A revelation about which OT books to include

[Still Alive]

For your consideration and comments.

I was listening to Micheal Heiser  this morning discussing "where we get our old testament" and something hit me like a brick. 

One quick background note - I've never respected any books not in the bibles in use today by protestants.

The core issue: 

1. In the time of the early church, the Septuagint was the main "bible" used by Christians and Jews. It was the koine Greek OT that "everybody" used. It was kinda like what the KJV of the entire bible was to the western world until the 20th century. It was the bible (OT) that everyone used. It was their "holy scripture".

2. At the time of the reformation, reformers determined that only books in the Septuagint that could be traced back to Hibrew beginnings should be considered canonical, giving us the OT most protestants use to this day. They believed that anything that could only be traced back to Greek origins should not be canonical. And that actually makes sense. 

3. Enter 1947 and the discovery of the dead sea scrolls. And guess what? Those very books are found to exist in these newly discovered  scrolls and fragments, and even written using old usage of Hebrew. This strongly implies that the reason for removing them from canon has been debunked. 

4. Considering number 1 above, take a look at Peter and Timothy https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2+Timothy+3%3A16%2C2+Peter+1%3A21&version=NIV

If they considered the Septuagint to be their holy scripture, and then made the statements they did, this makes a strong case for the books of the Septuagint being in our modern Christian bibles. And when the reason for taking them out in the first place vanishes with the discovery of the dead sea scrolls, that position is further strengthened. 

Bottom line is that an almost ironclad case for re-including the books of the Septuagint in our modern bibles now exists. What am I missing here?

 

 

Edited October 18, 2018 by Still Alive

[Guest Butero]

On ‎10‎/‎18‎/‎2018 at 10:29 AM, Still Alive said:

For your consideration and comments.

I was listening to Micheal Heiser  this morning discussing "where we get our old testament" and something hit me like a brick. 

One quick background note - I've never respected any books not in the bibles in use today by protestants.

The core issue: 

1. In the time of the early church, the Septuagint was the main "bible" used by Christians and Jews. It was the koine Greek OT that "everybody" used. It was kinda like what the KJV of the entire bible was to the western world until the 20th century. It was the bible (OT) that everyone used. It was their "holy scripture".

2. At the time of the reformation, reformers determined that only books in the Septuagint that could be traced back to Hibrew beginnings should be considered canonical, giving us the OT most protestants use to this day. They believed that anything that could only be traced back to Greek origins should not be canonical. And that actually makes sense. 

3. Enter 1947 and the discovery of the dead sea scrolls. And guess what? Those very books are found to exist in these newly discovered  scrolls and fragments, and even written using old usage of Hebrew. This strongly implies that the reason for removing them from canon has been debunked. 

4. Considering number 1 above, take a look at Peter and Timothy https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2+Timothy+3%3A16%2C2+Peter+1%3A21&version=NIV

If they considered the Septuagint to be their holy scripture, and then made the statements they did, this makes a strong case for the books of the Septuagint being in our modern Christian bibles. And when the reason for taking them out in the first place vanishes with the discovery of the dead sea scrolls, that position is further strengthened. 

Bottom line is that an almost ironclad case for re-including the books of the Septuagint in our modern bibles now exists. What am I missing here?

 

 

From what you just said, I must conclude you don't see our canon as complete.  What books should be included that are not?  

[frienduff thaylorde]

On ‎12‎/‎4‎/‎2018 at 10:08 AM, Butero said:

From what you just said, I must conclude you don't see our canon as complete.  What books should be included that are not?  

Butero ,   you pray about this ,    but I perceive this move that some of these leaders are in on ,   Is just a move for a new bible . 

From every angle now , from the protestant , to the jewish movements , to the catholics and so on ,   It seems a move is building .

To get folks to simply DOUBT in what is already written .   And who would author such a thing .   a hint ,    HAS GOD REALLY SAID .......................

[Deborah_]

On 10/18/2018 at 3:29 PM, Still Alive said:

For your consideration and comments.

I was listening to Micheal Heiser  this morning discussing "where we get our old testament" and something hit me like a brick. 

One quick background note - I've never respected any books not in the bibles in use today by protestants.

The core issue: 

1. In the time of the early church, the Septuagint was the main "bible" used by Christians and Jews. It was the koine Greek OT that "everybody" used. It was kinda like what the KJV of the entire bible was to the western world until the 20th century. It was the bible (OT) that everyone used. It was their "holy scripture".

