Question about the Canon being Closed

[TheMatrixHasU71]

14 minutes ago, Judas Machabeus said:

But we're not Jewish and we did add to the canon. If the canon was truely closed by the Jews as you laid out than how do we have a New Testament?

Jeremiah 31:31 

Behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah:

[Deborah_]

6 minutes ago, Judas Machabeus said:

But we're not Jewish and we did add to the canon. If the canon was truely closed by the Jews as you laid out than how do we have a New Testament? A closed canon means no new books. So clearly as Christian we do not accept the closed Jewish canon otherwise we could not have added the New Testament. 

We don't have two separate bibles. We don't have a Jewish bible and a separate Christian bible. 

Also the Jewish canon wasn't closed at the time of Jesus, 80% of the OT quotes found in the NT come from the sepruigent. So that means there were 2 canons being used by NT writers. 

I don't want to go too far down the Jewish canon rabbit hole so I'll finish with this, and it just my own personal opinion. 

If the NT writers quoted the septuigent as scripture and they were being guided by the Holy Spirit than the septuigent must be scripture. Otherwise the over whelming majority of quotes of not all, would have came from the Hebrew canon and not the septuigent. 

The NT writers quoted from the Septuagint because it was the official Greek translation of the OT, and they were writing in Greek for Greek-speaking people who were familiar with it. Not because it contained the 'correct' canon. (Most of the Apocrypha wasn't originally written in Hebrew anyway; those books were written in Greek and didn't require translating, so would not have been in the 'original' Septuagint).

We have to remember that at that time neither the NT nor the OT existed as single books; they were collections of scrolls. The earliest complete book of the Septuagint that we have is no older than the earliest complete NT (i.e. 4th century). That one does contain the Apocrypha - but collections of scrolls don't have a fixed set of contents. They were more like our modern-day bookshelves, and their contents were largely determined by availability and personal preference.

2 hours ago, BobRyan said:

As Josephus points out - the Jews already had the concept of a closed canon 300 years before the time of Christ. Not one book added not one letter added in over 400 years - a closed canon, kept in the Temple in Jerusalem according to that Jewish historian. So this notion of a "closed canon" preceded the Jews that became Christians in the NT. 

Josephus was referring to the Temple collection of Scriptures; but I understand there were differences of opinion between the various Jewish communities (inside and outside Palestine) that were not officially resolved until about a century later. Interesting, though, that the Temple canon was confirmed then.

[Guest Judas Machabeus]

53 minutes ago, Deborah_ said:

Not because it contained the 'correct' canon.

I wasn't arguing this point. I was pointing out that during the first century that two different canons were being quoted from and both would be scriptural. 

Bobryan mentioned Josephus and that according to him (Josephus) the canon was pretty much decided on during his time. Which maybe true for the scribes and the Pharisees. But not true for the Jewish people as a whole. The NT writers only used the Pharisee canon 20% of the time, so Josephus may have considered the canon decided but the NT writers didn't. And since I'm Christian and not Jewish I'm going to go with the NT writers. 

53 minutes ago, Deborah_ said:

We have to remember that at that time neither the NT nor the OT existed as single books; they were collections of scrolls

Yes I understand this, but 72 scrolls or one book. Doesn't affect the canon. The canon doesn't change because you have each book in individual scrolls. 

bring up the Jewish canon kinda opens a can of worms I think. Because if the Jewish canon is closed we can not have a NT. Because you can not add books to scriputre is the canon is closed. 

If someone is going to argue we added to a closed Jewish canon, than why can't we added to a closed Christian canon. 

I believe that the Jews closed their canon in the second century and closed it on the Pharisee canon in response to the Christians using the septuigent. All this occurring after the NT books were written and being circulated. So the Christian now having their own collection of what they called scriputre were now independent of the Jews. 

[BobRyan]

9 hours ago, BobRyan said:

As Josephus points out - the Jews already had the concept of a closed canon 300 years before the time of Christ. Not one book added not one letter added in over 400 years - a closed canon, kept in the Temple in Jerusalem according to that Jewish historian. So this notion of a "closed canon" preceded the Jews that became Christians in the NT. 

 

6 hours ago, Judas Machabeus said:

But we're not Jewish and we did add to the canon. If the canon was truely closed by the Jews as you laid out than how do we have a New Testament? A closed canon means no new books.

The NT canon was not added to the sacred texts kept in the Temple in Jerusalem. That Hebrew Bible was not added to or changed. 

6 hours ago, Judas Machabeus said:

So clearly as Christian we do not accept the closed Jewish canon otherwise we could not have added the New Testament. 

We do accept that the OT is fixed - and was closed over 300 years before Christ. And so then that brings us to the NT which is a closed canon after all the Apostles died - John being the last of them.

6 hours ago, Judas Machabeus said:

We don't have two separate bibles. We don't have a Jewish bible and a separate Christian bible. 

Well the Jews don't see it that way. And the Christians don't argue that non-Jewish Christians were writing the OT. It is their canon - it is closed.

The 27 books of the NT - is the Christian canon - written by Christian Jews (for the most part). It was closed at the end of the first century.

6 hours ago, Judas Machabeus said:

Also the Jewish canon wasn't closed at the time of Jesus, 80% of the OT quotes found in the NT come from the sepruigent. So that means there were 2 canons being used by NT writers. 

The NT text is Greek - so also the Septuagint. The Septuagint was not kept in the temple. It was a concession to the fact that many Jews outside of Israel could not read or speak Hebrew and needed a greek text.

6 hours ago, Judas Machabeus said:

I don't want to go too far down the Jewish canon rabbit hole so I'll finish with this, and it just my own personal opinion. 

