liberal or perfectly inspired, when they established their respective canons. Which is why I hold that individual believers have the responsibility to personally seek the Holy Spirit to guide them in their understanding of what is and is not Holy Writ. And this will depend upon each believer's level of spiritual maturity.

[Ozzy]

Search for "lost books of the Bible" and you'll get a real eye opener to how much was excluded from the canon for political reasons.

[Guest]

LOL, not lost, just nor considered worthy of the being called holy scripture.

[Qnts2]

 

...So we all need the enlightenment of the Holy Spirit as to the truth of Scripture, as well. Those who are sensitive to the Holy Spirit can easily discern the harmony in the Canon, and the disharmony in that which is not canon.

 

This, of course, is the bottom line for discerning scripture from pseudo-scripture: the Holy Spirit, the Spirit of Truth. However, disagreement will still remain, because no one believer or conclave of believers is/are able to possess the fulness of that Spirit: only Jesus received the Spirit "without measure." John 3:34

 

I believe that the Masoretic text of the Rabbinical Jews is the most conservative and factual list of holy scripture, Old Testament.

 

Definitely the most conservative! But always remember, the rabbinical Jews are descended from the same Pharisees who rejected Jesus as being their Messiah. Not exactly an encouraging thought. For example, the Book of Enoch, which speaks massively about the pre- (and post-) incarnate Son of Man, certainly would not have received a warm reception from them, nor a book like 2 Esdras, which speaks similarly.

 

In sum, there is reason to believe that both the rabbinical Jews and the catholic Christians were more likely too conservative, rather than too liberal or perfectly inspired, when they established their respective canons. Which is why I hold that individual believers have the responsibility to personally seek the Holy Spirit to guide them in their understanding of what is and is not Holy Writ. And this will depend upon each believer's level of spiritual maturity.

 

 

The OT in Judaism is divided into three books/scrolls.

 

1. 5 Books of Moses- Torah

2. The major Prophetic books - Neviim

3. The writings - Ketuvim

 

The Torah/5 books of Moses and the major prophetic book/Neviim, were canonized already at the time of Jesus. Of the writings/Ketuvim, there were still discussions and that was finalized at a later time. But, one book which was already accepted of the Ketuvim was the book of Psalms.

 

Knowing that much of the OT/Tenakh was already canonized, we can expect to find mention of the Torah/books of Moses, and the Prophets in the NT. Actually, the Jewish divisions of the books in the OT, are repeatedly pointed out. I'll just add a couple of scriptures showing that Jesus accepted the books which had been canonized.

 

Luke 24:44 Now He said to them, “These are My words which I spoke to you while I was still with you, that all things which are written about Me in the Law of Moses and the Prophets and the Psalms must be fulfilled.”

 

The Law of Moses would be the canonized 5 books of Moses, called the Torah.

The Prophets, refers to the already canonized major Prophetic writings, called the Neviim.

And Psalms, was already canonized and is a part of the Ketuvim/writings.

 

The Masoretic text used what was already established canon. The Masoretes did not establish canon in terms of books. In Judaism, canon scripture is scripture, hand written in a scroll, in Hebrew (and some sections in Aramaic), and is verified letter by letter. If there is an error in one letter, it is not canon scripture. The Masoretes developed the method to verify letter by letter, so that there were no scribal errors.  

[WilliamL]

The Masoretic text used what was already established canon. The Masoretes did not establish canon in terms of books. In Judaism, canon scripture is scripture, hand written in a scroll, in Hebrew (and some sections in Aramaic), and is verified letter by letter. If there is an error in one letter, it is not canon scripture. The Masoretes developed the method to verify letter by letter, so that there were no scribal errors.  

 

The Masoretes were not established until hundreds of years after the destruction of the Second Temple, when Judaism was in severe decline. Therefore they worked from scrolls that were already hundreds of years old, and did their best (which was excellent) to reconcile differing readings. The pre-Christian era Dead Sea Scrolls shows some differences in readings from the Masoretic tradition, as well as in the canon itself. Likewise, Ethiopian Judaism, established in the time of Solomon, had its own canon, which included the Book of Enoch. "The established canon" of the rabbinical Jews was thus not the only canon, just as the 66 book of the Western Church is not the only accepted Christian canon. As I have pointed out before, the Apostle Jude quoted from the Book of Enoch as being authoritative, likewise Moses (Gen. 6:1-2). The Book of Jasher is mentioned as being authoritative in the biblical books of Joshua and 2 Samuel.

