Considering an apostacy that was well into swing by 100AD, and worse yet by the time the Nicene Council was held in 325AD... how are Jehovah's Witnesses sure about the basically Protestant canon they initially accepted which was canonized about 376AD at earlist and still even then, many Christians didn't agree upon that and still don't today! I could go into more detail if desired... but upon what basis to JW's accept this canon from an apostate generation? How do they know that other books such as the Book of Enoch originally held to be scripture and quoted frequently in Mark or the Shepherd of Hermes should not be included as inspired? There are many works that the apostles considered scripture as well as the early church fathers that aren't in the 66 books. I just don't get it. Did Charles Taze Russell have some sort of revelation about these 66 books only? Thanks.
Accepted 66 books of Canon
by SharonUT 10 Replies latest watchtower bible
-
-
Skimmer
Hello SharonUT:
Russell used the Protestant version ofthe Authorized Edition (King James Bible) becuase that's what the Second Adventists were using at the time; that's how the WTBTS wound up with the 66 book canon.
-
Jimmer
Maybe they ought to return to the AV. (Much better than the NWT.)
-
kes152
Sharon,
JWs DON'T READ history. They all think "Jehovah" inspired men to write 66 books which became the "bible" and this is the "bible" that the christians had. They don't know it was put together by the Catholic Churh and nor do they care.
Here's an interesting point. They say God doesn't speak to us today because the bible is complete now, ..... and they cite Rev.22:18, 19.
What they REFUSE to see is that 1 John was written AFTER that verse was penned. Also was the "gospel" according to John. So was John 'guilty' of 'adding' to what was written?
If so why is it in the NWT?
Things that make you go hmmmm.......
Peace,
Aaron -
Larsguy
The Bible's canon will always be up for debate and whether it is true or inspired will likely be determined by testing it's continuity and fulfillment of Bible prophecy or historical information.
I can't comment on the current NT books, but just note that the NT Bible writers did manage to quote extrensively from other books and thus established their own intrabiblical canon if you accept the NT books as inspired. However, this excluded three books which are currently in the NWT canon which are ESTHER, SONG OF SOLOMON, and ECCLESIASTES. My investigation confirms for sure that neither Esther nor Canticles (SOS) can be considered to be inspired because of historical errors or contextual discrepancies. None of these books mentions God's name nor have any prophecies which are typical of the other books, generally.
Inasmuch as the apostles and others did not quote from these three books, I take that as a confirmation they should be excluded from the "inspired" canon, whether they have valuable information or not.
ESTHER, SOS and ECCLESIATES do not belong in the canon for sure, so it's a matter of discussing the 63 books of the Bible and not 66 as far as I'm concerned.
LG
-
SharonUT
Okay - so moving this in a little different direction... what of "missing scripture?" There is so much proof in history and the Bible itself that the Bible is NOT complete. For instance, we know that several extant books that were once part of the Bible but which arc now excluded from the traditional Protestant canon. My concern is not as much as the apocryphal works accepted in the Catholic church as that there are several places in the Bible where scriptural books and passages are mentioned or quoted which are either lost or are no longer part of the canon. I've specifically discussed this with the JW's visiting me with no real answers.
Some examples that perhaps you could comment on individually? Jude 14-15 quotes the book of Enoch as scripture. In fact, the quotation of Enoch is the fullest, most apparent use of an older scriptural text in Jude. Enoch is quoted to prove that the sort of evil Jude is discussing "had been foreseen in the distant past" (C. Thompson 943). Thus, Enoch is regarded as having prophesied and his prophecy is utilized by Jude to prove an important point.
In Jude 9, "a vivid illustration is given from a Jewish writing, the Assumption of Moses.. . ." (C. Thompson 943). Verse 9 refers to a controversy between the archangel Michael and Satan regarding the body of Moses. This account is found in the Assumption of Moses, an ancient Jewish text, but it is not present in our modern Old Testament.
In Matthew 2:23, Matthew refers to a prophecy that Christ would be called a Nazarene. However, no such prophecy appears in the Old Testament as we now have it. Some writers have asserted that Matthew 2:23 does not pretend to contain an Old Testament quotation. This is simply blinking at reality. It is unabashed evasion to claim that Matthew was not quoting what he considered to be a scriptural source here. Matthew's intent is so plain it is undeniable: "And he came and dwelt in a city called Nazareth: that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophets, he shall be called a Nazarene." How much clearer could Matthew be?