If the NT writers quoted the septuigent as scripture and they were being guided by the Holy Spirit than the septuigent must be scripture. Otherwise the over whelming majority of quotes of not all, would have came from the Hebrew canon and not the septuigent. 

The argument is not that the 70 elders that translated from the actual Hebrew canon - into the Septuagint were doing something evil. But a new translation is no more a "new canon" than a German Bible is a "new Canon" from the Greek.

[BobRyan]

6 hours ago, Deborah_ said:

 

Josephus was referring to the Temple collection of Scriptures; but I understand there were differences of opinion between the various Jewish communities (inside and outside Palestine) that were not officially resolved until about a century later. Interesting, though, that the Temple canon was confirmed then.

I don't know of any case during those 3 or 4 centuries before Christ - where new Hebrew texts were being added or subtracted from what was kept in the temple. Jews having debates is nothing new - but the historic fact that Josephus was pointing to - was the fact that they had not changed that fixed canon in the temple for over 400 years.

[other one]

1 hour ago, BobRyan said:

I don't know of any case during those 3 or 4 centuries before Christ - where new Hebrew texts were being added or subtracted from what was kept in the temple. Jews having debates is nothing new - but the historic fact that Josephus was pointing to - was the fact that they had not changed that fixed canon in the temple for over 400 years.

the Septuagint translation was penned during that time period.   There are some interesting things within it's pages....   and from what I read from linguistic studied people, it was the Septuagint that 80+ percent of the New Testament Quotes of the Old Testament scripture comes from.

[Guest Judas Machabeus]

9 hours ago, BobRyan said:

I don't know of any case during those 3 or 4 centuries before Christ - where new Hebrew texts were being added or subtracted from what was kept in the temple. Jews having debates is nothing new - but the historic fact that Josephus was pointing to - was the fact that they had not changed that fixed canon in the temple for over 400 years.

If this is true than why did the NT writers quote from the septuigent 80% of the time and from the temple canon 20%. If the canon was closed why where there two canons?

Im not disputing that the temple canon had no books added to it after xyz BC. I'm saying it wasn't closed because there were two different canons being used. 

This is no different than the first 300 years of Chritianity. Different regions used different books and rejected others. That's why at the end of the 4th century the Church came together and decided on one canon. 

 

[BobRyan]

5 hours ago, Judas Machabeus said:

If this is true than why did the NT writers quote from the septuigent 80% of the time and from the temple canon 20%. 

That is like asking why Germans quote from a German Bible when reading the Bible to Germans. The intended contemporary readers of the Greek NT lived in the Roman Empire that was still using Greek as the international language.

I think this is the easy part.

 

5 hours ago, Judas Machabeus said:

 

If the canon was closed why where there two canons?

That is like saying we have 3 New Testaments, a Greek one, an English one and a German one because we are going to count each translation as a  "new Canon".

I think you and I both know why that is not what is done.

5 hours ago, Judas Machabeus said:

Im not disputing that the temple canon had no books added to it after xyz BC. I'm saying it wasn't closed because there were two different canons being used. 

This is no different than the first 300 years of Chritianity. Different regions used different books and rejected others. That's why at the end of the 4th century the Church came together and decided on one canon. 

The idea that the Jews were waiting 400 more years - after their canon had been fixed for 400 years ... for Christians to come along and tell them what the Hebrew Bible is.. is totally without logic or reason. I think you and I would both agree on that irrefutable point.

[Guest Judas Machabeus]

1 hour ago, BobRyan said:

That is like asking why Germans quote from a German Bible when reading the Bible to Germans. The intended contemporary readers of the Greek NT lived in the Roman Empire that was still using Greek as the international language.

I think this is the easy part.

 

That is like saying we have 3 New Testaments, a Greek one, an English one and a German one because we are going to count each translation as a  "new Canon".

I think you and I both know why that is not what is done.

The idea that the Jews were waiting 400 more years - after their canon had been fixed for 400 years ... for Christians to come along and tell them what the Hebrew Bible is.. is totally without logic or reason. I think you and I would both agree on that irrefutable point.

I think there's a piece of the puzzle missing here. 

You are talking about different languages being the canon. That's not the case. A German bible is going to have the same books as a French bible. 

Yes the septuigent was Greek and the temple Bible Hebrew. But that's not what makes them different canons. They have different books in them. That's what makes the canon different. Not the language. 

If I quote from the book of Maccabees  as scripture, that would be rejected by those here because it's not part of the Protestant Canon.

if an EO (I believe Coptic) quotes from the Book of Jubilee both myself and Protestants are going to reject it because is not part of our canon.

The reason that the septuigent canon is rejected today and the Jews go by the temple canon is they claim no new revelation came after (I believe around) 450BC. The septuigent has The Maccabees books. Also they used language to determine if something was scriputre, so it no Hebrew version was written than it was scriputre. So our entire NT is void by that standard a lone if looking to the temple Jews for how to determine a canon.

Im rambling now, so let me summarize my point. The Septuigent and the Temple canons were different yet both considered scriputre. Both were quoted by NT writers and I argue both were considered scriputre. But because they had different books, I argue the canon was not closed.... at least not in the eyes of the NT writers. 

[Guest]

On 5/18/2017 at 8:56 AM, Judas Machabeus said:

I'm reading Steve Rays book crossing the Tiber. So to help me understand the Protestant point of view I may end up with lots of questions. 

I believe everyone here agrees that the canon of scripture is closed meaning no more books can be added to the bible. 

Heres my question:

where does that teaching come from and is it biblical?

I've never agreed with this closed cannon deal. The Ethiopian orthodox church has 93 books and they considered this the entire divinely inspired Bible.