 

Both within and without the accepted canons, what to look for is agreement in doctrine. If a non-canonical book disagrees with well-established biblical doctrine, it should be rejected. If it agrees with biblical doctrine and adds other information, then this is where spiritual discernment must enter in: this comes only through the Holy Spirit of Truth. Discernment then becomes a personal matter of one's own spiritual maturity.

[Qnts2]

 

The Masoretic text used what was already established canon. The Masoretes did not establish canon in terms of books. In Judaism, canon scripture is scripture, hand written in a scroll, in Hebrew (and some sections in Aramaic), and is verified letter by letter. If there is an error in one letter, it is not canon scripture. The Masoretes developed the method to verify letter by letter, so that there were no scribal errors.  

 

The Masoretes were not established until hundreds of years after the destruction of the Second Temple, when Judaism was in severe decline. Therefore they worked from scrolls that were already hundreds of years old, and did their best (which was excellent) to reconcile differing readings. The pre-Christian era Dead Sea Scrolls shows some differences in readings from the Masoretic tradition, as well as in the canon itself. Likewise, Ethiopian Judaism, established in the time of Solomon, had its own canon, which included the Book of Enoch. "The established canon" of the rabbinical Jews was thus not the only canon, just as the 66 book of the Western Church is not the only accepted Christian canon. As I have pointed out before, the Apostle Jude quoted from the Book of Enoch as being authoritative, likewise Moses (Gen. 6:1-2). The Book of Jasher is mentioned as being authoritative in the biblical books of Joshua and 2 Samuel.

 

Both within and without the accepted canons, what to look for is agreement in doctrine. If a non-canonical book disagrees with well-established biblical doctrine, it should be rejected. If it agrees with biblical doctrine and adds other information, then this is where spiritual discernment must enter in: this comes only through the Holy Spirit of Truth. Discernment then becomes a personal matter of one's own spiritual maturity.

 

 

I agree that the Masoretes did an excellent job of reconciling scribal errors over the centuries.

 

But, as I said, what is canonized scripture in Judaism includes the way the text is written (it must be scrolls written in a certain way with no outside writing or even a single letter), the language the text is written in, etc. If the text is written in any other way, it is not canon scripture. If it is not canon scripture, other books of interest can be included in the collection. So, the dead sea scrolls is not written in canonized format, so any books included in that collection can not be assumed to be scripture.  The Dead Sea scrolls are not a legitimate souce of determining what was canon scripture.  

 

I know other people use the septuagint, which includes books not considered canon scripture in Judaism, to prove additional books should have been canonized but the Septuagint is written in Greek, and is therefore not canon scripture in Judaism at all, so it can not be used as proof of extraneous books being canon, when the entire Septuagint does not qualify as canon.  

 

The bible quotes or mentions the book of Jasher and the book of Enoch. Well, we do not have the originals of either one, but the bible also quotes Stoic philosophy, and Rabbinical sayings included in the Talmud. I certainly hope you are not going to argue for the inclusion of Stoic philosophy or the Talmud as canon scripture.

 

If groups choose to include non-canon books as scripture, they are simply outside of the what is accepted over thousands of years and they are going outside of what Jesus accepted as OT scripture.  People are certainly allowed their opinion, but that doesn't make them right.

[WilliamL]

I agree that the Masoretes did an excellent job of reconciling scribal errors over the centuries.

 

But, as I said, what is canonized scripture in Judaism includes the way the text is written (it must be scrolls written in a certain way with no outside writing or even a single letter), the language the text is written in, etc. If the text is written in any other way, it is not canon scripture. If it is not canon scripture, other books of interest can be included in the collection. So, the dead sea scrolls is not written in canonized format, so any books included in that collection can not be assumed to be scripture.  The Dead Sea scrolls are not a legitimate souce of determining what was canon scripture.  

 

William: This argument is of course based on the presumption that all of these rules and decisions were divinely authorized. What evidence is there for this? None that I know of.  

 

The bible quotes or mentions the book of Jasher and the book of Enoch. Well, we do not have the originals of either one, but the bible also quotes Stoic philosophy, and Rabbinical sayings included in the Talmud. I certainly hope you are not going to argue for the inclusion of Stoic philosophy or the Talmud as canon scripture.

