The Origins of the Apocrypha Found the Septuagint
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 2 окт 2024
- All Dividing Line Highlights' video productions and credit belong to Alpha and Omega Ministries®. If this video interested you, please visit aomin.org/ or www.sermonaudio...
For James White's political content, click here:
www.bitchute.c...
If the Jews never accepted them then why did they translate them into Greek for the library in Alexandria along with the translation of the Scriptures? Also are we really going to rely on non-Christians to tell us what books we should accept? Because in that case you would have to reject the New Testament but accept the conflicting views of the rabbis in the Talmud as virtually on the level of Scripture. Also how do you know it was never in the temple? Weren't most of the Scriptures destroyed when the temple was? Yet the Dead Sea Scrolls include them and agree with the Alexandrian Septuagint.
The jews didn't accepted the septuagint, that is why the letter of aristeas came to be, to promote it. 80% of the dead sea scrolls is proto-masoretic, only 5% of the findings is septuagint. How can I trust the septuagint?
@@thomasglass9491 of course the Jews accepted it- they were the ones who translated it and approved it. There is even a legend that the 70 translators all translated it separately and when they compared them they were all identical which proved their accuracy and authority.
@@thomasglass9491 the majority of the Dead Sea scrolls and the New Testament agrees with thr Septuagint not the Masoretic text.
@Katherine Witherell That’s not true. 80% of the findings of the Dead Sea scrolls is proto masoretic text (source: The Meaning of the Dead Sea Scrolls: Their Significance For Understanding the Bible, Judaism, Jesus, and Christianity by James Vanderkam)
The septuagint has been corrupted. Jerome accused Origen of corruption. So, the septuagint was corrupted for the purpose to make it “look a like” the New Testament.
You can value a text whitout believing it is the inspired word of God.
Christian Canon>Jewish Canon
The early Church all recognized the Deuterocanon as scripture.
Which Jews? There were almost as many Jews in Babylon and Alexandria as there were in Judaea. So... if the Jews were so united why were there two Talmuds? Why did several rabbis blatantly believe different theology? Why the Essenes... Sadducees... Pharisees, if there was the united Jewish front?
Precisely. Why did Ptolemy II even hold the convention for a unified Jewish canon if ancient Jews already had one? (And what of the Samaritans whose Pentateuch matches the Septuagint more closely than the Masoretic?)
James White just makes things up
What advantage then hath the Jew? or what profit is there of circumcision? Much every way: chiefly, because that unto them were committed the oracles of God. Romans 3:1-2 Notice that the oracles of God were not committed to the Greeks.
In a synagogue in the 1st century, one could only read the Hebrew scrolls or the Targum (a translation of the Hebrew Bible into Aramaic). Greek was forbidden. Recall that Antiochus Epiphanes desecrated the Solomon’s temple circa 170 BC. Thus, the need for Herod to build the 2nd temple. The Jews of the 1st century despised the Greeks, for that and other reasons.
The only evidence for a BC Septuagint is the letter of Aristeas, which no one believers but everyone quotes. It is a fantastic tale (read fantasy). There is no reference to a Septuagint prior to 50 AD (+/-). If you trace all the reference to a BC Septuagint, you will find that each and every on them references the Letter of Aristeas in one form or another. So, the only witness to a BC Septuagint is the Letter of Aristeas (LOA).
If one believes the LOA, one has to believe also that the 10 northern tribes of Israel were not dispersed to four winds after 721 BC. From this diaspora they never returned. Rather you have to believe that they were still in Israel in 285 BC, since the LOA claims that 6 scribes from each of the 12 tribes of Israel were assembled in Egypt by Ptolemy Philadelphus. Incidentally, a land to which the Jews were forbidden ever to return to. Deuteronomy 17:16, Deuteronomy 28:68, Jeremiah 42:13-17, Jeremiah 44 (entire).
Incidentally, none of the ancient writers who refer to the LOA agree on which Ptolemy is referred to.
Only the Levites were allowed to copy the scriptures (with the exception of the King who had to make a copy for himself). So, one has to add to that belief that 72 scribes (not Levites) defiled themselves among the Greeks and defied the scriptures and God’s wishes in order to copy the scriptures as well as going to a land to which they were forbidden ever to return.
More so, add to that belief, that 72 scribes, each without a copy of the Hebrew scriptures, translated them from memory into Greek in 72 days and every single word was identical all the while being locked up in 72 chambers on the isle of Pharos without any collaboration between them. And by the way, why is it called LXX "The 70" and not LXXII 72?
And may I say ”Incidentally” again? Incidentally, the Pharos light house was not built until 280 BC, 5 years after the blessed event. A minor point.
To sum up, we are to believe that God inspired the work of 72 (not 70) disobedient, non-Levitical scribes who rendered 72 identical copies of the Hebrew scriptures from memory into Greek. Really?
Incidentally (one more time), the LOA section 176 says that the whole scroll was written in gold. Really? Where is it? You’d think that someone would have a vested interest in preserving such a priceless document. Where is it? It doesn’t exist!
Finally, If you were to get a copy of the Septuagint, you would find that it is nothing more than the Old Testament portions of the codex Alexandrinus, the codex Sinaiticus and the codex Vaticanus, along with the Apocrypha. The Dead Sea scrolls contains only a few scraps of Greek OT words, certainly no Septuagint.
Earlier English translations included the apocryphal books as part of the old testament. The KJB translators included the apocryphal books because it was part of their mandate, but they placed them in a separate section called the “Apocrypha” meaning “writings…not considered genuine”. And they headed each page with the title Apocrypha to dispel any doubt of their intention.
Matthew 5:18 For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one "jot" or one "tittle" shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.