Some fundamentalist scholars concede that Matthew is quoting scripture, and they attempt to find potential sources for the prophecy. Unfortunately, these efforts consist of erroneous linguistic analysis and/or appealing to Old Testament passages (e.g., Judges 13:5) that have nothing to do with Christ. The plain fact of the matter is that Matthew quotes a prophecy concerning Jesus that is not found in our current Old Testament.
In Luke 24:46, we read that the Savior said the following to the two disciples on the road to Emmaus: "Thus it is written, that the Christ should suffer and on the third day rise from the dead" (RSV). The statement "thus it is written" is a standard New Testament formula for introducing quotes from the Old Testament. However, there is no passage in our current Old Testament which speaks specifically of the suffering of the Messiah and of His resurrection from the dead on the third day. This means that the version of the Hebrew scriptures from which Jesus was quoting contained a prophecy that the Messiah would suffer and die and then be resurrected on the third day.
In Colossians 4:16, Paul bids his Colossian readers to "likewise read the epistle from Laodicea." "According to Col. 4: 16," says Mary Milne, "Laodicea received a letter from Paul, and it was to exchange letters with the neighboring community at Colossae" ( 547). Victor Paul Furnish notes that this verse relates to the custom of sharing apostolic letters: "The instruction that this letter [Colossians] be shared with the Laodicean church and that the letter to that congregation be read also in Colossae shows how the custom of exchanging apostolic letters must have grown up--leading gradually to their collection and joint circulation... ." (1971a:864, emphasis added). The Letter to the Laodiceans is now lost.
Another missing epistle of Paul's is referred to in 1 Cofinthians 5:9, where the apostle says, "I wrote unto you in an epistle not to company with fornicators." James Price observes that Paul "is clearly referring here to a previous letter" (800). Elisabeth Fiorenza of Harvard University agrees:
According to 1 Cor. 5:9 Paul is not writing to Corinth for the first time. He sends what we know
as the First Letter of Paul to the Corinthians from Ephesus in part because his previous letter has
been misunderstood and in part because new problems have arisen, about which the community
had written him. (1168)Thus, we should have three epistles from Paul to the Christians at Corinth, but we only have two.
Some of the material in 1 and 2 Kings was taken from a book that was called the Chronicles of the Kings of Israel, and the material that was used was only a selection from that book (1 Kings 15:31; 16:20; 2 Kings 10:34; 13:8).
Below is a listing of some of the other scriptural books which are mentioned in the Old Testament but which are now lost:
Book of Jasher - Joshua 10:13
Book of the Acts of Solomon - 1 Kings 11:41
Book of Nathan - 1 Chronicles 29:29
Book of Gad - 1 Chronicles 29:29
The Prophecy of Ahijah - 2 Chronicles 9:29
The Book of Iddo - 2 Chronicles 12: 15
Sayings of the Seers - 2 Chronicles 33:19
There are many places in the writings of the early church fathers where scriptural sources are cited which can no longer be identified and/or which arc no longer included in the Bible.For example, Clement of Rome (ca. A.D. 40-100), the revered bishop of that city, in his first letter to Corinth, quotes what he himself labels a "Scripture" concerning the wretched condition of "the double-minded" (1 Clement 23: 3; Sparks 31). However, "the source of this quotation is unknown" (Sparks 31). We no longer possess the scriptural source which Clement quoted to the Corinthian saints.
2 Clement, a highly regarded homily among the ancient Christians, composed sometime between A.D. 100 and 140, quotes a scripture attributed to the Lord Himself regarding the importance of good works. The homily's author introduces the quotation with the words "the Lord said" (4:5; Sparks 62). The source of this quotation is unknown, although some believe it comes from the lost Gospel of the Egyptians (Sparks 62).
The Epistle of Barnabas quotes as scripture a passage which closely resembles two verses from 2 Esdras in the Apocrypha (12:1; Sparks 289; 2 Esdras 4:3; 5:5).
The Epistle of Barnabas itself was quoted as scripture by Clement of Alexandria (ca. A.D. 150-215), an early Christian theologian and president of the Christian academy in that city (Sparks 263). The epistle was already in circulation by the early part of the second century and was widely read in the ancient church clear into the third century. Significantly, the epistle appears in one of the oldest New Testament manuscripts, the Codex Sinaiticus.
The devout Christian apologist Justin Martyr (ca. A.D. 100-165) treated the books of Esdras as scripture and accused the Jews of having removed from one of them a passage which connected the Passover to the Savior (Roberrs and Donaldson 1:234). Justin even quoted the passage. However, the verse he quoted does not appear in any existing manuscripts of 1 and 2 Esdras.