2. At the time of the reformation, reformers determined that only books in the Septuagint that could be traced back to Hibrew beginnings should be considered canonical, giving us the OT most protestants use to this day. They believed that anything that could only be traced back to Greek origins should not be canonical. And that actually makes sense. 

3. Enter 1947 and the discovery of the dead sea scrolls. And guess what? Those very books are found to exist in these newly discovered  scrolls and fragments, and even written using old usage of Hebrew. This strongly implies that the reason for removing them from canon has been debunked. 

4. Considering number 1 above, take a look at Peter and Timothy https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2+Timothy+3%3A16%2C2+Peter+1%3A21&version=NIV

If they considered the Septuagint to be their holy scripture, and then made the statements they did, this makes a strong case for the books of the Septuagint being in our modern Christian bibles. And when the reason for taking them out in the first place vanishes with the discovery of the dead sea scrolls, that position is further strengthened. 

Bottom line is that an almost ironclad case for re-including the books of the Septuagint in our modern bibles now exists. What am I missing here?

 

 

According to this website, the only apocryphal books found amongst the Dead Sea Scrolls are the Wisdom of Ben-Sira (Ecclesiasticus), Tobit and the Epistle of Jeremiah.

https://www.deadseascrolls.org.il/learn-about-the-scrolls/scrolls-content?locale=en_US

The Dead Sea Scrolls contain many types of texts, not just books of the Bible.

Incidentally, I have always understood that the Reformers followed the Hebrew canon in rejecting the apocryphal books - not because they weren't originally written in Hebrew but because they weren't written by prophets.

Edited December 7, 2018 by Deborah_

[Jayne]

On ‎10‎/‎18‎/‎2018 at 9:29 AM, Still Alive said:

Bottom line is that an almost ironclad case for re-including the books of the Septuagint in our modern bibles now exists. What am I missing here?

What you are missing here is a knowledge of what constitutes the Dead Sea Scrolls.  It was not an Old Testament warehouse.  It was a library. Lots of non-religious books and calendars, too.

Just because a parchment was in those 12 caves doesn't make it holy writ.  A piece of paper does not an inspired and holy word make.  No matter where you discover it.

I say this all of the time and I never seem to convince people.  READ the Apocryphal books.  READ them side by side with your Bible.  The two sets of writings do not teach the same thing.  Either the Bible is lying, in part, or the Apocryphal books, in part, are lying.

 There is no way to mesh the two.

Have you ever picked up an Apocryphal book and read it?  I have.  Several.  If you don't have access to any, you can find them on-line. 

Edited December 7, 2018 by Jayne

[Still Alive]

8 minutes ago, Jayne said:

What you are missing here is a knowledge of what constitutes the Dead Sea Scrolls.  It was not an Old Testament warehouse.  It was a library. Lots of non-religious books and calendars, too.

Just because a parchment was in those 12 caves doesn't make it holy writ.  A piece of paper does not an inspired and holy word make.  No matter where you discover it.

I say this all of the time and I never seem to convince people.  READ the Apocryphal books.  READ them side by side with your Bible.  The two sets of writings do not teach the same thing.  Either the Bible is lying, in part, or the Apocryphal books, in part, are lying.

 There is no way to mesh the two.

Have you ever picked up an Apocryphal book and read it?  I have.  Several.  If you don't have access to any, you can find them on-line. 

Nothing I disagree with there. Just one clarification: I'm a very binary thinker. That is, if one does "A" because "B", and then "B" turns out to not be true, then the reason for doing "A" disappears. 

Regarding the dead sea scrolls, "A" was removing the books and "B" was because there were no Hebrew versions that predated the Greek versions in the Septuagint. But, for some books, "B" turned out to be false, removing the reason for doing "A".

That was pretty much it. Yes, I understand they are not all in the DSS and I also understand that they have some pretty nutty stuff in them.

[Still Alive]

1 hour ago, Deborah_ said:

Incidentally, I have always understood that the Reformers followed the Hebrew canon in rejecting the apocryphal books - not because they weren't originally written in Hebrew but because they weren't written by prophets.

That was my understanding as well - at least that that was part of the reason. It was the recent discovery by me of some of the nuances of the history of the Septuagint that sparked my "theory/question".

[Uber Genius]

2 hours ago, Deborah_ said:

According to this website, the only apocryphal books found amongst the Dead Sea Scrolls are the Wisdom of Ben-Sira (Ecclesiasticus), Tobit and the Epistle of Jeremiah.

https://www.deadseascrolls.org.il/learn-about-the-scrolls/scrolls-content?locale=en_US

The Dead Sea Scrolls contain many types of texts, not just books of the Bible.