"Jot" and "tittle" are transliterated from the Hebrew into Greek and then into English. They don't appear in any Greek copy of the Old Testament anywhere.
Luke 24:44 And he said unto them, These are the words which I spake unto you, while I was yet with you, that all things must be fulfilled, which were written in the law of Moses, and in the prophets, and in the psalms, concerning me.
"The Law of Moses, The Prophets, and The Psalms" is how the Jews organized the Old Testament. There is no Greek copy anywhere in any century which organizes the Old Testament in that fashion.
There is a strong argument to be made that Philo of Alexandria 50 AD is the author of the Letter of Aristeas (LOA). The only witness that anyone can point to, definitively, is the LOA. You really should read it. It is just not believable. And scholars have read it and they don't believe it. And yet they point to it as proof. "But everybody knows and all scholars agree...bla bla bla". Be careful of the "argument from authority". It is very often the case that "all scholars" are quoting from someone in authority who just happened to be wrong. "Scholars" by and large are lazy and love quoting other scholars because it's easy.
All Hebrew scholars agreed that “baca” meant mulberry trees. They were all quoting Hebrew scholar Burchart. Dr Robert Dick Wilson of Princeton University proved conclusively that baca meant aqueduct. “Who passing through the valley of Baca make it a well; the rain also filleth the pools.” Psalm 84:6. How does passing through the valley of mulberry trees make it a well? It doesn’t! its nonsensical. But passing through the valley of a aqueduct makes perfect sense to make it a well.
Supposedly the LXX was written for the disaffected Jews living in Alexandria Egypt. That part I believe. But what would possess Jesus Christ to quote from it in Israel, where the vast majority of the population spoke Aramaic (except the Scribes Pharisees and Sadducees who also spoke Hebrew) and hated the Greeks and their language which had been imposed on them by their oppressors the Romans and the Greeks before them. "...,And the common people heard him gladly." Mark 12:37. Heard Him gladly what? Read from a Greek Old Testament? Really?
You will say to me that "the Dead Sea Scrolls contain the LXX". They don't. They contain a few scraps of Old Testament words in Greek. Not even enough to fill a whole page. Certainly not the LXX.
If you believe that Jesus quoted from the Septuagint, you have to also believe that Jesus endorsed the Apocrypha.
Including paying (indulgences) for the dead!
Including approving committing Suicide?
Including An angel of God lying!
Including prayers for the dead!
Including Sorcery and Magic!
Including praying to angels!
Including purgatory!
The Septuagint? Really?
It is harder to convince someone that they have been fooled than to fool them in the first place.
Did tbe Jews found the Church?
I'm not a Judaizer. God founded my Church which the bible calles the pillar and the butress of the truth. That Church considered the Septuagint Scripture.
Luther was a Judaizer so he called these sacred books apocraphal. Jerome doubted thr canonicity of thr book of the Apocalyps. Jerome was under obedience.
If I can’t trust the early councils concerning the Word of God, how can I trust any of the councils regarding anything? The Trinity, nature of Christ, circumcision, various heresies, Gnosticism, etc. If the early church can’t get the canon right, then the rest is questionable too. As far as Jerome is concerned, If he was convinced the deuterocanon was wrong then why obey the pope? Surely the Word of God trumps the pope? As a Protestant the party line is failing me.
I agree with James White, the best people to decide our Old Testament canon are the people who persecuted the early church and who rejected Jesus, the apostles, and the New Testament. This makes a lot of sense.
Lol..right??
Lol Protestant Logic
@@EmeraldPixelGamingEPG Well, Bible does say that the Jews were entrusted with God's oracles (Rom. 3:2). And a lot of Greek philosophy was poisoning the minds of the early Christians. For example, the Trinity doctrine was the creature of Plotinus and his emanations.
But, even internally, some of the apocryphal books are evidently suspect. Judith is anachronistic and horribly geographically and historically inaccurate. And even Jerome called Bel and the Dragon a fable. The Wisdom of Solomon and Ben Sira are worth reading but contain nothing that can't be found in the 66 books. So, I'd read it all with discernment.
@@EmeraldPixelGamingEPG Protestant logic? Luke 24:44 says it all. Jesus confirms the jewsih canon. Stop with your roman catholic nonsense
@@thomasglass9491 You are clearly quite ignorant. The so-called “Jewish canon” wasn’t decided on by the Jews until after Christ had already died, resurrected, ascended, and the Early Church had started. The Jewish canon was made in response to the Christian church.
That was informative. There is much to be verified here. Gotta be a good Berean.
To be Christian is to be Catholic, come home, stop fighting whats right in front of you.
The aberrant were not lauded because they checked the Scriptures. They were lauded because they accepted what Paul taught with all eagerness.
@@jonathansoko1085 Rome ejected itself from the only Catholic Church when she declared all Gospel believers to be accursed to hell. If you think you can just use the word "Catholic" and somehow turn Satanism into Christianity, then you are very silly and absurd. There is no dispute Jonathan; Rome has declared herself, and we must take her at her word.
@@gch8810 That's not what God said about it. Do you know better than God?
Ya none of that is true. Lmao Jerome only didn’t like a couple of them. This is wild stating all that as fact
Great little chat. Thanks!!!
Judas was the first protestant
Jesus is a metaphor for holiness.
Why don' the Pocrypha belong in Bible?
We wuz kangz?
@@Jacob1611. n sheeeeit
James White constantly makes the assertion that 'The books were laid up in the temple!' and yet refuses to substantiate this claim. The phrase comes from Josephus and he nowhere explains the content of these books - evidence even suggests that Josephus believed in the additions to Esther.
