Blast The Canon

[CopticChristian]

Protestant canon using Masoretic text v.s Catholic Canon Septuagint…is this pretty much why Protestants deny the Catholic Canon, deuterocanonical books (DB)?

1. The Jews never accepted the DB and they were not part of the oracles committed unto them (Rom. 3:2) Furthermore, they are not written in Hebrew.
2. The New Testament never quotes the DB and early Christians never used it.
3. The synod of Laodicea (341-381) did not accept the DB and that the Ecumenical Council of Chalcedon (451) supposedly ratifies Laodicea.

Do Protestants agree with this or is there more?

 

[Izdaari]

I am frankly not enough of a Bible scholar to have valid opinions on any of that, as opposed to merely parroting what my particular tradition teaches, which I don’t care to do either. So I keep an open mind, and keep most of those questions in abeyance until such time as I’m able to learn enough Greek and Hebrew to understand all the issues involved.

I don’t particularly care whether a given translation is based on Masoretic or Septuagint texts. I will happily use either, so long as it seems to be sound and readable. I prefer to have the DB included, in case I do want to use them, but I don’t insist on it, as I don’t use them often, and I already own several editions that have them.

 

[Publisher]

Protestant canon using Masoretic text v.s Catholic Canon Septuagint…is this pretty much why Protestants deny the Catholic Canon, deuterocanonical books (DB)?

1. The Jews never accepted the DB and they were not part of the oracles committed unto them (Rom. 3:2) Furthermore, they are not written in Hebrew.

The DC were used by the Diaspora as the LXX was translated for their use. After the fall of Jerusalem the rabbinical “re-construction” of Judaism chose to only use those books which were written in Hebrew…AND I would think to separate themselves further from the growing sect among Jews which came to be known as “Chrsitianity”.

1. The New Testament never quotes the DB and early Christians never used it.

While there may be no “direct quotes” from the DC within the NT…Paul definitely alludes to many passages in his letters. The LXX was used in the early church since most Christians were Gentile and not too many read or spoke Hebrew.

1. The synod of Laodicea (341-381) did not accept the DB and that the Ecumenical Council of Chalcedon (451) supposedly ratifies Laodicea.

**That the DB were disputed over the centuries indicates they were NOT universally accepted…the eastern church didn’t take the route the western church took in “canonization” of OT books. Even some of our NT books were in disputed for centuries

.**Do Protestants agree with this or is there more?

 

[AmateurPianist]

I am frankly not enough of a Bible scholar to have valid opinions on any of that, as opposed to merely parroting what my particular tradition teaches, which I don’t care to do either. So I keep an open mind, and keep most of those questions in abeyance until such time as I’m able to learn enough Greek and Hebrew to understand all the issues involved.

I don’t particularly care whether a given translation is based on Masoretic or Septuagint texts. I will happily use either, so long as it seems to be sound and readable. I prefer to have the DB included, in case I do want to use them, but I don’t insist on it, as I don’t use them often, and I already own several editions that have them.

Yup this is me.

I think the correct question to ask is “What did Jesus use”. Once that question is answered you then have established a baseline. Without a baseline this discussion goes nowhere.

In my best estimation (that could be wrong of course) is that Jesus probably had available and used both. Anyway I will assume this is true anyway until I see convincing evidence to the contrary. If true, there is also no record of Him having complained about either one either having added or missing books. Which to me anyway is significant in itself.

Anyway, this will probably be my one contribution to this thread unless somebody chimes in who really knows his stuff and doesn’t have a predefined agenda (now who could that be).

 

[Ginger2]

Protestant canon using Masoretic text v.s Catholic Canon Septuagint…is this pretty much why Protestants deny the Catholic Canon, deuterocanonical books (DB)?

1. The Jews never accepted the DB and they were not part of the oracles committed unto them (Rom. 3:2) Furthermore, they are not written in Hebrew.
2. The New Testament never quotes the DB and early Christians never used it.
3. The synod of Laodicea (341-381) did not accept the DB and that the Ecumenical Council of Chalcedon (451) supposedly ratifies Laodicea.

Do Protestants agree with this or is there more?

No. There is a whole lot more…This topic has been discussed several times over the years and it just goes round in circles with the exception of maybe a couple threads. And then a new thread starts up rehashing even those things that have been settled.

 

[KathleenGee]

As long as Christians do not believe in the working of the Holy Spirit guiding the Church, such discussions are naught. It took many years to assemble the Bible, many people involved.

You have to remember that in Christ’s death and resurrection, He made all things new…He makes all things new…and gives new life and meaning to the old texts others did not use.

Trust the Holy Spirit working in those chosen to serve Christ’s church. Otherwise, you will spend your lifetime, dissenting, probing, disagreeing but not coming to the certainty of faith that Christ is calling us to.

