Adding to the Bible and Taking away from the Bible

[SemperReformada]

It is there read it for your self. The problem is you will never accept the canon of the Bible that the CC established.

I assume you can’t substantiate your claim. All you have to do establish the content of the LXX which was used by the first century Jews and explain how you came to know this. If yo have already done this, please post it again because I haven’t seen it.

 

[juliamajor]

Since there is no direct evidence since no original texts exist any idea on what version of a text was used would strictly be guess work.
Unfortunately anything Catholic is tainted.Judaism has much more regard for the Deuteros and I have seen a few new commentaries from the Protestant side that seem to show a new respect for the LXX and Deuteros. Some people just don’t understand that every biblical scholar uses these books for an insight into the mindset and theology of That time period (intertestament). If you actually read them you can understand more of what was happening politically, theologically at that time period.Too bad.Insight is never a bad thing.

 

[SemperReformada]

Since there is no direct evidence since no original texts exist any idea on what version of a text was used would strictly be guess work.
Unfortunately anything Catholic is tainted.Judaism has much more regard for the Deuteros and I have seen a few new commentaries from the Protestant side that seem to show a new respect for the LXX and Deuteros. Some people just don’t understand that every biblical scholar uses these books for an insight into the mindset and theology of That time period (intertestament). If you actually read them you can understand more of what was happening politically, theologically at that time period.Too bad.Insight is never a bad thing.

I disagree that it would be guess work. We have several sources that list the books of the OT in such a way that it matches the Protestant OT. For example we have the following from Josephus
“…we do not possess myriads of inconsistent books, conflicting with one another, [as the Greeks do]; but our books, those which are justly believed, are only 22…Of these, five are the books of Moses…the prophets after Moses wrote the events of their own times in thirteen books. The remaining four books contain hymns to God and precepts for the conduct of human life.”

The 22 books he lists match the Protestant OT…they are grouped differently. I used to have a list of how they are grouped and will see if I can find it. There may be some evidence similar to the quote by Josephus which lists the deutero’s but I am unaware of it. Anyway, we don’t necessarily have to have the original manuscript to know or have some knowledge of the text.

As for the LXX the only manuscripts we have are all Christian copies and date no earlier than the 4th or 5th century. The various manuscripts do contain the deutero’s but they also contain other books such as 3rd and 4th Maccabees. Also, some manuscripts omit various detuerocanonical books which the RCC accepts.

I personally do not beleive the deutero’s to be inspired but certainly recognize the fact that they can be very useful for study. I a unware of any hostility to the LXX by Protestants. I’m not sure why their would be.

I am tired and starting to ramble but if you would like to continue tomorrow I’ll be back.

 

[wmscott]

The deutero’s are never, ever, not once quoted in such a way as to lead someone to believe that any of the NT authors believed them to be inspired. There aren’t even that many quotes…if any…some allusions at best perhaps?

Which version or manuscript of the LXX did Jesus and the apostles use? If you don’t know the answer to this question, how do you know which books were contained within the version they were using?

Posted earlier.

The canon of the Old Testament that Catholics use is based on the text used by Alexandrian Jews, a version known as the “Septuagint” (also called “LXX” or “The Seventy”) and which came into being around 280 B.C. as a translation of then existing texts from Hebrew into Greek by 72 Jewish scribes (the Torah was translated first, around 300 B.C., and the rest of Tanach was translated afterward).

So how do you explain the Apostles or Christ not using it? The Septuagint was the version of the Old Testament accepted by the very earliest Christians (and, yes, those 7 “extra” books were found among the Dead Sea Scrolls which date between 168 B.C. and A.D. 68, and which by the way, support both the Septuagint and the 6th - 10th c. A.D. Masoretic texts in various ways, but supporting the Septuagint on average).

 

[SemperReformada]

Posted earlier.

The canon of the Old Testament that Catholics use is based on the text used by Alexandrian Jews, a version known as the “Septuagint” (also called “LXX” or “The Seventy”)

I don’t believe there ever was an Alexandrian canon.

