Canonical History...
 

I noticed, in Gavin's book thread, his claim that the Hebrew Canon and the Protestant OT Canon are identical. Does anyone disagree with that? Does anyone have a good link or two that they feel accurately expresses canonical history?

Mark

It's a pretty clear historical fact that the old Hebrew canon never included the Apocrypha. That’s why any copy you find today of the Septuagint (the Hebrew canon translated into Greek for Greek-speaking Jews) which includes the Apocrypha will be titled The Septuagint with the Apocrypha--because I think it's basically universally recognized that the Apocrypha is not part of the Septuagint.

There is a difference, that difference is that the Jews Bible has the books of the prophets (Nevi`im) in the place where we have the books of the Writings (Kethuvim). Their bible is refered to as the Tanak. If you are familiar with the name, "Tanak" then it might help you to learn that it is actually an acronym for the Torah, Nevui`im, and the Kethuvim. The law, prophets, writings. If I had to rename our own Hebrew Bible, it would be "Takan" since the Nevui`im and Kethuvim are reversed. That is the only difference.

Here is quite an excellent source.

http://www.hope.edu/academic/religio...RO/INT_TB1.HTM

Which canon would you be referring to? It doesn't seem that there was any fully accepted canon of the Jews.

The books considered as canon differed depending on who you talked to. The Pharisees accepted some, the Saducees some others. The only set of books that most accepted was the Septuagint(the Greek translation so that a wider audience could understand). This set included the "apocryphal" books.

So yeah, there is a theory that in about 90 a.d. Rabbis then got together and put together a set of books that would distinguish themselves from the "gentile" Jews(i.e. the Christians). The story goes that they accepted the books traditionally used by the Pharisees. IF this story is true(which is unlikely) the problem is that by this time the Christians had already been using the Septuagint. The Septuagint accepted the "apocrypha" as Scripture.

The very first Christian councils dealing with the canon reflected this.(I'd be more than happy to share what these councils decided.)

Even with this, which would refute plenty well the idea of an official Jewish canon(that excluded the "apocrypha") it is unlikely that such a decision really was not made at Jamnia. The Jews continued to disagree about the canon into the second century, long after Christianity had been established. So the Christian Church used the Septuagint, and this use was reflected in the first councils to deal with the council(councils of Rome-Carthage).

Recognized by who and on what basis do "they" make this claim. My guess is that it is the lack of direct quotes from the Dueterocanonicals (if you don't mind me calling them that). The fact of the matter is that there was no set canon amongst the Jews at the time of Christ. The Septuagint was quoted in scripture so we know that it was a viable version for Christ and his apostles. There are no direct quotes from the dueterocanonicals but then neither are there from some books of the Old Testament. There are pretty clear references to things in the Deutercononicals such as the martyrdom of a woman and her sons in Hebrews. Historically it is KNOWN that the Septuagint DID contain the Dueterocanonicals and the Alexandrian Jews recognized it as scripture. The Palestinian Jews dis not have them in their canon.

By the way, where in scripture does it tell us what the canon should be? There were many scrolls floating around that did not end up in the canon we have in a bound book today but they were not bound at the time of Christ. So how is it we have this table of contents that tells us what the canon is?

Blessings

There was recently another thread that went over this quite a bit but not sure where it was. Travis can definitely answer this though so I won't repeat what I said in the other thread.

Because you claim there was no set canon does not mean that is true. There are plenty of NT verses that speak of scripture and it was understood what was referenced. There was an accepted set of writings at the time of Jesus.

Okay, well we can get into evaluations of these claims from evidence in more detail later. For now, though, I just have a couple of questions. Why does Christ, over and over again, act as though there is, with His “have you not read”, and “it is written” and “the Scripture cannot be broken”, with no explanation given at all as to what the Scriptures are, what books should be read, etc.? Why, in Luke 11:50-51, did Jesus say, “so that the blood of all the prophets, shed from the foundation of the world, may be charged against this generation, from the blood of Abel to the blood of Zechariah, who perished between the altar and the sanctuary”? Zechariah was not the last prophet to be martyred chronologically. But according to what many claim to be the Jewish canonical order, he was, since II Chronicles is placed last in that list (II Chron. 24:20-22).

If this is supposed to be some kind of argument against sola Scriptura, then you're not understanding what sola Scriptura is; rather, you're confusing it with the anabaptist notion of solo Scriptura. Sola Scriptura does not require that I deny any authority at all to the church; on the contrary, the church is indeed an authority. However, it is not the highest authority, nor is it an infallible authority. Roman Catholics love to act as though an authority must be infallible in order to have any authority at all; it's a good thing they are inconsistent with this when it comes to questions of the authority of parents. :)

Luther decided his canon based on that of the Jews at Jamnia. The problem is, we have no evidence that an official canon was ever decided there. Second, they rejected Christ and they rejected the New Testament.

