Results 1 - 4 of 4
|
|
|||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Ordered by Verse | ||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
1 | Why do they prey for the deads salvation | 1 Cor 3:15 | kalos | 143384 | ||
"Recognizing the fact that the Septuagint was probably available to both Jesus and his disciples, it becomes even more remarkable that there are no direct quotes from any of the Apocryphal books being championed for canonicity. Jesus makes clear reference to all but four Old Testament books from the Hebrew canon, but he never directly refers to the apocryphal books." ____________________ 'Jesus and the Apostles' 'Those who support the canonicity of the Apocrypha argue that both Jesus and his followers were familiar with the Greek OT called the Septuagint. They also argue that when the New Testament writers quote Old Testament passages, they are quoting from the Greek OT. Since the Septuagint included the additional books of the Apocrypha, Jesus and the apostles must have accepted the Apocrypha as inspired scripture. In other words, the acceptance of the Septuagint indicates acceptance of the Apocrypha as well. Finally, they contend that the New Testament is full of references to material found in the Apocrypha, further establishing its canonicity. A number of objections have been raised to these arguments. 'First, the claim that the Septuagint of apostolic times included the Apocrypha is not certain. As we noted previously, the earliest manuscripts we have of the entire Septuagint are from the 4th century. If Jesus used the Septuagint, it may or may not have included the extra books. Also remember that although the 4th century copies do include the Apocryphal books, none include the same list of books. Second, F. F. Bruce argues that instead of using the Septuagint, which was probably available at the time, Jesus and his disciples actually used the Hebrew text during His ministry. Bruce writes, "When Jesus was about to read the second lesson in the Nazareth synagogue . . . it was most probably a Hebrew scroll that he received." It was later, as the early church formed and the gospel was carried to the Greek-speaking world, that the Septuagint became the text often used by the growing church. 'Bruce agrees that all the writers of the New Testament made use of the Septuagint. However, none of them gives us an exact list of what the canonical books are. While it is possible that New Testament writers like Paul allude to works in the Apocrypha, that alone does not give those works scriptural status. The problem for those advocating a wider canon is that the New Testament writers allude to, or even quote many works that no one claims to be inspired. For instance, Paul may be thinking of the book of Wisdom when he wrote the first few chapters of Romans. But what of the much clearer reference in Jude 14 to 1 Enoch 1:9, which no one claims to be inspired? How about the possible use of a work called the Assumption of Moses that appears to be referenced in Jude 9? Should this work also be part of the canon? Then there is Paul's occasional use of Greek authors to make a point. In Acts 17 Paul quotes line five from Aratus' Phaenomena, and in 1 Corinthians he quotes from Menander's comedy, Thais. No one claims that these works are inspired. 'Recognizing the fact that the Septuagint was probably available to both Jesus and his disciples, it becomes even more remarkable that there are no direct quotes from any of the Apocryphal books being championed for canonicity. Jesus makes clear reference to all but four Old Testament books from the Hebrew canon, but he never directly refers to the apocryphal books.' ____________________ From "The Old Testament Apocrypha Controversy" by Don Closson To read the entire article go to:(http://www.probe.org/docs/apocrypha.html) |
||||||
2 | Why do they prey for the deads salvation | 1 Cor 3:15 | EdB | 143397 | ||
It seems this article opens more questions than it answers. And that is good. Notice the writer does not dogmatically state anything. However he also offers no proof that the Apocrypha was or was not a part of the Septuagint at the time of Christ. He does admit that Paul did allude to various Apocrypha books so obviously he saw them some where, as the writer stated perhaps they were in the Septuagint. However whether they were included or not the writer is also right, Paul made no statement of their accuracy or if they should be considered cannon. However Paul didn’t mention many other books of the Bible that are considered canon. Again I think we need to beware of making dogmatic statements that declare this or that when if fact there is no proof one way or another. Once again what I have said should not be interpreted in any way as defending the cannon of the Aprocryphal books. EdB |
||||||
3 | Why do they prey for the deads salvation | 1 Cor 3:15 | DocTrinsograce | 143405 | ||
Dear Brother Ed, This is off topic, focussing on the Septuagint itself... I can't seem to find anything conclusive about the following question: Is there reason to believe the Septuagint as we know it today had fewer books in it than during the time of Christ? http://www.ecmarsh.com/lxx/ In Him, Doc PS Is it okay to make dogmatic statements when we CAN prove them? ;-) (Just joking!) |
||||||
4 | Why do they prey for the deads salvation | 1 Cor 3:15 | EdB | 143406 | ||
Doc There has been some discussion on this but I think a lot of stems from the fact that some books were combined such as 1 and 2 Kings in some manuscripts. It is interesting to note that all the Old Testament Books plus the Apocrypha have been found in some degree of completeness among the Dead Sea Scrolls with the exception of the Book of Esther. Also the reference in Jude 9, 14 about the angel contenting with Satan for the body of Moses is now felt to be a quote from the Book of Enoch. Interesting is it not? EdB |
||||||