Moral of the story.... don't just take James White's word for it when he makes such a strong claim
One word, Milletus of Sardis
@Mark OnTheBlueRidge 'Solidly established historical fact' can you point me to a resource to this or do you just trust his word ? As far as I can tell James White is the only person trying to make the claim
@Mark OnTheBlueRidge Let the record show that you didn't provide a resource and resorted to just calling me uneducated.
I mean he did recommend a book in this video earlier.
@@acolytes777 that's not one word. learn to count...andd Melito gave a list that the post temple Jews accepted. Also the majority of Christians accepted the deuterocanoical books. Where in scripture does it forbid Christians from accepting them as inspired?
other sections that are not really welldone at all in translation of septuagint
phararase idea poor mistranslation not verbal god breathed
So now Christians are going to base their books off of the books the jews accepted? You know what else the Jews rejected? The Christ! The Jews had reason to reject many of the deuterocanononical books due to their strong messianic prophecies such as in the book of Wisdom (which clearly prophesies Jesus). When Jesus and his apostles QUOTE from the OT, they quote theSeptuagint ... and both He and the apostles clearly were also quoting from the deuterocanon... so those books clearly were present. Also, why would you accept the council’s (Nicea/Constantinople/etc) teaching on the trinity/triad and Christ, yet reject their canon? This is simply another Marcionite-type of rejection of books r/t their clash with protestant ideals 😕. And don’t forget, the church has always recognized them as a DEUTERO-canon... it’s only in protestantism where their fundamentalism makes things like a “second canon” impossible.
Yea but they accepted this canon before the time of Jesus. Ezra was the one who finalized the canon
It does matter what the jew's cannon was at the time of Christ, because he used their canon to prove he was the messiah, and you never see him quote the deutero-canon. And the reason why us protestants don't just accept every council is because they contradict each other so the Bible is the only way to sift through what is true.
@@michaelfranchetti7471 he used the SEPTUAGINT to show that he was the messiah... when he cites the OT, he is citing the Septuagint which INCLUDES the deuterocanon.
@@michaelfranchetti7471 also, Christ himself was clearly very familiar with these texts and you can see many passages where he uses vocabulary and concepts specifically from these books. For example some of the sermon on the mount.
Also here are a few examples:
Matt. 6:19-20 - Jesus’ statement about laying up for yourselves treasure in heaven follows Sirach 29:11 - lay up your treasure.
Matt… 7:12 - Jesus’ golden rule “do unto others” is the converse of Tobit 4:15 - what you hate, do not do to others.
Matt. 7:16,20 - Jesus’ statement “you will know them by their fruits” follows Sirach 27:6 - the fruit discloses the cultivation.
Matt. 9:36 - the people were “like sheep without a shepherd” is same as Judith 11:19 - sheep without a shepherd.
Matt. 11:25 - Jesus’ description “Lord of heaven and earth” is the same as Tobit 7:18 - Lord of heaven and earth.
Matt. 12:42 - Jesus refers to the wisdom of Solomon which was recorded and made part of the deuterocanonical books.
Matt. 16:18 - Jesus’ reference to the “power of death” and “gates of Hades” references Wisdom 16:13.
Matt. 22:25; Mark 12:20; Luke 20:29 - Gospel writers refer to the canonicity of Tobit 3:8 and 7:11 regarding the seven brothers.
Matt. 24:15 - the “desolating sacrilege” Jesus refers to is also taken from 1 Macc. 1:54 and 2 Macc. 8:17.
Matt. 24:16 - let those “flee to the mountains” is taken from 1 Macc. 2:28.
Matt. 27:43 - if He is God’s Son, let God deliver him from His adversaries follows Wisdom 2:18.
Mark 4:5,16-17 - Jesus’ description of seeds falling on rocky ground and having no root follows Sirach 40:15.
Mark 9:48 - description of hell where their worm does not die and the fire is not quenched references Judith 16:17.
@@alexanderderus2087
Show us where it says in the Bible that Jesus was quoting or reading from the septuagint. That's just an arbitrary claim with no evidence to back it up.
Paul's Armor of God idea came from Apocrypha books.
Reading the book of Enoch really sheds light on what 1 Peter is about. Angels in chains etc. It certainly seems to be a book they were familiar with and they are relating to in their own work in the New Testament. That doesn't mean it is scripture. On another note, it is interesting to think that the Jews would not have accepted 1 and 2 Maccabees as scripture yet they light the Menorah in celebration of Hanakkah which took place in those very same books. It would be similar to not accepting Esther as scripture yet celebrating Purim. Highly suspect. At the very least they must believe that it is an accurate depiction of historical events.
Enoch is not accepted in any canon
It’s not even apocrypha. It is Pseudapigrapha.
@@duckymomo7935 Only the Ethiopian Orthodox Church accepts 1 Enoch as Canonical. Pseudapigraphia means falsly attributed meaning many people believe Enoch did not write 1 Enoch. Much like 1 Samuel was not written by Samuel. It doesn't really make a book inspired or uninspired as 1 Samuel is considered scripture despite being falsly attributed. It is obvious reading the book of the Watchers in 1 Enoch and then reading Jude or 2 Peter that these guys knew what the book of the Watchers was all about. They each reference it for a chapter and play off the subject matter.
Do you accept American history and celebrate it every July 4th and Presidents Day and Thanksgiving etc? History does not equate to divine inspiration and the Jews knew this. Maccabees etc is Jewish history of the inter testamental period. Nothing more.
@@mikef6063 Haha. What criteria do you use to determine what is canonical? Lets hear the list. It would actually help me out because I am trying to find something. Why do you think Obadiah is canon but the Wisdom of Solomon is not? Also, if you want to go with a particular council or perhaps a particular thinker like John Calvin (who seems to be a favorite on this channel) figured it out for you, let me know why you agree with their findings. Do you worry about the cannonicity of Hebrew, James, Jude and Revelation as Luther did? I mean, almost any criteria would exclude some books from the current cannon. I wait with baited breath.
