Re: Qeustion about Canon

<parakaleo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
> "Stephen Korsman" <skorsman@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, posted this little bit
> of stuff:
> you posted in alt.religion.christian.roman-catholic :
> >
> ><parakaleo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
> >news:cgc6o197mrjmau7s6vgqm61s5q9lmaptbq@xxxxxxxxxx
> >> "News Post" <newsgroup@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, posted this little bit of
> >> stuff:
> >> you posted in alt.religion.christian.roman-catholic :
> >> >Zadok wrote:
> >> >> "David" <> wrote in message ...
> >> >>
> >> >>> Can anyone give me some good arguements for including
> >> >>> dueterocanonical books in the general canon?
> >> >>>
> >> >>> DH
> >> >>
> >> >> NO!! They can't. There are no arguments for including them. All the
> >> >> early church fathers, did not list them in the canon of the bible.
> >> >>
> >> >> Anyone who tells you different is lying!!
> >> >
> >> >In your opinion.
> >> >
> >> So demonstrate by showing CITABLE texts that he is wrong. SHOW US one
> >> church father from the first two centuries that included them by
> >> showing us ONE WRITING from that period of time that says so.
> >
> >Interesting time limitation you set - is that because you don't want us
> >be able to answer?
> No, it is because the first century church was Christ's church. The
> mid-late second century church writers were largely "changing" the
> religion they were following and its doctrines, straying away from the
> truth.
> So show me IN THE ORIGINAL church that something is true, and I will
> believe it. Show me something that was "invented" centuries later,
> and I have no reason to believe it existed in what Jesus began at all.

An explicit statement on the Trinity didn't exist in the original Church.
Doctrinal development is legitimate.

Sola Scriptura didn't exist in the original Church. Doctrinal innovation is
highly suspect.

> >"Since, therefore, [Christ] was about to be manifested and to suffer in
> >flesh, his suffering was foreshown. For the prophet speaks against evil,
> >`Woe to their soul, because they have counseled an evil counsel against
> >themselves' [Isa. 3:9], saying, `Let us bind the righteous man because he
> >displeasing to us' [Wis. 2:12.]" (Letter of Barnabas 6:7 [A.D. 74]).
> And this is to show us that the apocrypha was supposed to be called
> "scripture" HOW?

They treated them as they do the rest of the Old Testament. Their example
was followed by those who later considered them to be part of the canon in
the explicit lists they drew up.

> >"Those . . . who are believed to be presbyters by many, but serve their
> >lusts and do not place the fear of God supreme in their hearts, but
> >themselves with contempt toward others and are puffed up with the pride
> >holding the chief seat [Matt. 23:6] and work evil deeds in secret, saying
> >`No man sees us,' shall be convicted by the Word, who does not judge
> >outward appearance, nor looks upon the countenance, but the heart; and
> >shall hear those words to be found in Daniel the prophet: `O you seed of
> >Canaan and not of Judah, beauty has deceived you and lust perverted your
> >heart' [Dan. 13:56]. You that have grown old in wicked days, now your
> >which you have committed before have come to light, for you have
> >false judgments and have been accustomed to condemn the innocent and to
> >the guilty go free, although the Lord says, `You shall not slay the
> >and the righteous' [Dan. 13:52, citing Ex. 23:7]" (Against Heresies
> >[A.D. 189]; Dan. 13 is not in the Protestant Bible).
> It's not in the Apocrypha either.

Oh yes, Daniel 13 is part of the Apocrypha.

Dan 13:1 There dwelt a man in Babylon, called Joacim:
(13:2) And he took a wife, whose name was Susanna, the daughter of Chelcias,
a very fair woman, and one that feared the Lord.
(13:3) Her parents also were righteous, and taught their daughter according
to the law of Moses.
(13:4) Now Joacim was a great rich man, and had a fair garden joining unto
his house: and to him resorted the Jews; because he was more honourable than
all others.

Cut and paste from the Apocrypha.

> And the septuagint? I'll have to
> look sometime. But this is supposed to show us that the Apocrypha
> should be considered to be scripture exactly HOW?
> >
> >From
> >
> >The Muratorian Canon (ca 170-190 AD) - a list of New Testament books -
> >includes the Wisdom of Solomon.
> From The Canon and Extra-Canonical Writings
> by Zach Smith: (found at
> "While the Hebrew canon never included the Apocrypha, the Hellenist
> and some early Christian canons and manuscripts included them.
> Existing copies of the Septuagint include them, some of the early
> Christian writings quote from them, and some Greek Church Fathers
> (Irenaeus, Tertullian, Clement of Alexandria, et al.) regarded them as
> canonical (Geisler and Nix, 1986, pp. 266-267).

This is the point you were refuting earlier. Now you've just made our
point. Thanks.

> The Catholic Church's
> Council of Hippo (A.D. 393), the Third Council of Carthage (A.D. 397),
> the Sixth Council of Carthage (A.D. 419),

This is the point you argue against later. So you've just made our point.

> and the Fourth Session of
> the Council of Trent (A.D. 1546) accepted the Apocrypha as canonical
> (Bruce, 1988, pp. 97,104-105). Thus, they gained acceptance in the
> Catholic Church and the later divergences of the Orthodox churches,
> but why do we reject them?

Gained acceptance? Rather, were used all along, and when debate arose about
both NT and OT canons, they were formally accepted.