Justin also claimed that the Jews had removed two passages from many contemporary copies of Jeremiah (Donaldson and Roberts 1:234-235). Justin supplied the verses in question. One of the passages he quoted corresponds to Jeremiah 11:19. However, the other one is not found in any existing version of Jeremiah (Donaldson and Roberts 1:235). Interestingly, this verse speaks of Yahweh visiting Israelites in the spirit world "to preach unto them His own salvation" (Roberts and Donaldson 1:235).
In an early Christian text entitled the Shepherd of Hermas, the pious Hermas is instructed by an angel to quote to a local Christian the Words of Eldad and Modat, a lost prophetic book of ancient Judaism (Fox 383; Sparks 166).
The Shepherd of Hermas itself was a greatly revered text in the early church Written between A.D. 100 and 150, it was cited with approval by Irenaeu (ca. A.D. II5-180), bishop of Lyons and an esteemed Christian apologist Clement of Alexandria regarded it "as divinely spoken and by revelation (Sundberg 1221-1222). The Shepherd of Hermas enjoyed considerable reverence and popularity in the ancient church well into the fourth century. The book, like the Epistle of Barnabas, appears in the Codex Sinaiticus.
In addition to all of the above, according to a number of church father' in the early church there were vitally important "higher teachings" that we deliberately withheld from the written scriptures and which were given on to those church members who were deemed ready and worthy to receive the (Roberts and Donaldson 4:399; MaGil147; Robinson 96-103; Evenson 71-101
Sorry so long.
-
God_knows
Brightest blessings and love to you, SHARON!!
what you have to understand aboutv the canon is that some book were left out of it itnentionally, God inspired the canon fathers to rightly choose wich books belong and which do not.There others were left out for three main reasons; Scriptural UNsoundness, Authorship in question, or perhaps accuracy of the text in general.
What I mean by that last one, is that books like the book of Enoch were left out becaue they are so old that their true accuracy can no longer be determined with confidence. Enoch for example is seventh from Adam. Original texts are no longer in existence, and any that we do have are so old they could be full of errors, and people down the line could have added to them and no one would ever know it.Once I asked my mentor about Enoch in particular; it seemed odd to me that Enoch was not made part of the canon. If Peter in the Spirit quoted from him that alone would have given it muscle enough to make it part of the canon.
but the truth is, there are no longer any RELIABLE texts of Enoch to add them to canon.Hope that helps....I love you all!
-
Skimmer
It's been reported that First Corinthians is an edit of two epistles (both to the Corinthians) because of its length and also because of some internal evidence.
In the first few centuries AD, there was significant doubt about having the Revelation of John as part of the canon; there were numerous other revelations also circulating. There was lesser but still significant doubt about the canonicity of the epistle to the Hebrews.
There was also a Protoevangelicum of John the Baptist which was accepted by many but not the majority of the early commentators.
Many of the original disciples are credited with books (Gospel According to X, Acts of X, Revelation to X), but nearly all of these are well established as pious but unauthentic writing from the second century or later.
The epistles of Clement are thought to really have originated with Clement and are in general agreement with the New Testament.
In his book about the New Testament many years ago, Issac Asimov included First and Second Maccabees with the conventional NT because they were circulated in Greek unlike the rest of the Old Testament. The issue of those books being in Greek was also given as a reason for their exclusion by Protestants in their canon. Since then, some very ancient Hebrew versions of the Maccabees have surfaced but it doesn't look like any Protestants are going to change their canon.
In the Old Testament, many scholars believe that Isaiah is the result of an edit of two books written about forty years apart by different authors. Some think it is a combination of three authors and there is some support for this. I wonder what the WTBTS thinks about this? I think they are sticking to the idea that it is all one book by one person written at one time.
Also, the WTBTS came out against the four source theory of the Pentateuch long ago. One of their arguments was that if one tried to read any of the purported accounts on its own, then it wasn't complete. Well, of course!
-
Francois
And God inspired ME to reject all the intellectual nitpicking, get out of the Borg, and go about living a life of doing as much good as I can.
And as I suspected the modern day scribes and pharisees don't like it. Still want to play spirituality as mental one-upsmanship.
Jaysus!
ft
My $0.02
-
pomegranate
Is God so powerful that the creator of the sun has absolutely no power in making sure the the correct number of books gets compiled together?
Francoise, God wants your butt. To live.
Here's two cents for you:
Acts 1:10
10 They were looking intently up into the sky as he was going, when suddenly two men dressed in white stood beside them.The seedy,
pomegranate