 

[CopticChristian]

Publisher:

1. The Jews never accepted the DB and they were not part of the oracles committed unto them (Rom. 3:2) Furthermore, they are not written in Hebrew.

The DC were used by the Diaspora as the LXX was translated for their use. After the fall of Jerusalem the rabbinical “re-construction” of Judaism chose to only use those books which were written in Hebrew…AND I would think to separate themselves further from the growing sect among Jews which came to be known as “Chrsitianity”.

So what you are saying is that the LXX was used by the Diaspora Jews.

1. The New Testament never quotes the DB and early Christians never used it.

While there may be no “direct quotes” from the DC within the NT…Paul definitely alludes to many passages in his letters. The LXX was used in the early church since most Christians were Gentile and not too many read or spoke Hebrew.

If you accept Hebrews as written by Paul then the following is consistent with your point.

Hebrews 11:35 refers to women and children who refused to be delivered from death (martyrdom) that they might receive a better resurrection. Now, there is nothing like this in the Protestant canonical OT (based on the Palestinian Jewish canon), where a woman refuses to have her children saved in order to merit for them a more glorious resurrection. But there is exactly that situation in 2 Maccabees 7, where the mother and her seven sons refuse to be delivered so that they might obtain a better resurrection.

1. The synod of Laodicea (341-381) did not accept the DB and that the Ecumenical Council of Chalcedon (451) supposedly ratifies Laodicea.

That the DB were disputed over the centuries indicates they were NOT universally accepted…the eastern church didn’t take the route the western church took in “canonization” of OT books. Even some of our NT books were in disputed for centuries

So what you are saying is that is a dispute was a dispute and settled in the East and West.

 

[CopticChristian]

No. There is a whole lot more…This topic has been discussed several times over the years and it just goes round in circles with the exception of maybe a couple threads. And then a new thread starts up rehashing even those things that have been settled.

I love reading your posts. You are thorough. Point me to those post so that I do not rehash. I would imagine that since you have seen this before either you will abstain from lack of interest in the rehashing or provide great insights from the rehashing.

 

[KathleenGee]

On the side here, it took the Church awhile to affirm that St. John the Evangelist was the true writer of the Gospel of St. John. Likewise, it took the Church 200 years to decide to include Paul’s Hebrews as inspired for public revelation.

 

[CopticChristian]

On the side here, it took the Church awhile to affirm that St. John the Evangelist was the true writer of the Gospel of St. John. Likewise, it took the Church 200 years to decide to include Paul’s Hebrews as inspired for public revelation.

Hebrews is a tough one. I do not know how any Protestant can honestly say that this book is to be part of the Bible by using Scripture alone. I have yet to see any Protestant address this. This may be one of the weakest links in the Bible proves the Bible and Scripture verifies itself.

 

[Ginger2]

…Point me to those post so that I do not rehash. …

You have never seen the the canon discussed in this forum, before now? I have been here over four years and nearly every thread discusses Marian doctrines and the canon of Scriptures. Odd how you have managed to miss these discussions.

I answered the OP question, “there is more to it”, and made comment to the fact that these discussions seem to produce nothing but repetition, imo.

But since you have requested something more ever so nicely and politely, I will simply say that since the Jews were the God-appointed keepers of the Old Testament, I trust their canon is correct.

Ginger

 

[KathleenGee]

On the side here again…as Catholics we look at the context of Scripture from its whole…not as a book, but as salvation history. We are not just ‘stuck’ on reflecting on the faith of the ancients, but those who responded to Jesus Christ, canonized saints…who continue the story of salvation in the Lord.

We cannot just follow one person…then one is following a man made church. We must retain our tradition from Scripture that God came to a gathering of peoples, not one person…and a true prophet is that who helps people know God’s will for them, leading them out of sin and back to Him.

And in response to atheists’ strong point of how could such a loving God create a world with such suffering…I am reading and reflecting…that it is in the liturgy this point is answered…Christ the Atonement of sin, we an extension as priestly people, we at Mass with the priest of Melchizedek…no beginning or end…of Jesus Christ, that suffering is redeemed…through a Eucharistic, faithful people…

I mean to say, you can’t reduce faith to a set of books. You have those in authority who are consecrated, chosen…not private, personal interpretation as St. Peter forbade.

 

[Publisher]

1. The Jews never accepted the DB and they were not part of the oracles committed unto them (Rom. 3:2) Furthermore, they are not written in Hebrew.

So what you are saying is that the LXX was used by the Diaspora Jews.

1. The New Testament never quotes the DB and early Christians never used it.

If you accept Hebrews as written by Paul then the following is consistent with your point.

Hebrews 11:35 refers to women and children who refused to be delivered from death (martyrdom) that they might receive a better resurrection. Now, there is nothing like this in the Protestant canonical OT (based on the Palestinian Jewish canon), where a woman refuses to have her children saved in order to merit for them a more glorious resurrection. But there is exactly that situation in 2 Maccabees 7, where the mother and her seven sons refuse to be delivered so that they might obtain a better resurrection.

