Tag Info

Hot answers tagged

27

First Enoch (or the Ethiopic Enoch) stands alone among the Jewish apocalypses for length, diversity, and richness.1 No other ancient non-canonical work influenced the Jewish world of the first century as much as Enoch.2 With its interest in suffering, evil, demons, and the Last Judgment, Enoch helps bridge the gap in life and thought between Malachi and ...


14

In general the Tanakh is the same as the Christian Old Testament. The differences are: Some Christians use a few extra books, which are called deuterocanonical (or apocrypha, by those who reject them). These books are found in the earliest Greek translation of the Tanakh, but were later rejected by the rabbis. The books of the Tanakh are usually printed ...


12

In Judaism the final decision of which writings (Ketuvim, the third part of the Tanakh) were canonical did not happen until at least the end of the 1st century CE. This was after Christianity and Judaism had largely split, and so the two groups made different decisions about which writings were accepted as canonical. In particular, nascent Rabbinic Judaism ...


9

Here is a chart which gives a comparison of the books and order: (source website) The other important thing to remember is that the Jewish Tanach exists primarily in Hebrew and is augmented by commentary from within the Jewish tradition. Any translation, especially one whose translation was influenced by other theologies will deviate in terms of content. ...


8

The Greek translation of Jewish scripture (the Septuagint) occurred between the 3rd and 1st centuries BCE. The canon of the Tanakh was finalized hundreds of years later. The Christian canon was debated from the 4th to the 16th centuries. We have a tendency of thinking of the Bible as written in stone, so to speak, but the canon has been the object of ...


7

The cannon of the Torah and of the Prophets were settled by 4th century BCE (earlier for the Torah), and we don't have much evidence as to what criteria were used. We don't know which books were most controversial, and we don't know which books were excluded. The cannon of the Writings was settled around the 1st or 2nd century CE. Since this was after ...


7

This was not, perhaps, Leon Morris's finest moment (quote is on p. 17, originally published 1974), although he certainly wasn't alone in assuming this datum. Neither Howard Marshall, nor John Nolland make mention of Marcion in their circumspect discussions of the attribution of authorship of the third (canonical) gospel -- simply to cite two subsequent ...


7

I'm probably going to come close to the conclusion of the first answer but hopefully will provide some other thoughts. Paul takes on Timothy on the beginning of his 2nd missionary journey (~49 A.D.). Conservative scholars date 1 Timothy to between 62-67 A.D. (after Paul's first imprisonment). There's no solid data on how old Timothy was when Paul took ...


7

Based on the record of the conversation on the road to Emmaus when Jesus "beginning with Moses and with all the prophets, He explained to them the things concerning Himself in all the Scriptures" {Luke 24:27}, that "the scriptures" must indicate the Old Testament - since the earliest aspect of the New Testament wasn't written until about 50 AD. Given that ...


7

NT authors quoted works they considered authoritative, and works they did not. For example it would be a big leap from Titus 1:2 to claim that Paul regarded Epimenides as fully reliable: One of the Cretans, a prophet of their own, said, “Cretans are always liars, evil beasts, lazy gluttons.”ESV Therefore we cannot tell by whether something is regarded ...


6

From my understanding of Strong's and Thayer's, γραφὰς always means, "sacred writings." It does not necessarily imply the entire canon as Christ used the word to refer (presumably) to the Tanach. In addition, it does not even imply which canon is to be trusted (as there were several present at that time). All of that being said, I think it is fairly safe to ...


6

There really isn't a body that controls what is called a Bible and what isn't. There are groups that put their stamp of approval on translations and study Bibles though. For instance, the Assemblies of God funded the study notes for the Life in the Spirit Study Bible which has notes and essays (set aside from the text and marked as additions) specifically ...


6

The word "Bible" is derived from the Greek word "biblio", meaning "book". In that sense, just about any book can be called a bible. But because Christians believe the Bible is the authoritative source for doctrine, the word "Bible" has taken a connotation meaning "authoritative". So sometimes books will include the word "Bible" in their title to imply that ...


6

Peter almost certainly didn't think of canonicity the way we do today. As Ignatius Theophorus points out, the Greek word (as used by New Testament writers) refers to sacred writings. In its most common use among early Christians, the word γραφὰς referred to those writings that could be read in church; however, Clement, bishop of Rome in the late first ...


6

The Muratorian fragment isn't simply a list of books included in the canon, but also a description of them. It's description of the Gospel of Luke makes it very clear that they believed it was written by Luke: The third book of the Gospel [is that] according to Luke. Luke, "the" physician, after the ascension of Christ, when Paul had taken him with him ...


4

The Old Testament is the same as the Jewish Scripture, although not necessarily in the same order, and with some verses split up differently. It can be considered heritage for the most part, although Athanasius did not consider Esther to be Scriptural. The Apocrypha were never considered Scripture by the Jews. Again, Athanasius did not consider these ...


3

After thinking about it some more, there is a medium strength argument to be made that Peter here supports any letter submitted by Paul under his ministry, past or future. It is an argument not directly from the text, but from omission. In other words, Peter says that people twist Paul’s writings, in the same way that they do scripture. He does not logically ...


2

No Certain Answer to Give Disclaimer and Explanation of Citations and Notations: The evidence here is largely gleaned from Protestant source material (my tradition), and is presented in a way that argues toward Job being an ancient composition (my view); but the evidence also mentions there are numerous other views on this. A bibliography of all ...


1

The very notion of scripture carries with it an idea of the infallible and all powerful commanding perfect voice of God.  This means if one rejects a book of his word from the Bible canon they reject God's own voice and have sinned.  Now any writing that does not carry that invincible and perfect authority must be rejected no matter how edifying it may seem. ...



Only top voted, non community-wiki answers of a minimum length are eligible