 

We also don't have the originals of either the OT or the NT.  In the preface of the Book of Jasher I have, different scholars attest to the manuscript source being written in unpointed Hebrew, which indicates an ancient origin. (The Masoretes were the first to add the vowel points, if I remember correctly.) The Tanak is a Jewish book, while the Book of Jasher certainly appears to have been passed down via the tribe of Joseph. This might account for it being shunned by the Jews. As far as biblical quotes of rabbinical sayings in the Talmud: the Talmud of course was composed after the books of the Bible were written. It is an important source of history and Jewish traditions and customs, but was never intended to be scripture.

 

If groups choose to include non-canon books as scripture, they are simply outside of the what is accepted over thousands of years and they are going outside of what Jesus accepted as OT scripture.  People are certainly allowed their opinion, but that doesn't make them right.

 

I would not presume to know all that Jesus accepted/s as Scripture. When debating with the Jews, however, I believe he would have only used their own accepted texts, some or all of which may well have been in Aramaic: we don't really know.

 

[Qnts2]

 

I agree that the Masoretes did an excellent job of reconciling scribal errors over the centuries.

 

But, as I said, what is canonized scripture in Judaism includes the way the text is written (it must be scrolls written in a certain way with no outside writing or even a single letter), the language the text is written in, etc. If the text is written in any other way, it is not canon scripture. If it is not canon scripture, other books of interest can be included in the collection. So, the dead sea scrolls is not written in canonized format, so any books included in that collection can not be assumed to be scripture.  The Dead Sea scrolls are not a legitimate souce of determining what was canon scripture.  

 

William: This argument is of course based on the presumption that all of these rules and decisions were divinely authorized. What evidence is there for this? None that I know of.

 

The bible quotes or mentions the book of Jasher and the book of Enoch. Well, we do not have the originals of either one, but the bible also quotes Stoic philosophy, and Rabbinical sayings included in the Talmud. I certainly hope you are not going to argue for the inclusion of Stoic philosophy or the Talmud as canon scripture.

 

We also don't have the originals of either the OT or the NT.  In the preface of the Book of Jasher I have, different scholars attest to the manuscript source being written in unpointed Hebrew, which indicates an ancient origin. (The Masoretes were the first to add the vowel points, if I remember correctly.) The Tanak is a Jewish book, while the Book of Jasher certainly appears to have been passed down via the tribe of Joseph. This might account for it being shunned by the Jews. As far as biblical quotes of rabbinical sayings in the Talmud: the Talmud of course was composed after the books of the Bible were written. It is an important source of history and Jewish traditions and customs, but was never intended to be scripture.

 

If groups choose to include non-canon books as scripture, they are simply outside of the what is accepted over thousands of years and they are going outside of what Jesus accepted as OT scripture.  People are certainly allowed their opinion, but that doesn't make them right.

 

I would not presume to know all that Jesus accepted/s as Scripture. When debating with the Jews, however, I believe he would have only used their own accepted texts, some or all of which may well have been in Aramaic: we don't really know.

 

 

 

The rules are based on the idea that not one single letter/jot or tittle, are to be altered. If the original scripture, given by God is in Hebrew then an English translation is not what God gave. Judaism holds scripture at an extremely high value. So, canon includes the idea of nothing is to be altered as God had a reason to give it as He did. Judaism has long been careful about the most exact preservation, assuming the even each letter is there for a reason.  Since God gave the Tenakh to the Jewish people, and God entrusted the Jewish people for centuries, God is able to preserve His words. Then we come to the NT, and Jesus mentions the Jewish divisions of scripture many times, further affirming the canon. Jesus did not criticize but affirmed the scriptures meaning the absence of the book of Jasher and Enoch from canonized scripture did not concern Jesus or even be worthy of a mention. .

 

As far as something being written in unpointed Hebrew, that really means nothing as far as age or anything else. Hebrew was and still is written unpointed. The pointing is more for use when learning Hebrew, and for non-Hebrew speakers. After reading Hebrew for a while, and becoming familiar with it, pointing is no longer needed. Today in Israel, there are publications done which are not pointed, since Hebrew can be read unpointed. So you will have to come up with something better then a copy of a Hebrew book which is unpointed.  Not only that but the age of a book does not mean it is scripture. 

 

A vowel system did exist before the Masoretes and they used and standardized the vowel system. No copy of the Torah existed with pointing before the Masoretes and they pointed the 5 books of Moses, plus some other scripture. The texts with pointing are not considered canon as the pointing is an addition.