How was the Old Testament canon formed?
Вставка
- Опубліковано 27 лис 2022
- We know that the Torah was established in the time of Jesus. However, you might wonder, outside the Torah, what did Jesus think the Old Testament was? How did the Old Testament become to be what it is today? In this short video, my guest Dr. John Meade shares critical data to answer these questions.
Enjoy the full video here: • The Amazing Story of H...
_________________________
I like to talk about the big questions of faith, progressive Christianity, and skeptical claims against the reliability of the Bible and the truthfulness of Christianity.
Support us on Patreon:
www.patreon.com/alisachilders
To order Alisa’s book, “Another Gospel”: www.alisachilders.com/another...
This video is not sponsored. Product links are affiliate links which means if you buy something we'll receive a small commission.
For all links to Alisa’s recommended reading, podcast studio gear and other items,
visit the Alisa Childers Amazon Store at www.amazon.com/shop/alisachil...
Whoah… if Ruth is intended to be the true ending of Judges, that really changes the tone of that book!
Thanks. This is timely. We are currently working through History of the church and the Bible and Hermeneutics in our Bible study group.
Hello, I hope you're safe over there? I hope this year brings happiness, prosperity, and love 💛all over the world, I would love us to be good friends in honesty and in trust if you don't mind. I'm Doctor Christopher Johnson from San Francisco, California, where are you from if I may ask?
Well that was super cool and informative. Thank you, Alisa, for having him on!!!
Thank you for all of your great work and insights 🙏 may God bless you
Hello, I hope you're safe over there? I hope this year brings happiness, prosperity, and love 💛all over the world, I would love us to be good friends in honesty and in trust if you don't mind. I'm Doctor Christopher Johnson from San Francisco, California, where are you from if I may ask?
The concept of the Tenach (Law-Prophets-Writings) certainly existed in the 1st century since Jesus explicitly mentions it in Luke 24.44. The LXX didn't have this specific arrangement - that seems to favor the concept that Jesus and co. knew the Hebrew canon.
Please do a video on the formation of the New Testament canon.
Hello, I hope you're safe over there? I hope this year brings happiness, prosperity, and love 💛all over the world, I would love us to be good friends in honesty and in trust if you don't mind. I'm Doctor Christopher Johnson from San Francisco, California, where are you from if I may ask?
I've been watching a lot of videos on canon this week and Michael Kruger has a ton of them and also Mike Winger has a good one. I also was specifically interested in the NT canon and they address that. Just search for their names along with "canon" in UA-cam and you'll see them.
READ THE SEPTUAGINT
the LXX does not reflect the Bible at the time of Jesus, which is seen from Josephus and others, to be no more than 22 (39 in the Protestant Canon).
The oldest list of Books of the Old Testament as in the LXX, is found in Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History iv. 26, which is from Bishop Melito, about 180 AD:
"I learned accurately the books of the Old Testament, and I send them to you as written below. These are their names: Of Moses five, Genesis, Exodus, Numbers, Leviticus, Deuteronomy; Joshua the son of Nun, Judges, Ruth, four of Kingdoms, two of Chronicles, the Psalms of David, Solomon's Proverbs also Wisdom, Ecclesiastes, Song of Songs, Job; of the Prophets: Isaiah, Jeremiah, the Twelve [minor prophets] in one book, Daniel, Ezekiel, Esdras. From which also I have made the extracts, dividing them into six books." Such are the words of Melito.”
The only book that may be counted as "Apocrypha", is the mention of Wisdom. However, the Greek text, "Παροιμίαι ἡ καὶ Σοφία", can also be translated as "Proverbs even Wisdom", which it was referred to by many in the Early Church.
The earliest Roman Catholic list of the OT Canon as in the LXX, is from "Pope Innocent", about 405 AD:
“Which books really are received in the canon, this brief addition shows. These therefore are the things of which you desired to be informed. Five books of Moses, that is, Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy, and Joshua the son of Nun, and Judges, and the four books of Kings [1&2 Samuel, 1&2 Kings] together with Ruth, sixteen books of the Prophets, five books of Solomon [Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Song of Songs, Wisdom of Solomon, and Ecclesiasticus], and the Psalms. Also of the historical books, one book of Job, one of Tobit, one of Esther, one of Judith, two of Maccabees, two of Ezra [Ezra and Nehemiah], two of Chronicles” (Letter to Exsuperius, bishop of Toulouse)
Only 5 of the additional books are in the copy of the LXX at this time.