I haven’t disputed the use of the LXX. What I have asked you to do is somehow demonstrate that the Jews of the 1st century or Jesus and the apostles believed the deutero’s to be canonical by listing the books which comprised the LXX of the 1st century. Remember, you made the claim that the OT of the RCC is the one that Jesus and the apostles loved and I have simply asked you to prove this for us.

So how do you explain the Apostles or Christ not using it?

The issue isn’t whether or not the LXX was used but what books were contained within the LXX used by Jesus and/or the apostles and which of those particular books were thought to be canonical by Jesus and the apostles. LXX is not synonomous with detuerocanonical.

The Septuagint was the version of the Old Testament accepted by the very earliest Christians (and, yes, those 7 “extra” books were found among the Dead Sea Scrolls which date between 168 B.C. and A.D. 68, and which by the way, support both the Septuagint and the 6th - 10th c. A.D. Masoretic texts in various ways, but supporting the Septuagint on average).

The 7 deuterocanonical books pre-date the apostolic age (as far as I know) so it shouldn’t be surprising that they were found among the Dead Sea scrolls. I’m not sure how you get from this bit of information to establishing that Jesus or the first century Jews in general accepted the deutero’s as canonical though.

 

[mark_a]

Anyways, Protestants, and quasi-Christians are probably correct in their belief that the teachings of the 66 book bible are ***sufficient ***to get them into heaven.

After all, as far as we can tell in the 66, 73, and 75 book bibles, Jesus never condemned the Sadducees for believing only the pentateuch.

But we Orthodox, Eastern Catholics, and Roman Catholics believe God gives us much more than what is sufficient. God wants us to have it all!!

For Catholics who may be interested, here’s a good link to some info about how to refute attacks on the deutero’s.

matt1618.freeyellow.com/cloud.html

 

[juliamajor]

I don’t believe there ever was an Alexandrian canon.

I haven’t disputed the use of the LXX. What I have asked you to do is somehow demonstrate that the Jews of the 1st century or Jesus and the apostles believed the deutero’s to be canonical by listing the books which comprised the LXX of the 1st century. Remember, you made the claim that the OT of the RCC is the one that Jesus and the apostles loved and I have simply asked you to prove this for us.

The issue isn’t whether or not the LXX was used but what books were contained within the LXX used by Jesus and/or the apostles and which of those particular books were thought to be canonical by Jesus and the apostles. LXX is not synonomous with detuerocanonical.

The 7 deuterocanonical books pre-date the apostolic age (as far as I know) so it shouldn’t be surprising that they were found among the Dead Sea scrolls. I’m not sure how you get from this bit of information to establishing that Jesus or the first century Jews in general accepted the deutero’s as canonical though.

There is not a measureing stick to what they felt was true. Many accepted the Book of Enoch as inspired(believe Jude mentions )Much which was considered pseudepigrapha was considered inspired. canonicty is an artificial construct to separate wheat from the tares since so much religious writings abounded in this time period. The LXX canon was set BC. MT was not. Torah was set early on.Neviim a little while later with the Kethuvim following far behind .Maybe as late as 100AD or more. There was much contention and nothing was clear cut in the kethuvim.Ecclesiastes almost didn’t make it . Esther’s canonicty was doubted. So was Song Of Song. For very obvious reasons.

 

[wmscott]

I don’t believe there ever was an Alexandrian canon.

I haven’t disputed the use of the LXX. What I have asked you to do is somehow demonstrate that the Jews of the 1st century or Jesus and the apostles believed the deutero’s to be canonical by listing the books which comprised the LXX of the 1st century. Remember, you made the claim that the OT of the RCC is the one that Jesus and the apostles loved and I have simply asked you to prove this for us.

The issue isn’t whether or not the LXX was used but what books were contained within the LXX used by Jesus and/or the apostles and which of those particular books were thought to be canonical by Jesus and the apostles. LXX is not synonomous with detuerocanonical.

The 7 deuterocanonical books pre-date the apostolic age (as far as I know) so it shouldn’t be surprising that they were found among the Dead Sea scrolls. I’m not sure how you get from this bit of information to establishing that Jesus or the first century Jews in general accepted the deutero’s as canonical though.