In his Preface to the Vulgate Version of Samuel and Kings, Jerome wrote:

"The first of these books is called Bresith, to which we give the name Genesis. The second, Elle Smoth, which bears the name Exodus; the third, Vaiecra, that is Leviticus; the fourth, Vaiedabber, which we call Numbers; the fifth, Elle Addabarim, which is entitled Deuteronomy. These are the five books of Moses, which they properly call Thorath, that is law.

"The second class is composed of the Prophets, and they begin with Jesus the son of Nave, who among them is called Joshua the son of Nun. Next in the series is Spohtim, that is the book of Judges; and in the same book they include Ruth, because the events narrated occurred in the days of the Judges. Then comes Samuel, which we call First and Second Kings. The fourth is Malachim, that is, Kings, which is contained in the third and fourth volumes of Kings. And it is far better to say Malachim, that is Kings, than Malachoth, that is Kingdoms. For the author does not describe the Kingdoms of many nations, but that of one people, the people of Israel, which is comprised in the twelve tribes. The fifth is Isaiah, the sixth Jeremiah, the seventh Ezekiel, the eighth is the book of the Twelve Prophets, which is called among the Jews Thare Asra.

"To the third class belong the Hariographa, of which the first book begins with Job, the second with David, whose writings they divide into five parts and comprise in one volume of Psalms; the third is Solomon, in three books, Proverbs, which they call Parables, that is Masaloth, Ecclesiastes, that is Coeleth, the Song of Songs, which they denote by the title Sir Assirim; the sixth is Daniel; the seventh, Dabre Aiamim, that is, Words of Days, which we may more expressively call a chronicle of the whole of the sacred history, the book that amongst us is called First and Second Chronicles; the eighth, Ezra, which itself is likewise divided amongst Greeks and Latins into two books; the ninth is Esther.

"And so there are also twenty-two books of the Old Testament; that is, five of Moses, eight of the prophets, nine of the Hagiographa, though some include Ruth and Kinoth amongst the Hagiographa, and think that these books ought to be reckoned separately; we should thus have twenty-four books of the old law."

So according to Jerome, the Old Testament is:

Genesis
Exodus
Leviticus
Numbers
Deuteronomy
Joshua
Judges
Ruth
Four books of Kings (which we call the books of 1 Samuel, 2 Samuel, 1 Kings, and 2 Kings)
Isaiah
Jeremiah
Ezekiel
The book of Twelve Prophets
Job
Psalms
Proverbs
Ecclesiastes
Song of Songs
Daniel
1 & 2 Chronicles
Ezra
Esther
Kinoth (aka: Lamentations, which, according to some sources, was often added as a part of Jeremiah)

And what is this The book of Twelve Prophets? Clearly what we now call the Minor Prophets and denote as separate books:

1. Hosea
2. Joel
3. Amos
4. Obadiah
5. Jonah
6. Micah
7. Nahum
8. Habakkuk
9. Zephaniah
10. Haggai
11. Zechariah
12. Malachi

That would be the Protestant Old Testament. :)

So? The Church had decided the canon before Jerome ever showed up. The appeal to individuals(this was pulled in the last discussion on the canon as well) over councils is not very convincing. Jerome never claimed any authority. That was his opinion and as you should note, even he submitted to the decision made by the Church, although he did not agree.

(A) I never claimed that the fact that Jerome held to the Protestant Old Testament proved it true. (Believe me; I'm not that dumb. :)) Such evidence, however, while obviously not deductive proof, can serve well as a piece of evidence in an inductive argument.

(B) Given my experience with Roman Catholics and their tendency to appeal to the church fathers so readily, an outright dismissal of what Jerome had to say appears hypocritical on your part.

But the 22 (or 24 depending on how it was divided ) Hebrew canon was set long before the Christians came along. Submitting to something you know to be wrong makes no sense. Why be a hypocrit?

Because you claim there was a set canon does not mean that is true. By the way my contention above was not that the canon was completely ambiguous. I clearly stated that there were two (or possibly three) canons at the time of Christ. It was not set because there was not agreement between the Alexandrian and Palestian Jews as to what the exact canon was. One group included the dueterocanonicals and one did not. So which group of Jews was wrong is the question? By the way interestingly enough you submit to the Catholic Church when you submit to the New Testament canon whether you will acknowledge it or not.

Blessings

Jerome in the end included the dueterocanonicals in his Vulgate. That is plain. There is no need to dismiss what he said. Submission to the Church is quite admirable I think.

You asked me above if I was making some sort of an arguement against sola scriptura as if your definition was an infallible one. There is so much variation on the doctrine. Sorry the arguement doesn't hit a chord with you but it will for others.

Blessings