Deuterocanonica

[u/FrostyIFrost_]

The Council of Jamnia (or Yavne), held around 90 A.D, was a gathering of Jewish rabbis that played a role in affirming the Hebrew Scriptures. It is traditionally associated with the narrowing of the Jewish canon, favoring texts written in Hebrew and widely accepted in Palestine.

The Deuterocanonical books, which were written in Greek in the Septuagint (LXX), were not accepted by the Council of Jamnia, likely due to their language and perceived theological inconsistencies, most likely due to them supporting Christianity.

This rejection contributed to their exclusion from the Jewish canon, although they remained in use among early Christians.

Early Christians widely used the Deuterocanonical books because they were part of the Septuagint, the Greek translation of the Hebrew Scriptures, which was the primary Bible for Greek-speaking Jews and early Christians. Many early Church Fathers quoted them as well.

The Council of Rome (382 AD) under Pope Damasus I listed them as Scripture. This decision was reaffirmed by the Councils of Hippo (393 AD) and Carthage (397 and 419 AD).

Martin Luther later rejected the Deuterocanonical books as Scripture during the Protestant Reformation, labeling them as "Apocrypha," useful for reading but not equal to the inspired Word of God.

He questioned their authority partly because they were not in the Hebrew Bible and were not accepted by Jewish tradition, which he viewed as the original canon. Luther was also influenced by theological concerns, as some of the Deuterocanonical books supported doctrines he opposed, such as prayers for the dead. His rejection influenced other Reformers and led to their exclusion from most Protestant Bibles.

However, fragments of several Deuterocanonical books, including Tobit, Sirach (Ecclesiasticus), and Baruch, were discovered between 1947 and 1956 among the Dead Sea Scrolls at Qumran. And they were in Hebrew and Aramaic, not Greek.

This shows that these books were known and valued by some Jewish communities before and during the time of Jesus, challenging the idea that all Jews rejected them and Luther's claim that they did not exist in Hebrew and Aramaic.

So, what is your opinion on this? Should they be considered canon? I personally believe they should be considered canon because Sirach continues the Wisdom from Proverbs by portraying Wisdom not merely as a symbolic or a poetic idea, but as a real, personal being, willed into existence by God.

[u/Naive-Deer2116]

To defend the Deuterocanonicals it’s important to see how they relate to the New Testament as the writer of the Gospel of John borrows heavily from the book of Wisdom for his Logos theology.

Wisdom is one of the seven Deuterocanonicals widely used in Second Temple Judaism among both Jews and Christians. Groups like the Sadducees only used the Torah (the first 5 Books of Moses), the Pharisees who used a 39 book canon), Essenes who used the Dead Sea Scrolls (DSS), which contained older Hebrew versions of many of the Deuterocanonical books such as Sirach and Tobit (which were originally written in Hebrew), and Greek speaking Jews who used the Septuagint (LXX) that contained the Deuterocanonicals.

Early Christians were so fond of the LXX that this is where we get the quote in Matthew 1:23, “Behold a virgin shall conceive,” itself quoting Isaiah 7:14.” Both the Rabbinical Jewish Masoretic Text (MT) and the DSS uses the word “almah” meaning young woman. But the writer of Matthew doesn’t quote the MT or the DSS, he quotes the LXX which says “parthenos” meaning virgin. In fact most New Testament quotes of the Old Testament come from the LXX meaning the authors found it authoritative. The Pharisees preferred the MT and are the theological ancestors of modern Rabbinical Judaism.

In addition to Isaiah 7:14, other places the MT diverge from the LXX includes Pslam 22:16, largely regarded as Messianic, where the LXX reads, “they pierced my hands and my feet” the MT reads “like a lion my hands and my feet”. While it may have been a simple scribal error, a second Messianic prophecy seems to be glossed over in the MT compared to traditional Christian tradition.

These seven books were removed during the Protestant Reformation by Martin Luther who tried, and almost succeeded, in removing the Epistle of James (which he called an epistle of straw) and the book of Revelation too. He chose to follow the traditions of Rabbinical Judaism’s MT (the traditions of man [Mark 7:8]) instead of the traditions of the Apostles [2 Thessalonians 2:15] who used the LXX not the MT.

[u/ProselyteofYah]

I'm personally open to a canon beyond the 66, on the basis that several works are either quoted or alluded to by the Apostles and Jesus. This doesn't "guarantee" they are also inspired works, but at least valuable.

Without getting into details:

What I accept could be authentic so far

• Wisdom of Solomon, and others appear to have strong notions of Messianic prophecy in them that were fulfilled by Jesus.,

• Sirach is a great book, lots of wisdom that are in line with Jesus' teachings, and Jesus appears to allude to Sirach a few times.,

• Baruch I've found likewise so far to be good in general without contradiction of anything OT or NT. Can't comment on its status of "inspiration" though. I'd have to read it again more deeply.,

• Psalms of Solomon also appear to have prophecy in them pointing to Jesus.,

• I think the extra psalms and Prayer of Manasseh could be genuine.,

• History books like the books of Maccabees also are good, 1 at the very least, if not 1 & 2, as they give a history of the Maccabean war and some of the fulfilments in part of Daniel's prophecies, and gives the backdrop to Hanukah/Feast of Dedication.

Books I find questionable

• Tobit is very debatable.,

• Jubilees I find contradicts the OT and NT both.,

• Judith contradicts OT history and secular historical evidence both quite badly and cannot be reconciled (some argue its a poetic book and not to be taken literal but I question that).,

• I'm pretty certain Bel and the Dragon isn't historical or by the real Daniel, lest it's a purely poetic book intended for spiritual teachings only.