@@investfluent4143
First of all, regarding the Old Testament, I have no reason to believe that books never considered "inspired" by the audiences of that period nor any period closely to follow should be considered canonical now. In other words, the Jews of that period never considered the Apocrypha or Wisdom of Solomon as inspired Scripture. There's no evidence they did, yet overwhelming reason to believe they did not. I am content to consider the Protestant OT as canonical, as it aligns exactly with the Hebrew Bible always considered canonical by the Jews.
Regarding the New Testament, I'm satisfied to accept the books the Christian community has by overwhelming agreement, always considered to be canonical. I can agree with Bart Ehrman, who said, "The canon of the New Testament was ratified by widespread consensus rather than by official proclamation." I also agree with the arguments of Michael Krueger in Canon Revisited, in which he states that the Word of God is self-authenticating. Look into it.
Can someone please explain why the Apocrypha was included in the 1611 edition of the King James Version? I have yet to hear an explanation.
And the other Books (as Hierome saith) the Church doth read for example of life and instruction of manners; but yet doth it not apply them to establish any doctrine; 39 Articles of Religion
It exposes Edom.
From the Maccabees revolt.
@@allwillberevealed777most underrated comment. Thank you and please keep up the good work oc. APTTMH
@@allwillberevealed777 Ah...gotta love the lost tribe of Judah...discovering who her ancestors were, and then diving headlong into their same error, all in one fell swoop. Your blood will not save you.
@@cross-eyedmary6619
🤡
There is nothing nee under the sun. Why is Esau trying to be the priest class today?
This is Maccabees all over again with Edom trying to tell us not to keep the Law again. And there is a reason for that.
So since the Jews didn’t consider the deuterocanonical books scripture then we shouldn’t either ? So we should trust that the same Jews who denied the New Testament got the Old Testament completely right ? Idk seems like a bad argument to me.
Jesus nor the disciples, nor apostles ever quoted the apocrypha.
So do you believe the RCC who accepts the apocrypha? Especially when they have a false gospel of works? If haven't already, you need to get a copy of the Catechism of the Catholic church and you'll be amazed at how unbiblical and dangerous the churches teachings are.
They got the OT right. They just interpreted all the prophecies of Jesus wrong. But the NT Jews got it right. The OT is the foundation of our faith as Christian's.
And yes if the OT Jews did not accept the apocrypha we should not either. They were well versed in the history of their own people and God was still the guiding light behind the OT. God was still behind what books were inspired and which weren't. Men didn't decide, God decided and revealed it to man.
Broken clock
But also, Deuterocanon is not Christian. Comparing NT with Deuterocanon is apples to oranges
Ps- the fact the early reformers were toying with the New Testament too, shows me where their hearts were. In my over 60 years I never saw Rome as a possibility. Now I see the Tiber rising.
Gotta love the implication in this video that the virtue of higher textual criticism is simply a matter of whose ox is being gored.
100%
As if a great many of the early Christians weren’t themselves Jews
How can there be one Jewish canon when in scripture the Pharisees and the Sadducees believed two different things? the Sadducees did not believe in an afterlife. Matthew 22:23-46.
Also I’ve read 70% of Paul’s writings come from these books.
Who decides what is and what isn't canonical....
Jesus quotes the Apocrypha in Matthew 23:27 = 2 (4) Esdras 1:30, 33. So I'm not quick to say all or none are canon.
@Nathanael Inman since i made that reply i heard that 2 Esdras wasn't written until 130AD so it couldn't be a jewish book but a christian book if that's correct. But either way, when Jesus quotes something, Ill assume he took the source material seriously, the only issue is that if it was written after Jesus then it was just someone trying to sound like Jesus.
@@guitaoist
"the only issue is that if it was written after Jesus then it was just someone trying to sound like Jesus."
And that's the answer. The other guy mentioned Jesus quoting from Enoch but it was written by multiple authors hundreds of years after Christ.
@Nathanael Inman ask the Ethiopian orthodox church
@@guitaoist not a good argument there are other books quoted by the apostles that nobody considers inspired like the book of Enoch quoted in Jude Peter and John.
In the Old Testament first and second kings mentions the books of the kings of Israel and Judah but they aren’t scripture.
These books are also quoted yet not considered scripture
Pagan authors quoted or alluded to:[20][21]
Menander, Thais 218 (1 Corinthians 15:33)
Epimenides, de Oraculis, (Titus 1-12:13, where Paul introduces Epimenides as "a prophet of the Cretans," see Epimenides paradox)
Aratus, Phaenomena 5, (Acts 17:28, where Paul refers to the words of "some of your own poets")
Non-canonical books quoted or alluded to:[20]
Book of Enoch (Jude 1:4, 1:6, 1:13, 1:14-15, 2 Peter 2:4; 3:13,[22][23] and John 7:38 [24]).
The Book of Jannes and Jambres, according to Origen (2 Timothy 3:8 "... as Jannes and Jambres withstood Moses")
Epistle to the Laodiceans (Colossians 4:16 "read the epistle from Laodicea")
Life of Adam and Eve (2 Corinthians 11:14 "Satan as an angel of light", 12:2 "Third Heaven")[25]
A lost section of the Assumption of Moses (2 Timothy 3:8, Jude 9 "Michael.. body of Moses")
Martyrdom of Isaiah (Hebrews 11:37 "they were sawn in two")
Paul's letter to the Corinthians before 1 Corinthians (1 Corinthians 5:9 "I wrote to you in my letter...")
Paul’s letter to the Ephesians before Ephesians (Ephesians 3:3 “As I wrote afore in few words...”)