> One objection is that they were written
> after the Old Testament revelations had ceased (after the time of
> Malachi), and before the New Testament revelations had begun. While
> certain books, like 1 and 2 Maccabees, contain accurate historical
> records, they should not be included any more than the histories
> written by Tacitus or Herodotus. In addition, many of the apocryphal
> additions to the Old Testament contain errors and contradictions.
> Nevertheless, the foremost objection to the inclusion of the Apocrypha
> is that the Hebrew Bible did not include them, and the majority of
> Jews did not consider them inspired writings. The Jews considered the
> canon complete and closed, consisting of only those thirty-nine books
> that make up our Old Testament. It was closed in the days of Ezra, and
> should not be re-opened to include such late additions as the
> Apocrypha"

Since the Hebrew Canon was finalised around 90 AD at Jamnia, only after the
split between Jews and Christians, what they decided should not be of
relevance. The difference between the Hebrews and the Hellenists, as you
call them, is the language of their Old Testament - and by the time of
Christ, the distinction was not that great at all. But, sticking to that
distinction, the Greek OT had these books in them, translated from older
texts in Aramaic, or Hebrew, while Hebrew ( including Aramaic) OT had these
as well, as is seen at Qumran. Other texts existed amongst these - and
since there was no set canon - yet - some were used as inspired. Even after
Jamnia, that was the case. The fact that the early Christians took to the
Greek OT, and those who followed after them continued with it, should give
us some idea of whether or not these books are important.

> The Hebrews never considered the apocrypha to be scripture, but the
> Hellenists did. The Hebrews didn't. We Christians don't.

You Protestants don't. Most Christians do.

> >But your request is like setting a trap - there is little information
> >available for the period you allow quotes to come from - which is why, I
> >suspect, you chose that period. You won't even find a complete New
> >Testament listing in this period. So your question is deliberately
> >to avoid an answer. But hey, you got one.
> Only in your mind did I choose the timeframe for that reason. Of
> course you cannot read MY mind, so you are not even guessing well.
> >
> >As for the New Testament: Hebrews, for instance, as left out of the
> >thing we have - the Muratorian Canon
> >(,
> >,) as were James and 1+2
> >and it wasn't considered canonical in the west till the 300's. Clement
> >included quite a number of other books we don't accept today. Irenaeus
> >off several, and accepted Hermas and I Clement, while Tertullian lists
> >the four Gospels, Acts, the thirteen epistles of Paul, 1 Peter, 1 John,
> >and Revelation.
> >
> >Interestingly, the Christians who compiled the New Testament were already
> >accepting the Deuterocanonicals. I guess they were heretics?
> The Muratorian canon was as follows:
> The Muratorian Canon
> In a manuscript of the 8th century in the Ambrosian Library in Milan,
> probably written in Bobbio, L.A. Muratori (1672-1750) discovered a
> catalogue (in Latin) of the NT writings with comments. He published
> this text, called after him the Canon Muratori, in 1740. Four
> fragments of the Canon were found in 1897 in four manuscripts of the
> 11th and 12th centuries in Montecassino. The beginning and probably
> also the end of the catalogue are missing. Presumably the text derives
> from the West (Rome?) and was composed about 200 CE. The Latin version
> goes back to a Greek original.
> Presumably came from Rome and was composed about 200 CE (third
> century).
> So why not accept other canons instead? And exactly which books of
> the Muratorian canon do you NOT accept? And why not?

The fact is that the Muratorian Canon testifies to Wisdom, which YOU don't
accept, and, unless you can find the allegedly missing bits, not to some
books of the NT. Claiming that these books were included in the missing
bits simply isn't good enough as proof.

> >The first time the New Testament was listed as we know it todat was in
> >AD by St Athanasius.
> >
> >Even later, the Peshitta (hey John Weatherly!!) still left out 2 Peter, 2
> >John, 3 John, Jude, and Revelation. Later versions added them in, but
> >original, with omissions, is still in use today in places.
> >
> Hey, I think we all accept the Apocrypha as good historical books
> (mostly good anyway). Since Christianity is not based upon the
> Apocrypha, why are you upset?

Christianity is not based on the Bible either. It's based on Christ's
teachings, given to the Apostles to teach, and that, in part, is recorded in
the Bible. Something is not true simply because the Bible says it's true
.... it's true, and therefore it is in the Bible. The Bible didn't come
first - Christian teaching came first, and was then recorded in the Bible.

The real problem arises because of the extra-biblical doctrine, Sola
Scriptura. This doctrine, not taught in the Bible, teaches that the only
authority we look to in order to find the truth from God is the Bible. This
requires an inspired index of biblical books, something the Bible also
doesn't have. Therefore, more man-made rules need to be invented to exclude
the books that oppose the theology one doesn't like. Quite arbitrary,
man-made rules, not taught by the Bible, are needed so that people can
infallibly know exactly which books are inspired and which are not.

> And the RCC didn't accept the Apocrypha until the council of Trent in
> the eleventh century, right?

No, the Council of Trent was not in the 11th century. Christians accepted
these books long before either the 11th century, or the Council of Trent 5
centuries later. Yes, there was debate by some, but then there was debate
about which New Testament books to get rid of by the likes of Luther and
Calvin. Are we to say that these books were only included in the NT Canon
at Trent, when this debate arose?

The Council of Hippo, and the Councils of Carthage, and Pope Innocent I, all
declared that the Canon contained these books. All between 393 and 419 AD.
I don't think any of those dates were in the 11th century.

Ironically, the Orthodox Churches, even those that split away from the
Catholic Church in the 300's and 400's AD (also prior to the 11th century,)
have the same beliefs as we do, and use the Deuterocanonical books of the
Old Testament, just as we do. (Even the Jews who did not accept the 90 AD
canon continue to use these books to this very day.)

God bless,

Stephen Korsman


add an s before