The Old Syriac Peshitta Version, of the 1st/2nd century AD, which was made from the Hebrew Old Testament at this time, did not have any of the additional books
"“Thirdly, the earlier form [original] of the Peshitta, a daughter version of the Septuagint, seems to have omitted the additional books [apocrypha] and Chronicles. If it was of Christian origin, this would be a pointer to the restriction of the canonical list within the Church.” (P R Ackroyd and C F Evans; The Cambridge History of the Bible, Vol. I, pp.158-159
“In the OT the Syriac Vulgate, commonly called Peshitta, is a translation made direct from the Hebrew…the Hebrew underlying the Syriac is in almost all cases simply the Massoretic text.” (Encyclopedia Biblica, Vol. IV, p. 5025)
“In the OT the Syriac Vulgate, commonly called Peshitta, is a translation made direct from the Hebrew…the Hebrew underlying the Syriac is in almost all cases simply the Massoretic text.” (Encyclopedia Biblica, Vol. IV, p. 5025)
The editions of the LXX over the years added more books to the Old Testament, which were not part of the Original Hebrew Bible used by Jesus Christ, and His Disciples, nor by any of the Writers of the New Testament
UPDATE: I later found this following part of my comment to be a false story that was being spread as true; I stand by the rest of my comments... ***FALSE: Esther was recently identified among the Dead Sea Scrolls, BTW... It was previously unreadable, but through new technology was able to make it legible, and it was found to be Esther. So all of the books of the Jewish/Protestant canon were represented in the Dead Sea Scrolls.*** TRUTH: All of the books of the Jewish Tanakh EXCEPT Esther were found in the Dead Sea Scrolls.
Now-what was not mentioned in the video are the books of the Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, Ethiopian Orthodox, and varied other Oriental Orthodox Christian Churches. (These are books over and above the 66-book Protestant canon, as ALL churches everywhere across the globe accept at least those 66 books.)
The 'extra' books are mostly found in the Septuagint, which was a translation of the Hebrew Bible done around 250 B.C. The Septuagint is the Bible that Jesus and the Apostles quoted from. It was only AFTER the destruction of the Second Temple that the Jews narrowed their canon to the 66 books-which is why Josephus said what he did.
Many of the books from the Septuagint, as well as Jubilees and 1 Enoch from the Ethiopian Orthodox Church, were found among the Dead Sea Scrolls.
We show our biases not by what we say, but by what we fail to include in our discussion.
Where did you get the information about Esther being found in the dead sea scrolls? I tried to look it up but I can only find a satirical article that did the round a couple of years ago. I think some people took it seriously. Just wanted to check you hadn't been misinformed. If its me thats misinformed I would also love to be corrected.
@@benry007 Thank you for pointing that out-after I wrote this comment, I found that this was false information that is unfortunately being reported as true now. Sure wish it was true, though...! As you may see, I've now edited my comment. Thanks again for bringing that to my attention!
Well if we are talking about quotes and allusions are reasons for why something is canon, then what about Jude’s quotes of 1 Enoch?
🤗🤲❤❤❤❤😭🙏🇵🇰 Assalamu Alaikum Mama Ji aapko Jindagi sehat tandurusti aur Jindagi Mein bahut sari kamyabi and Hai Ameen
The OT is the translated and copied writings of ancient authors who shared a common belief in a supernatural being that created them and was overseeing their lives.
Who wrote Genesis?
moses did
@@Jacob-cz4rq , actually Moses only edited it; either God or Adam and descendants wrote Genesis.
Tradition credits Moses as the author of Genesis, as well as the books of Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers and most of Deuteronomy; however, modern scholars, especially from the 19th century onward, place the books' authorship in the 6th and 5th centuries BC, hundreds of years after Moses is supposed to have lived.[3][4] Based on scientific interpretation of archaeological, genetic, and linguistic evidence, most scholars consider Genesis to be primarily mythological rather than historical.
God; Moses transcribed it.
LXX.