Lots of Modern Preachers quote from other non biblical literature....including movie references or social media to make a point. It doesnt mean any of these are considered inspired references.
If im preaching from the Book of James that says faith without works is dead...then quote Morpheus from the Movie The Matrix...about the difference between knowing the path and walking the path.....it doesnt endorse the Matrix as inspired or even accurate......it was simply a single quote to make a single point with a common frame of reference to the audience.
Good work
THE ANTIOCHIAN RECENSION OF THE SEPTUAGINT'
BY GEORGE F. MOORE
Harvard University
The repeated references of Jerome to revised editions of the Greek
Old Testament, and particularly his statement that in his own time
three recensions were current, that of Hesychius in Alexandria and
Egypt, that of Origen as published by Eusebius and Pamphilus in
Palestine, and that of Lucian from Antioch
I learnt a lot here
You got learnt.
You're the best.
The video seems to be spliced together. Not sure if anyone else noticed that.
The channel is called "Dividing Line Highlights", so some editing has taken place. His episodes are recorded live
If only he knew how the Masoretic text distorted history, making it so that the Pyramids would have been before the floods...
that's a joke, right? The septuagint is corrupted.
@@thomasglass9491 No. The septuagint was translated by Jews who still knew the old Hebrew, and as Christ had not yet come they had no impetus to alter it. When in conflict, Jesus and the Apostles side with the Septuagint over and over. You are spreading lies.
@@cross-eyedmary6619
Doesn't matter, Esau and the 🤏 🎩🪝 👃 will both be exposed.
@@thomasglass9491 how was the Septuagint corrupted? It's earlier than the 10th C masoretic, plus it's the same Old Testament that the apostles and Jesus quote from. For example:
Isaiah 28
16: Therefore thus saith the Lord GOD, Behold, I lay in Zion for a foundation a stone, a tried stone, a precious corner stone, a sure foundation: *he that believeth shall not make haste.* (KJV 1611)
Paul quoting it:
Romans 9
33: As it is written, Behold, I lay in Sion a stumblingstone and rock of offence: and *whosoever believeth on him shall not be ashamed.*
Romans 10
11: For the scripture saith, *Whosoever believeth on him shall not be ashamed.* (KJV 1611)
LXX reading:
“therefore thus saith the Lord, even the Lord, Behold, I lay for the foundations of Sion a costly stone, a choice, a corner-stone, a precious stone, for its foundations; and *he that believes on him shall by no means be ashamed.”* (Isaiah 28:16, Brenton)
@@jakebarnes3054 The evidence that for example Origen corrupted, that's according to Jerome. We dont have the original readings of the septuagint. Second, the masoretic text is older than the septuagint. In the dead sea scrolls 80% is proto masoretic with the Isaiah scroll (which is pure proto masoretic text) being older than any septuagint reading. I'm not including the masada findings which is almost pure proto masoretic.
ruclips.net/video/bF_Iwuh2IUw/видео.html haha
Saint Jerome accepted the deuterocanonicals, as did Saint Augustine as part of the canon.
I thought Jerome’s canon was the same as the prostestant canon
@@Mason_O No, its not, Jerome wrote the Vulgate which included the deuterocannonical and other books not accepted by protestants.
@@milenarismocolombia1144 what I knew Jerome translated the deutero but he says himself they are not. So I’m just wondering if you’ve read what Jerome says about the canon? I recommend reading his “preface to the books of Samuel and kings” where he names what he recognizes as the canon which is the same as the prostestant canon which he says is numbered 22 or 24 because they numbered them differently. And after he names the books of scripture and shows how he numbered them he says this.
This preface to the Scriptures may serve as a “helmeted” introduction to all the books which we turn from Hebrew into Latin, so that we may be assured that what is not found in our list must be placed amongst the Apocryphal writings. Wisdom, therefore, which generally bears the name of Solomon, and the book of Jesus, the Son of Sirach, and Judith, and Tobias, and the Shepherd are not in the canon. The first book of Maccabees I have found to be Hebrew, the second is Greek, as can be proved from the very style”
He’s showing all he said before what I copied anything other than his list is to be among the apocryphal books then names some of those. I haven’t read much Jerome but here in this preface if you go and read it all, it is plain what his view of his canon is.
@@Mason_O the last opinión of Saint Jerome on this apochrypha books was that they where true to the church, "Ecclesia sancta tamen etiam apochrypha recipit ut vera, ut patet dist. XX sancta Romana, et utilia, et moralia veneratur, etsi in contentionem eorum quae sunt fideo, non urgentia ad arguendum".
@@milenarismocolombia1144 I don’t see how you can say that when he clearly says what the canon is in the preface and I don’t speak Latin. I recommend looking it up and reading it
6:50 even the deuterocanonical books considered the OT canon closed!
I have heard this weak argument before. There is simply zero evidence of it though.
@@gch8810 Stop with your ignorance! Even the grandson of the author of Ben Sira mentioned the canon of the jews in 130 B.C, the same canon that Jesus mentioned in Luke 24:44
@@thomasglass9491 He mentions the categories of the canon not an exhaustive list of books.
@@thomasglass9491Also, in Chapters 44-49 of Sirach the author goes through,in an order remarkably close to layout of the Hebrew Bible that Jews use today, the heroes of faith and their accomplishments as found in the texts themselves, not from midrash or pseudepigrapha! No mentions of Tobit or Judith, Baruch being a prophet, etc. While it would still exclude a few books we have in the Protestant OT and Jewish Tanakh, we know that even the Protestant OT is a liberal canon! What I mean is there are books in the current Tanakh, such as Ezekiel, Esther and Song of Songs that ancient rabbis questioned the canonicity of for different reasons. If they were questioning Ezekiel, there is no way chump change like Baruch was considered by them as Scripture, and you would think they had reason enough to reject obvious additions in Greek to a text like Daniel.