Incidentally, I have always understood that the Reformers followed the Hebrew canon in rejecting the apocryphal books - not because they weren't originally written in Hebrew but because they weren't written by prophets.

Love Dr. MIchael Heiser's work and videos!

The intertestimental works should be read at least to give us the context of some of the thinking of that culture. Several NT writers quote passages out of 1 Enoch. Many church fathers argued for canonization of some of these books and quote from them. That said a quick read will demonstrate the dubious inconsistency of the historical accounts. I use them to help understand the some of the beliefs common to the intertestimental culture. Now that we have over 100,000 new translations of Dead Sea Scroll texts I look forward to compendiums on the 700-year period of 400 BCE to 300 CE generally.

[Jayne]

1 hour ago, Uber Genius said:

 

Several NT writers quote passages out of 1 Enoch.

That said a quick read will demonstrate the dubious inconsistency of the historical accounts. 

Could you cite those "several NT writers" who quoted 1 Enoch?

1 Enoch [as well as the other 2] have so much doctrinal error, not just historical error that we know the Holy Spirit did not inspire the authors to Enoch to say what they did.  That begs the question - where did they get their information?  Because the Bible implies in Jude that the real Enoch's message was powerful and important, it has to have been a real message.

The Jews had a lot of oral tradition.  Both the authors of Enoch and Jude knew of that oral tradition.  So is Jude quoting Enoch or are they both citing oral tradition?

Besides - if you look carefully at both quotes, they have different teachings.

Jude says "The Lord is coming.....to convict [some translations say convince] the ungodly...…]

Enoch says "The Lord is coming.....to destroy the ungodly.....]

I know that some say Jesus quote the book of Enoch, but no - such as when Jesus say, "The meek shall inherit the earth".  King David said that first in the book of Psalms.

[Uber Genius]

47 minutes ago, Jayne said:

Could you cite those "several NT writers" who quoted 1 Enoch?

1 Enoch [as well as the other 2] have so much doctrinal error, not just historical error that we know the Holy Spirit did not inspire the authors to Enoch to say what they did.  That begs the question - where did they get their information?  Because the Bible implies in Jude that the real Enoch's message was powerful and important, it has to have been a real message.

The Jews had a lot of oral tradition.  Both the authors of Enoch and Jude knew of that oral tradition.  So is Jude quoting Enoch or are they both citing oral tradition?

Besides - if you look carefully at both quotes, they have different teachings.

Jude says "The Lord is coming.....to convict [some translations say convince] the ungodly...…]

Enoch says "The Lord is coming.....to destroy the ungodly.....]

I know that some say Jesus quote the book of Enoch, but no - such as when Jesus say, "The meek shall inherit the earth".  King David said that first in the book of Psalms.

So your point is that when Jude and Peter quote 1 Enoch they are quoting oral tradition? Okay. 

But they are quoting they hold as true.

So first of all doesn't that destroy all quotations equally?

Eg. "Jesus was quoting Isaiah," "No, he was quoting oral tradition of Isaiah, so we can't trust what Jesus was saying."

Doctrinal error approach seems circular. Remember that Luther argued that James be pulled out of the canon because it disagreed (on its face anyway) with his sola gratia message. Likewise some of the ante-Nicene Church Fathers were accused of similar arguments. So we we to argue from doctrine as a precondition of canon as opposed to canon as a precondition of doctrine seems backward and consequentialist.

But the point is moot since I am not relying on 1 Enoch for doctrine, nor am I arguing for its inclusion in the canon. Just suggesting that it was a source of true beliefs for some NT writers and the origin of texts penned by Peter and the author of Jude and 

The scholarly work Nestle-Aland catalogs all sources based survey of similar phrases in original languages and based on order of appearance. It is in the index not the textual notes.

http://drmsh.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/New-Testament-Allusions-to-Apocrypha-and-Pseudepigrapha.pdf gives a list of the txts that scholars suspect have their origin in intertestimental writings not in the Protestant canon. 

The point here is the NT authors were not illiterate. They were readers and were familiar with, and reacted to the things that were written and discussed in their culture. Sometime they lifted ideas from other texts not in the Bible, other times the lifted the argument and structure and changed the key elements to contrast the Christian worldview to the Second Temple Jewish worldview. Sometimes they repeated things they took to be true from other sources.

We must remember that the majority of early NT quotes of the OT were from the Septuagint.

My point is that it is anachronistic to take Luther's worldview and read it back into the worldview of the NT authors. 

 

 

Edited December 7, 2018 by Uber Genius