The Old Testament is based on the human mind! The tabernacle was in the pattern of the human brain! The right side ( righteousness) is the right hemisphere of the brain which has imagination, love, creativity, the left is intellect, control. That’s why Jesus said the kingdom is within. What a man thinks so he is! To consume not with the mouth but mind can harm your thoughts and you suffer. Jesus said my words are spirit, words come from thoughts, that’s why you are to have the mind of Christ! The kingdoms and city’s are thoughts that rule and govern you. Men women and children are what is birthed in those thoughts. That’s why animals which are your animalistic thoughts are sacrificed. When you understand and read any scripture through this lens there is no fear, no contradictions and a pure knowledge of truth
I don't believe in a God and I am grateful I escaped the Mind Prison of Christianity. But let's be clear...if there is a God I am grateful as well. That's the real point! None of us really know anything about a God and any claim otherwise is just pretense. I am grateful that the brain I was given by a God or through evolution and reproduction was able to overcome the brainwashing of my youth. I am grateful that I don't believe in resurrections, demons, devils or eternal torture. I am grateful that I can accept and be empathetic to those who are not like myself. I have no problems with immigrants (illegal or otherwise), Transgender, Homosexual, Muslim, Mormon, Christian, Hindu, Buddhist, People of Color, Albinos or Wiccan. I am grateful that I can see that once you can become comfortable forcing your beliefs upon others...is the moment when your beliefs start to divert from idiosyncratic to a group think that can embrace evil entities like the Trump-Republican-Jesus Taliban. A group think that embraces Fox news as they demonize the LBGT community as this real world consequence leads to murder and harm. A group think that denies the science of climate change and vaccines that helps lead the world to a more dangerous place. A group think that forces raped women and children to give birth even though they actually believe the majority of those born will burn in eternal suffering. I am grateful that I can see the beauty in science and truth and I am grateful that I can face my life with bravery, courage and not the fear of the unknown and death.
6:29 Who cares about Josephus canon?...what was Jesus's canon ?...
For instance, Jesus's own brother, Jude quoted from the Book of Enoch (Jude14), which is largely extra canonical Jewish apocrypha...there was a lot of this mystical stuff in Jesus day...its Apocalyptism and DÆmo-angelogy clearly influenced early Christian thought, or as here in Jude, fleshing out the common understanding of concise, and frustrating too limited Old Testament Narrative...the life of the translated saint Enoch, was of a particular interest...as is the mysterious Melchizedek, who also figures prominently in Jewish Apocrypha...
That being said that...far too much can be made of this...I don't believe any 1st Century Jew, even the most mystical or Magical, ever considered, any apocryphal work in the same category as Torah of Moses or the Tannakh of the prophets (which is basically ours as well) ..On the other hand, Jude clearly accepts that what the Book of Enoch says about Enoch is true. Perhaps based on a commonly known Jewish Enochian tradition that is much older than the apocryphal work, extant today. Or more likely Jude is quoting from Enoch, much like "a Prophecy Teacher" might quote from Hal Lindsay, to strengthen his point...or a preacher might quote the words of a popular Hymn to make a clear theological point he agrees with...
95% of Xtians don't know that gospels are ANONYMOUS. The church just labeled them Matthew, Mark etc.
LOL
That depends on who you are listening to. Bart Ehrman and the like tend to suggests this theory, but that is certainly not traditional.
@@Everybody317 This is the majority view. Even the Catholics agree to this.
NOT a single gospel writer names himself within the text as composer of the gospel.
LOL
@@sanjeevgig8918 I do not know if it is the majority position or not and I am not sure how you would prove that. I also have never heard the Catholic church issue an official position on the way you describe. These are assertions you will need to prove. There are many reasons why these writers are ascribed to the books, but one reason is that early church fathers such as Papias, Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, and Clement of Alexandria all affirmed it. Early manuscripts have the inscription “according to Matthew” and Eusebius tells us that the early church father Papias spoke of Matthew as having arranged oracles about Jesus.
@@Everybody317 Catholic Encyclopedia: “the first four historical books of the New Testament are supplied with titles (Euangelion kata Matthaion, Euangelion kata Markon, etc.), which, however ancient, do not go back to the respective authors of those sacred writings. […] It thus appears that the present titles of the Gospels are not traceable to the evangelists themselves.”
@@sanjeevgig8918 - OK..... So, where is the proof or the refutation of what I said? I think we are saying the same thing if this is your proof text. In summary, there is no text in the original Gospels that says, "This came from Matthew" because we have no originals. We have copies (upon copies upon copies), but those earliest manuscripts have the inscription, at least for the Book of Matthew. Luke is a book we make an assertion, but a pretty safe bet given Paul's limited circle. John is another assertion, but the Jewish style of writing as well as proclaiming to be an eyewitness and being at the last supper shows he was one of the Twelve; but he was not Peter, Andrew, Nathanael, Philip, Thomas, Judas, or the other Judas, since these are identified by name in the gospel. Also, James, also not mentioned by name in this gospel, was martyred so early that no rumor would have circulated that he would live until Jesus' return as stated in Acts 12:2; John 21:23. John is pretty safe to be assumed as the writer, although as you stated in your text, there is no direct proclamation of his name in the Gospel.
