The canonised Old Testament is no different from the Apocrypha except with more scary fables and mythology

by fukitol 16 Replies latest watchtower bible

• 

  fukitol

  The apocryphal books are accepted by Catholics in their Douay version as inspired of God, but rejected by the rest of Christianity?

  Why?

  When you examine the reasons for and against acceptance of the Apocrypha as divinely inspired or not, it dawns on you that the traditionally accepted 39 books of the Hebrew Scriptures are nothing but the same sort of stuff as the more recent apocryphal books are, with the only difference being that the 39 much older OT books contain a lot more scary stories, fables and mythology invented by the ancient Jewish priesthood to frighten their followers into fear and obedience and continued giving of meat sacrifices for the priests to eat.

  Ultimately, the OT can be summarised as nothing but a mixture of relatively accurate historical Jewish war histories and genealogies, such as the Aprocrypha is, mingled with scary stories made up by the ancient Jewish priests and scribes.
  
• 

  Dissonant15

  Interesting observations. I have not read the apocryphals through, but I often wondered what makes humans so arrogant and sure that they dont belong in their "holy" collection of canon.
• 

  Doug Mason

  The "rest of Christianity" does not have an agreed canon.

  Only the Catholic Church has voted on the Canon, which happened at the Council of Trent (15th century or thereabouts).

  Early Christian codices included writings such as "Barnabas" and "The Shepherd of Hermas" as authoritative.

  If the OT apocrypha are unacceptable, why did the NT writers quote them so heavily, such 1 Enoch and Sirach?

  There is a number of very good scholarly books on canonization, and I can recommend some if you are interested.

  Criteria employed by the Church Fathers for determining a writing as Scripture were: (1) Apostolicity (2) Orthodoxy (3) Antiquity (4) Use (5) Adaptability (6) Inspiration. ("The Biblical Canon", pages 401-42, Lee Martin McDonald)
  

  As you can see from this list, the writings were accepted if they agreed with doctrines the church had already determined. The decision was thus determined by use, not imposed from the hierarchy
  

  Doug
  
• 

  fukitol

  If the OT apocrypha are unacceptable, why did the NT writers quote them so heavily, such 1 Enoch and Sirach?

  No they certainly did not. Show me the quotes.
• 

  fukitol

  Huh? The NT writers never quoted from any apocrypha books.

  But you've basically missed the whole point of my opening post Doug.
• 

  Doug Mason

  Information on the NT use of Hebrew apocryphal writings

  http://www.jwstudies.com/God-breathed_Scriptures.pdf (pages 21-26)
  

  http://www.jwstudies.com/Why_Does_WTS_Accept_Christendoms_Scriptures.pdf (page 46)

  http://www.jwstudies.com/We_can_be_sure.pdf (page 8, 59, 60)

  Thus these books were not rejected by the rest of Christianity. Look at the wide range of canons. Look at the differences between the LXX, MT, Symmachus, Theodotian, etc. or the arguments that rage about the differences between the Textus Receptus and Wetscott/Hort.

  Or consider the fact that no one is or will ever be able to know what any writer originally wrote.

  Or consider the fact that throughout the ages, people accidentally and deliberately amended the text to suit their current beliefs (as the WTS has done).
  

  Doug
• 

  Magnum

  fukitol: The apocryphal books are accepted by Catholics in their Douay version as inspired of God, but rejected by the rest of Christianity?

  Why?

  Good question. I'd like to know, too.

  Doug Mason: There is a number of very good scholarly books on canonization, and I can recommend some if you are interested.

  I'm interested. Would you please either post them here or PM them to me?
• 

  Vidiot

  fukitol - "The canonised Old Testament is no different from the Apocrypha except with more scary fables and mythology..."

  Now, now, be fair.

  x

  The New Testament has just as much scary fables and mythology, too. :sunglasses:
• 

  Doug Mason

  There is a simple explanation for the reason why NT writers cited or alluded to writings that are today considered "apocryphal" -- there was no canon of the Hebrew scriptures at the time.

  The Jews kept their writings on a number of scrolls. Quite early in their experience, the Christians adopted the codex format, which naturally led to the idea of a collection of writings in a single volume. The idea of a canon was thus a Christian process, not Jewish. For some time, scholars said that the canon was discussed by the Jews in 90 CE at a council in Jamnia, but this has now been positively discounted. They most likely went through the process over several centuries, as did the Christians. For the latter, they were apparently initially motivated by the actions of Marcion, who produced a limited list of scriptures (he said that the god of the OT was not the Christian's god).

  The axiom states that "Scripture does not need a Canon but a Canon needs Scripture". The NT writers cited Scripture but that does not mean they had a canon of Scriptures. And when they cited their sources they were not providing an exegesis; they were simply using - and misusing - Hebrew texts to support their predetermined views about Yeshua (Jesus the Anointed/Christ).

  Doug
  
• 

  Doug Mason

  Books on my bookshelf that I could easily and quickly lay my hands on:
  

  "The Canon Debate", McDonald and Sanders (Hendrickson Publishers, 2002)
  

  "The Biblical Canon", McDonald (Baker Academic, 2007)

  "The Formation of the Hebrew Bible: A New Reconstruction", Carr (Oxford University Press, 2011)

  "Scribal Culture and the Making of the Hebrew Bible", Karel Van Der Toorn (Harvard University Press, 2007)

  "The New Testament Canon: Its Making and Meaning", Gamble (Fortress Press, 1985; Wipf and Stock, 2002)

  Do not expect uniform agreement among scholars, but research them and decide on a model that suits your understanding of the externals - culture, religious politics, etc.

  Each of these books lists any number of their sources.

  Doug