Turning off commits on the other one. WEAK
he knows hes wrong
@@AsianTheDomination
Kaaaaang
@@allwillberevealed777 we wuz kaaaaaaanngs
I include the book of Enoch, Jasher and Jubilees before I was canonize the apocrypha but it’s still amazing reading
Same
The books of Enoch are super heretical.... Just as much as the apocrypha...
@@gsausage can you provide proof of your claim? Any passages or anything
@@Jared-mf9yb Enoch chp 40. - 9 seen and whose words I have heard and written down?’ And he said to me: ‘This first is Michael, the merciful and long-suffering: and the second, who is set over all the diseases and all the wounds of the children of men, is Raphael: and the third, who is set over all the powers, is Gabriel: and the fourth, who is set over the repentance unto hope of those who inherit eternal life, is named Phanuel.’
An angel set over repentance??? Hmm. How does that work?
Enoch identified as tge Son of Man:
71.14 And that Angel, came to me, and greeted me with his voice, and said to me: "You are the son of man who was born to righteousness, and righteousness remains over you, and the righteousness of the Head of Days will not leave you."
Hmmm. How does that work?
@@gsausage Enoch being a son of man is a prophetic title, Ezekiel was also a son of man, it's a prophetic person coming preaching and teaching spiritual liberation and destruction of oppressive powers.
Michael and Gabriel are attested in Daniel the symptoms gospels and Raphael if you count other deutercanon would be attested as well, I can't remember if phanuel is but angels are messengers, they aren't always solidly divine or human but are used more as typological figures both divine and human people can walk in, especially as it pertains to the ot, hence their names being a combination of the single word for God "El" and an attribute of God they will come excuding.
pretty funny.... Seriously zero proofs given, lots of talking of his opinions as facts... reminds me of the arrogant older peer comic book collectors in my youth
The essene Jews treated the deuterocanon with the same level of care as the canonical scriptures, so he is wrong on that count.
Jerome straight up said that he would defer to the judgement of the churches.
If it was good enough for the vast majority of early Christians, which they were, the books are good enough for me.
Edit: I originally said that Jerome would defer to the judgement of "the bishops". This was an error, as the actual quote has him referencing "the churches". These are somewhat similar, explaining why I honestly misremembered the quote, but they are also different enough that a correction was warranted. My apologies.
Care to substantiate your claim?
@@douglasmcnay644
Which one?
All of them would be fine
@@douglasmcnay644 read Jesus and the Dead Sea Scrolls by John Bergsma
That quote from Jerome comes from his Apology against Rufinus, 2.33:
In reference to Daniel my answer will be that I did not say that he was not a prophet; on the contrary, I confessed in the very beginning of the Preface that he was a prophet. But I wished to show what was the opinion upheld by the Jews; and what were the arguments on which they relied for its proof. I also told the reader that the version read in the Christian churches was not that of the Septuagint translators but that of Theodotion. It is true, I said that the Septuagint version was in this book very different from the original, and that it was condemned by the right judgment of the churches of Christ; but the fault was not mine who only stated the fact, but that of those who read the version. We have four versions to choose from: those of Aquila, Symmachus, the Seventy, and Theodotion. *The churches choose to read Daniel in the version of Theodotion. What sin have I committed in following the judgment of the churches?* But when I repeat what the Jews say against the Story of Susanna and the Hymn of the Three Children, and the fables of Bel and the Dragon, which are not contained in the Hebrew Bible, the man who makes this a charge against me proves himself to be a fool and a slanderer; for I explained not what I thought but what they commonly say against us.
You can clearly see that Jerome isn't talking about the canon at all, but rather which version of Daniel he based his translation on. He chose to use Theodotion's translation because the Greek speaking churches preferred it over others. In the prologue to his commentary on Daniel, Jerome notes that Origin also placed textual notes around the apocryphal stories since they were not in the Septuagint and he reproduces Origin's remarks in his commentary.
kjv byzantine worst text
Why do holy books make the hands dirty? Doesn't make sense to me - seems they would say your hands would contaminate something holy.
It makes u impure
@@jenex5608 but WHY? Why does touching something pure and holy make you impure? That's what doesn't make sense.
All i see are isolated arguments. Not one Sola scripture argument. Where in the scriptures does it tell a Christian the deuterocanonical books are not inspired by the Holy Spirit?? Silence...
Here’s my question about the deuterocanonical Cannon…
Matthew 5:17
"Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them.
Christ affirms the pentateuch - (Law) (genesis - Deuteronomy) …
…and the Nevi'im - (Prophets)(remaining old testament without deuterocanonical Cannon cited by - Talmud/Mishnah text)
If the deuterocanonical cannon is “inspired” as scripture in accordance to the council of Trent, which category do these seven books fall into in order for Jesus to fulfill them? As far as I can tell in research there’s no law or prophetic passages in them. The law is sealed after Moses and before the prophets plus there doesn’t seem to be mention of any existing profits during the timeframe of these books.
The entire old testament minus the deuterocanonical books is classified as Law and prophets. Isn't that odd? The law and the prophets are encompassed in fulfillment but these outliers are their own thing?
If it’s not fulfillment text but it’s still considered scripture then basically were saying it’s affirmed by the church but not Christ.
@@HillbillyBlack Thanks for your question and comments
1-re Matt 5:17, your assuming a closed Jewish canon. Simply false since the Sadducees, Essenes, Pharisees all had different canons as confirmed by Josephus. Also Psalms were never the in category of Prophets. The rabbinic canon was by Ben Akiba way after Christ.