It’s hilarious how you people are pharassiees thinking you are not 😂 you are cherry picking by doing exactly what the pharassiees did! ‘ it says here Jesus, how dare you go against our book’. Jesus was explaining the scriptures to them. They thought they understood by taking it literal! He gave the spiritual meaning. Paul says the letter ‘ literal’ kills. You cannot hear it because you don’t understand the spirit. You do not have eyes to see Jesus was saying. Nothing has changed. Few will find it. Because of pride and traditions of men you are doing the same. It is the glory of God to conceal a thing! To this day when the Old Testament is read there is a veil. You are veiled. Your sin is your pride. Humble yourself and you will see. But then you will be persecuted
What? What exactly are you saying?
@@saraz9017 the book is true, it is living meaning who are you in the story? The kingdom is within you! You will be all of the characters. The ‘church ‘ thinks they know Christ, but are the ones who were arguing with him ( pharassiees). The book says this they say! Jesus was saying no that’s not what it means, like nicademus thinking he understood and Jesus said dude aren’t you a teacher and you don’t know these things? The same is today! There are plain foundational statements but the church can not understand the spirit of the story. Paul says a Jew is not one outwardly but inwardly. That means you don’t point to another country. It’s within. You are the temple Paul says, so you don’t look to a church! God is light, so you don’t compare God to a man! God IS love! So you dont equal him to your wrath! There is no anger or judgement in unconditional love. You have all made God in your own image which is the carnal mind! As Paul says am I your enemy because I tell you the truth? But you will call me an enemy just as they called Jesus a blasphemer. It’s not your fault, the father judges no one! He’s reserved that for the son ( offspring) which is us. We will judge ourselves because where is Christ? Within you. It is the Christ within that judges, to help you not condemn.
@@terrypaul7706 What in the New Age are you trying to say?
"They thought they understood by taking it literal! He gave the spiritual meaning"
He never said that the literal meaning was false. Nothing Jesus said changed the Word already revealed in Scripture, He expanded on it and showed the full fulfillment of it in Him. The Old Testament is real history, God really said the things it says He said and human beings really responded the way it says they did. There being deeper meaning which before Christ was not understood (or not fully, the Jews recognized that many passages in Scripture applied to when they were written but ALSO pointed further in the future or taught broader truths) does not take away from their more immediate meaning. In fact it shows the power and wisdom of God, that He would direct the history of this world in order to teach His people about Himself on multiple "levels" at once.
"Paul says the letter ‘ literal’ kills"
Funny you have quotes there, but Paul does not say "literal". In that context he's clearly talking about human sin and the Mosaic Law. The Mosaic Law does not change people's hearts, it revealed to people the truth that human beings can not truly live in a way that is pleasing to God in their fallen state. The Mosaic Covenant, as Jesus explains, was actually a lower standard than what God truly holds, but even then no one could fully keep it. Some thought they could, which is partly why Jesus reveals that even if they could it would not be enough. The "letter of the Law" 'kills' because it brings awareness of the problem of sin, the Gospel saves because it gives a solution to that problem. The Holy Spirit dwells in our hearts, filling us with the new life of Christ and sanctifying us from sin. God's Law which was before written only on scrolls is now being written on the hearts of His people.
Of course you also left it out but he says "letter of the LAW", so even if you were right that 'letter' is supposed to mean the literal meaning this would apply to specifically the Mosaic Law. The majority of the text even in the Pentateuch, much less the whole Old Testament, is history teaching etc. and not the actual code of the old Mosaic covenant which Paul is talking about.
Please stop spreading these false ideas. God has really punished many people in history for disobedience to the literal text of His Word, and those punishments in this life don't even compare to the final judgement that will come on ALL PEOPLE who do not have life in Christ (and all of those believe His words no matter which book of Scripture they're in). You WILL have to stand before Jesus Christ and explain why you spread lies about His Word (He said that if you cause any of His followers to stumble, you'd be better off tying a large stone around your neck and jumping into the ocean). I sincerely hope that when you're standing there, you're doing it as someone who's already repented and believed in the real Jesus, not a rebellious sinner who'd rather worship the version of God they made up in their head than the real thing.
@@terrypaul7706 oh. I see. Some things you are saying are accurate in some ways. Replacement theology however, is not accurate. The church does not replace Israel. Look more into replacement theology.
Satan's book.