1. The synod of Laodicea (341-381) did not accept the DB and that the Ecumenical Council of Chalcedon (451) supposedly ratifies Laodicea.

**So what you are saying is that is a dispute was a dispute and settled in the East and West./**QUOTE]

Well…not sure what you mean here…there was no fixed canon in the east…the west had it’s own ideas…some/most of the reformers chose the Masoretic instead of the LXX

 

[BrianH]

I would like to chime in quickly having followed these discussions for years. It will not matter if the Deuterocanonicals were added. That is why it is such an odd thing to debate so much about.

 

[CopticChristian]

You have never seen the the canon discussed in this forum, before now? I have been here over four years and nearly every thread discusses Marian doctrines and the canon of Scriptures. Odd how you have managed to miss these discussions.

I answered the OP question, “there is more to it”, and made comment to the fact that these discussions seem to produce nothing but repetition, imo.

But since you have requested something more ever so nicely and politely, I will simply say that since the Jews were the God-appointed keepers of the Old Testament, I trust their canon is correct.

Ginger

Ginger,

I have only been here since July. You have more time in this arena than I have. Can you find the old postings?

 

[CopticChristian]

I would like to chime in quickly having followed these discussions for years. It will not matter if the Deuterocanonicals were added. That is why it is such an odd thing to debate so much about.

In your opinion. In my opinion it deflates the notion that the Catholic Church added the deuterocanonicals and other such stuff as I hear from the “just christian”…I am discovering that there as you know is a crowd that suggests that…this who added or subtracted is a situation that is either true or not true. If it does not matter to you OK.

 

[BrianH]

In your opinion. In my opinion it deflates the notion that the Catholic Church added the deuterocanonicals and other such stuff as I hear from the “just christian”…I am discovering that there as you know is a crowd that suggests that…this who added or subtracted is a situation that is either true or not true. If it does not matter to you OK.

I do not think it will have an influence on the “other stuff”. Eschatology or otherwise. Most Christians view these things as developing as opposed to revealed in a complete form in the OT (no matter the size of the OT).
IMO
Not that I have the benefit of seeing these arguments for years either…

 

[CopticChristian]

I do not think it will have an influence on the “other stuff”. Eschatology or otherwise. Most Christians view these things as developing as opposed to revealed in a complete form in the OT (no matter the size of the OT).
IMO
Not that I have the benefit of seeing these arguments for years either…

In your opinion. Perhaps I will learn something, others will learn something, or at least I will pass my time humored to the extent that things such as this humor me.

 

[CopticChristian]

Yup this is me.

I think the correct question to ask is “What did Jesus use”. Once that question is answered you then have established a baseline. Without a baseline this discussion goes nowhere.

In my best estimation (that could be wrong of course) is that Jesus probably had available and used both. Anyway I will assume this is true anyway until I see convincing evidence to the contrary. If true, there is also no record of Him having complained about either one either having added or missing books. Which to me anyway is significant in itself.

Anyway, this will probably be my one contribution to this thread unless somebody chimes in who really knows his stuff and doesn’t have a predefined agenda (now who could that be).

I like that…I suppose we should think about what Jesus did use. He really upset lots of Jews when he preached…ya gotta wonder. Now if he used the Septuagint that might have inflamed the Jews even more becuase the Jews of the Diaspora used the Septuagint…

There is a distinction between Jews of the diaspora and Palestinian Jews. Palestinian Jews rejected the DB, but the Septuagint, which is the Greek version of the OT composed in the 2nd-3rd century B.C. at Alexandria, Egypt by 70 or 72 Jewish scribes, was used by non-Palestinian Jews. It is a well known fact that the Septuagint (LXX) was both the Bible of the diaspora Jews and the Bible of all the early Christians. Further, it’s also a fact that the LXX contained the DB.

 

[CopticChristian]

Yup this is me.

I think the correct question to ask is “What did Jesus use”. Once that question is answered you then have established a baseline. Without a baseline this discussion goes nowhere.

In my best estimation (that could be wrong of course) is that Jesus probably had available and used both. Anyway I will assume this is true anyway until I see convincing evidence to the contrary. If true, there is also no record of Him having complained about either one either having added or missing books. Which to me anyway is significant in itself.

Anyway, this will probably be my one contribution to this thread unless somebody chimes in who really knows his stuff and doesn’t have a predefined agenda (now who could that be).

Well this is important. It is a fact that there were 12 tribes of Israel. The number of Jews that were in Palestine reading the Hebrew bible were far fewer than the diaspora reading the Septuagint. It would make sense that if Jesus quoted the Septuagint then that would have inflamed the Palestinian Jews even more.