2-The Old Testament in the time of Christ was translated in 2 versions Hebrew (MT) and Greek (Septuagint). About 90 percent of the Septuagint is referenced by the NT writers affirmed by James White and unanimous with scholars. Septuagint contains the 7 deuterocanonical inspired books.
3- The deuterocanonicals were seen as scripture by the early church councils as confirmed by Protestant JND Kelly.
4-deuterocanonicals used as inspired scripture by NT writers and Church Fathers and cross references found in almost all reformer bibles.
5- Where in the Bible does it tell us the deuterocanonicals are not scripture? no where my friend.
@@tommychavez700 Mathew 5:17 proves a closed cannon. His audience.
The fathers agree that the apocrypha is non-canonical and should not be included in the canon.
Melito of Sardis testifies he knew the OT canon. He took great pains in research, as we are told by Eusebius, and comes to the exact number of books as the protestants and Jews do.
Origen acknowledges the same books as the protestants as canonical., and says that the number of them are two and twenty according to the Hebrew alphabet.
Athanasius says “Our whole scripture is divinely inspired and hath books not infinite in number, but finite and comprehended in a certain canon.” There was, therefore a certain canon by the late 300’s. He then enumerates this, “The canonical books of the OT are two and twenty. Equal to the number as the Hebrew alphabet.” Then he says, “But besides these, there are also other non canonical books of the OT which are only read to the catechumens.” Then he lists the Wisdom of Solomon, Sirach, the fragments of Esther, Judith, Tobit and the like. “These” he says “are the non-canonical books of the OT.”
Hilary, bishop of Poitiers, says, “The law of the OT is considered as divided into twenty-two books, so as to correspond to the number of letters.” Nazianzen fixes the same number.
Cyril of Jerusalem, in his 4th catechetical discourse says much, “Do thou learn carefully from the church what are the books of the OT, Read the divine Scriptures, the two and twenty books.
Epiphanius counts twenty seven, or by the Hebrew doubling, twenty two, “delivered by God to the Jews.” And he says of the apocryphal books, “They are indeed useful books, but are not included in the canon, and were not deposited in the ark of the covenant.” Ruffinus, in his exposition of the Apostle’s Creed, says “But I should be known that there are other books also, which were called by the ancients not canonical but ecclesiastical, the Wisdom of Solomon and of Sirach, the book of Tobit, Judith, Macabees. These they would have to be read in the churches, but that nothing should be advanced from them for the confirming the authority of faith.”
Jerome plainly rejects all the apocryphal books from the canon. In his Prologus Galeatus he says “As there are twenty and two letters, so there are counted twenty and two books. Therefore the Wisdom of Solomon, and Jesus, and Judith, and Tobit, are not in the canon.”
Gregory the Great, in his commentaries on Job expressly writes that the books of Macabees is not canonical, as well as the rest. Josephus also agrees. In his first book against Apion the grammaritan “We have not innumerable books, inconsistent and conflicting with each other, but two and twenty books alone, containing the series of our whole history, and justly deemed worthy of our highest credit.”
Athanasius said the apocrypha was read by the catechumens, meaning those raised up in the church - Christian catechumens. Cyril forbids reading the apocrypha saying that the apostles rejected them.
And on…
Jerome writes in his preface to the book of Chronicles, “The church knows nothing of the apocryphal writings; we must therefore have recourse to the Hebrews, from whose text the Lord speaks, and his disciples chose their examples. What is not extant in them is to be flung away from us.”
Isidore, who lived in those times says that the OT was settled by Ezra in two and twenty books, “that the books might correspond by the number of the letters.” John Damascus says “It must be known that there are only two and twenty books of the OT, according to the alphabet of the Hebrew language.”
Therefore, if these books either were canonical, or so declared and defined by any legitimate public judgment of the church, then these so numerous fathers, ancient and at the time of Trent, could not have been ignorant of it, nor would have dissented. However, they openly stated these books as apocryphal, and in no way included them in the canon before Trent.
Sources-
Melito of Sardis, (Eusebius - Lib. IV. Cap. 26.)
Origen (Eus. Lib. VI c. 25)
Athanasius (Athanas. Opp. Ii. 126. sqq. Ed. Bened.)
Hilary, bishop of Poitiers (Cyril. Hiersol. Catech. IV. 33. p. 67. ed Tuttei.)
Epiphanius (Symb. Apost. In Appendix ad Cyprian. Ed. Fell. P. 26)
Jerome (See the introduction to the Vulgate in his own hand.)
Gregory the Great, in his commentaries on Job, (Lib. XIX. Cap. 16.)
@@HillbillyBlack Thanks for your question
1-Re Matt 5:17 your assuming a closes universal jewish canon. Simply false since many traditions existed such as the sadducees, pharisees, Essenes, zealots as confirmed by Josephus
2-Mishna tells us there were debates of many OT books as confirmed by scholar Lee McDonald. Closed jewish canon started by Rabbi ben Akiba way after Christ. This also disproves sola scriptura as you are looking outside the bible
3- The deuterocanonicals have been unanimously accepted as inspired by the early church fathers and councils. Confirmed by protestant JND Kelly
4- The Jews rejected both the deuterocanonicals and the New Testament. We should listen to the rabbinic jews? Where does scripture tell us to reject the deuterocanicals? No where my friend
@@HillbillyBlack Thanks for your question. 1-re Matt 5:17 you are assuming a closed universal jewish canon. Simply not the case since Josephus tells us there were different canons such as the sadducee, essence, zealot, and pharisee.
2-The mishnah tells us "the Gospels and heretical books" are not inspired so why not reject the gospels? Also the mishna tells us certain books were disputed like Ecclesiastes, Esther by Rabi Judah and Rabi Jose.