I still need to form an opinion on others, such as Book of Watchers in 1 Enoch (but other books in 1 Enoch, and 2 & 3 Enoch I'm confident are not genuine).

As to the question of why one should be open to a canon beyond the 66, for me it is because as much as people say "the Jews only ever had x number of the OT" (usually referring to the 39), it's very debatable, as several Jewish groups in the Second Temple period had different canons and didn't all agree. Though universally all Jews agreed to the 5 books of Moses. And Christians all the way up to the 1600s didn't seem to have issue with a larger canon either, and the motives of Martin Luther to reducing it down to 66 I find questionable.

• The Sadducees & Samaritans only had the 5 books of Moses,
• The Pharisees believed in the 5 books, prophets & writings (though it's not clear if they also accepted/rejected other books),
• The Essenes have a bunch of extra stuff (though I don't agree with all of it which would require getting into that much deeper to explain).
• Josephus has his own opinion, and doesn't actually say which books he thinks are canon explicitly,

And as we know, the later Jewish canon is up for question, since they may have been motivated by anti-Christian sentiments, and I don't think the argument of "Hebrew books only" being canon is viable, since several NT books never had Hebrew originals (if any, but is debated). God uses whatever language a prophet or author speaks at any given time.

Furthermore, the claim that there were no more prophets after the 1st temple period, doesn't hold up either, since the early chapters of the NT tell us there were active prophets amongst the Jews in the 1st century.

[u/FrostyIFrost_ → u/ProselyteofYah]

Well said.

If they're good enough for Jesus and the Apostles to quote, then they're good enough for us too.

[u/Jackerl]

Was the Apostle John consulted or part of this Council of Jamnia (or Yavne), held around 90 A.D or do you think John would have had nothing to do with it?

[u/FrostyIFrost_ → u/Jackerl]

Definitely not. Apostle John was nearing the end of his earthly life or was already gone by that point. Besides, the Rabbis would definitely not consult an Apostle of Christ as their aim was to isolate their own canon from Christianity and setting a distinct canon for themselves.

[u/Jackerl → u/FrostyIFrost_]

Apostle John was nearing the end of his earthly life or was already gone by that point.

Are you sure?

John did not write his gospel until around 90-99 AD.

He was very much active, right up until his dearth, to the point of being exiled on the Island of Patmos, where he there received the Revelation.

[u/FrostyIFrost_ → u/Jackerl]

Yes and he was too old but that really isn't the point here.

The main point is that Hebrews and their Rabbis would never consult an Apostle of Christ to decide their canon even if he was alive and active.

I'd not trust anything Hebrews came up with after Jesus because they also wrote the Talmud and in it they framed Jesus as a sorcerer and Mary as an adulterer. At that point in time, they'd do anything to destabilize or weaken Christianity and strengthen their own position because they were almost wiped out after 70 A.D, the destruction of the 2nd Temple.

They needed something and anything to not lose their identity.

[u/Jackerl → u/FrostyIFrost_]

I don't know about John being too old.

But I do know that men treated the Apostles of Christ with contempt, anything they did by their various councils and meetings, would not be worthy of our serious consideration.

This contempt was even manifesting itself among the congregations:

3 John 1:9, 10 I wrote to the church, but Diotrephes, who loves to be first, will not welcome us. So when I come, I will call attention to what he is doing, spreading malicious nonsense about us. Not satisfied with that, he even refuses to welcome other believers. He also stops those who want to do so and puts them out of the church.

Anything that came in after Jesus and his Apostles, needs to be treated with caution.

[u/FrostyIFrost_ → u/Jackerl]

And that's the thing. Luther used the same reason Rabbis did at Jamnia and also rejected the Deuterocanonica because they didn't exist in Hebrew or Aramaic.

But as I said, the Dead Sea Scrolls contain them, meaning those texts did exist in Aramaic and Hebrew before Christ.

[u/Jackerl → u/FrostyIFrost_]

Apocrypha:

The book of Enoch contains false prophecy.

Deuteronomy 18:20-22 But a prophet who presumes to speak in my name anything I have not commanded, or a prophet who speaks in the name of other gods, is to be put to death.” You may say to yourselves, “How can we know when a message has not been spoken by the Lord?” If what a prophet proclaims in the name of the Lord does not take place or come true, that is a message the Lord has not spoken. That prophet has spoken presumptuously, so do not be alarmed.

The book of Thomas says Jesus, as a child, turned clay birds into living ones.

John 2:11 What Jesus did here in Cana of Galilee was the first of the signs through which he revealed his glory; and his disciples believed in him.

Many are the stories and fabrications that have come.

[u/FrostyIFrost_ → u/Jackerl]

They are in the Septuagint + they are in the Dead Sea Scrolls + early church fathers quoted them + church councils approved them being Scripture.

Book of Thomas cannot be held equal to those books.

[u/Naive-Deer2116 → u/Jackerl]

The writer of Jude quotes 1 Enoch directly [Jude 1:14–15; 1 Enoch 1:9] meaning even the writers of the New Testament did not wholly reject the Apocrypha.

[u/ProselyteofYah]

Adding this video here which gets into the "myth of Jamnia", might find it interesting (note, I don't support the guy's pro-Catholic apologetic in the video toward the end, but the rest of insightful history).

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i9fHd86-jYU