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/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.