The problem is that you can be provided with all the evidence that the 7 deuterocanonical books are inspired scripture and you still will never believe it. Why, because the Catholic Church, guided by the Holy Spirit, got it right the first time around. it has stood the test of time (2000+ years) compaired to your 500 years of error. There is nothing that can can be provided to you as proof because, as your name sake indicates, you are Always Reformed. The Reformation is your guide light and is all you will ever know.

 

[SemperReformada]

The problem is that you can be provided with all the evidence that the 7 deuterocanonical books are inspired scripture and you still will never believe it. Why, because the Catholic Church, guided by the Holy Spirit, got it right the first time around. it has stood the test of time (2000+ years) compaired to your 500 years of error. There is nothing that can can be provided to you as proof because, as your name sake indicates, you are Always Reformed. The Reformation is your guide light and is all you will ever know.

You made a claim, got called on it and can’t produce the goods to substantiate your claim.

You shouldn’t feel bad since no scholar can produce the evidence needed to prove your claim. It’s just that they know better than to make such a claim in the first place.

 

[diggerdomer]

No; nothing you would consider credible; it would not be a Catholic source; therefore it would be considered invalid…right?

No that is not correct. Do you have a better (i.e. one that responds to my question) response, rather than just responding to a question with a question?

Oh…sorry…I realized after posting this that you have bailed out (refused to continue dialogue) on this thread, and so you won’t likely be responding to anyone questioning your contributions. Too bad. Not much point in responding to any messages from you, then?

 

[wmscott]

You made a claim, got called on it and can’t produce the goods to substantiate your claim.

You shouldn’t feel bad since no scholar can produce the evidence needed to prove your claim. It’s just that they know better than to make such a claim in the first place.

The problem really is that you can not produce any proof to the contrary other than your opinion. What I posted, and off the top of my head is that Christ and the Apostles used the LXX with contained the deutero’s.

The Christian acceptance of the deuterocanonical books was logical because the deuterocanonicals were also included in the Septuagint, the Greek edition of the Old Testament which the apostles used to evangelize the world. Two thirds of the Old Testament quotations in the New are from the Septuagint. Yet the apostles nowhere told their converts to avoid seven books of it. Like the Jews all over the world who used the Septuagint, the early Christians accepted the books they found in it. They knew that the apostles would not mislead them and endanger their souls by putting false scriptures in their hands – especially without warning them against them.The deuterocanonicals teach Catholic doctrine, and that is the problem for being "Always Reformed".

The Septuagint (sometimes abbreviated LXX) is the name given to the Greek translation of the Jewish Scriptures. The Septuagint has its origin in Alexandria, Egypt ***(which you do not believe in) ***and was translated between 300-200 BC. Widely used among Hellenistic Jews, this Greek translation was produced because many Jews spread throughout the empire were beginning to lose their Hebrew language.

The Septuagint contains the standard 39 books of the Old Testament canon, as well as certain apocryphal books. The term “Apocrypha” was coined by the fifth-century biblical scholar, Jerome, and generally refers to the set of ancient Jewish writings written during the period between the last book in the Jewish scriptures, Malachi, and the arrival of Jesus Christ. The apocryphal books include Judith, Tobit, Baruch, Sirach (or Ecclesiasticus), the Wisdom of Solomon, First and Second Maccabees, the two Books of Esdras, additions to the Book of Esther, additions to the Book of Daniel, and the Prayer of Manasseh.

The Apocryphal books were included in the Septuagint for historical and religious purposes, but are not recognized by Protestant Christians or Orthodox Jews as canonical (inspired by God). Most reformed teachers will point out that the New Testament writers never quoted from the Apocryphal books, and that the Apocrypha was never considered part of the canonical Jewish scripture. However, the Roman Catholic Church and the Orthodox churches include the Apocrypha in their Bible (except for the books of Esdras and the Prayer of Manasseh). Since the Septuagint is a translation, scholars speculate if it accurately reflects the Hebrew scriptures of the 2nd century BC.

This does answer all that you have refused to accept. I really do not know what else I can tell you. If you you are a Bible only kind a person, then Sacred Scripture will not say Christ and the Apostles used thee exact book in the exact language you want.