3-You are also incorrect of the division of scripture. It's 3 fold not 2 fold. Mishna tells us its the Law, prophets, and writings
4-deutorocanonicals were seen as inspired by the Church fathers, church councils, and many protestant scholars like JND Kelly and Lee McDonald
5-You would have to show verses excluding the deuterocanon. Does not exist my friend
If sola scripture is true, what verses tell us that the Deuterocanonicals are not inspired?? They are constantly referenced by the NT writers as doctrine...
What do you mean by "referenced"? Alluded to or actually cited?
@@LoveForTheWord I do not understand how you are unable to understand any of those words? James White also states in his books and debates the NT references the septuagint.
@@LoveForTheWord Can you answer my only question of where in the scriptures does it tell us the deuterocanoicals are not inspired?
@@tommychavez700 Well, you said that the deuterocanonical books are constantly being referenced as "doctrine" by the NT writers which I thought was an astounding claim, so I asked you to clarify. What doctrine presented in the New Testament requires support from the deuterocanonical books?
To answer your question, you're not going to find a direct and explicit statement worded like that, but there are numerous clues as to what was considered Scripture. Luke 24:44 is one example. Everything written about the Lord in the Law, the Prophets, and the Psalms must be fulfilled. This and other examples from Scripture taken together with the historical evidence very clearly point to the fact that the deuterocanonical books were not considered Scripture on the same level as, say, Isaiah, in Jesus' day.
@@LoveForTheWord Thank you for responding. Im sorry to say that i respectfully disagree with you on your personal interpretation of Luke 24. It does not indicate a closed universal canon since there were different sects of Judiasm with different traditions. Historically, the closed canon of the Pharisees was developed way after Christ stared by Rabii ben Akiba.
Also, the original KJV and Reformer bibles all included cross references of the deuteros. Some examples are Matt 27:41-43 ref Wisdom 2:18-20. Its not Psalms 22:8 since it lacks mentioning SoG. Hebrews 11:35 ref 2 Macc 7
Protestants like JND Kelly says they were inspired in the early church and William Daubney confirms they were used in the early church more than the protocanonicals.
Not one command in scripture that tells us the deuterocanicals are not scripture.
What a about Purgatory Augustine believe in Purgatory?
From what I've read he was the main person who developed the doctrine.
If purgatory was believed by 99% of people today, this still doesn't make it true. Case in point: you walk up to anyone on the street. If you ask that person (if they believe in heaven/afterlife) if they will go to heaven when they die, the vast majority will say yes. But that doesn't make it true.
He was undecided on its existence. He thought it possible but was about as committed to it as Luther was to soul sleep.
James White, how do you explain the issues with Isaiah Chpaters Seven and Eight and the virgin birth account in Matthew Chapter One.
What issue
Canon was created to control
I think its interesting that Jude quoted Enoch 1:9 in his letter.
Yes. Enoch is useful but not inspired.
If God told Jude to use Enoch 1:9 then it became inspired because all Scripture is God breathed and it is included in Scripture.
What’s so scary is how many people believe this man.
so where's your counterargument? I'll listen.
Explain.
Yes please tell us your thorough understanding of Greek and Hebrew and give us the counter argument lol
explain,refute
This. James white is an unintelligent liar. And since you all have the internet, do your own homework, lest you end in hell from the sin of sloth.
I saw something odd, not sure if I'm seeing this right but the book of Deuteronomy was presented to me as "do tarot to me" I have a hard time with the tarot but it makes one think. . .
Anyone can play with words and make any word have almost any meaning. However its linguistic giberish. Just read the book and you will see it is against tarot card readings and all other forms of the occult. Read chapter 18.
If you have received Jesus as Lord and Savior the the Holy Spirit lives inside you and You have authority over all occult powers through the name of Jesus! Submit to God and resist the devil and he will flee from you! :)
If you have not received Jesus then I invite you to turn to Jesus in faith and believe the Gospel and put your trust in him for the forgiveness of sins.
God bless
First time hearing that but g-Zeus is not the Most High.
Makes you wonder why the name "Jesus" when clearly Joshua is within the same book.
@@interpretingscripture8068
To hell with your g-Zeus Lucifer Christ. You devils out here deceiving people.
@@allwillberevealed777 look up the Greek name for yeshua, the Roman Catholic Church used the Greek texts not the Hebrew ones.
@@allwillberevealed777 evidence?
He so full of crap …he wants you to think he’s smart…worship him
James is such a freaking genius. His Christianity far surpasses his scriptural knowledge. Scriptural knowledge that pales in comparison to his argumentative skills. Couple that with an invasive long and lengthy politician-like rambling approach to answering questions and there you have it. Fog dispersion
you have no clue of what your talking about, the word jew is short for judah. so all the tribes are not called jews. christ only came for the israelites not gentiles or you esau. so stop reading stolen mail.
Sir, all Jews are Israelite. Their father Jacob's name was changed to Israel, therefore all Israel's sons are Israelites including Judah. Its very simple. Jews-Hebrews-Israelites are synonymous.
@@rodneyjackson6181 my point proved correct you have no clue
@@alonzo76ful you did not prove anything except you are incorrect and badly. Your comments are common among the Anglo-Israelism believers that is debunked by genetic testing. Israelites are all descendants of Abraham Isaac and Israel, all 12 tribes.
0:01 So... Isaiah lied?
"And nations shall walk by your light, kings by your shining radiance" (Isa. 60:3, JPS)
Really? To the Israelites only? The Messiah/Christ came for all nations to reconcile us to God. We are not reading "stolen mail"
Be quit
Why does the Bible quote from Enoch?
It quotes Enoch not the book of Enoch...there's a difference
how do you know then that its enoch?@@lukenine6476