Catholic/protestant bibles

  • Thread starter Thread starter guardian1
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
It is worthy of note (and I don’t think it’s been mentioned specifically yet) that the Alexandrian Bible was the one that the Apostles quoted from in the New Testament. We know this because of minor variations between the Alexandrian translation of the Scriptures and the Palestinian translation - for example “virgin” (Alexandrian) instead of “young woman” (Palestinian) in Isaiah 7:14, which St. Matthew quotes as “virgin” (the Alexandrian translation) in Matthew 1:23 - not the Palestinian translation.

So, we know from this that the Apostles were using the 46-book Alexandrian canon of the Old Testament, and not the 39-book Palestinian canon, which means that, as far as the Apostles were concerned, the deuterocanonical books were Scripture.

This is verified by the fact that 400 years later, the Church was still using the 46-book Old Testament, and when St. Jerome raised questions about this (because he had done some studying in Palestine and was exposed to the Palestinian bible) he was overruled by three out of three Councils of the Church, and their rulings were verified by two Popes, Pope Damasus at the beginning of the process, and Pope Innocent I at the end of the process.

Protestants today point to St. Jerome’s original questions; what they conveniently omit are the unanimous answers that he received from the Church - also, (and this is significant because St. Jerome was not a man of false modesty: he was fully aware of the importance of his actions) St. Jerome included the deuterocanon in his Bible, knowing full well that it was going to be the official Bible of the Church for the remainder of eternity - if he had, by the time he actually did the translations, remained convinced that they were not Scripture, he would simply not have included them - obviously, at some point, he changed his mind and decided that, after all, they were Scripture.
 
I do not believe that the books given by the Councils of Carthage and Hippo were the same as those of the Council of Trent. The earlier Councils included 1st Esdras and 2nd Esdras. At that time 2nd Esdras iwas the books of Ezra and Nehemiah combined into one. Iin later versions of the Septuigent Ezra and Nehemiah were split and called called 1st Esdras and 2nd Esdras, while the original 1st Esdras became 3rd Esdras. Thus the Councils of Hippo and Carthage included the 3 books of Esdras while Trent included only 2.

I would also wonder why the Roman Catholic Bible only accepts some books of the Septuigent, leaving out ones like Psalm 151, the Prayer of Mannaseh and 3rd and 4th Macabbes, which are included by the Eastern Orthoox Church.
 
catholic.com/library/Old_Testament_Canon.asp
catholic.com/thisrock/1998/9806fea2.asp

Although I believe there is enormous historical and intellectual reason to conclude these books were inspired, allow me to approach this topic from a slightly different angle.

Hypothetically, let’s just say that Sola Scriptura is true. If that’s the case, one might reasonably conclude that God did not ensure His word would be completely accurate until approximately 1500 years after the Church started. (That’s a very long time!)

What might that say about God? For me, it would not reflect positively on Him. I could see no good reason why He didn’t ensure the Bible right to begin with.

Indeed, there are also some fairly serious theological implications depending on whether or not these books are inspired. Prayers for the dead comes to mind; I’m sure there are other issues.

I do not believe God gave the Reformers the authority to dismiss these books; furthermore, I believe that God made certain that His holy word was flawless right from the start. Ultimately, this does come down to faith. I trust it was God’s will, in part because it best reflects His nature.
 
christcnection1 said:
catholic.com/library/Old_Testament_Canon.asp
catholic.com/thisrock/1998/9806fea2.asp

Although I believe there is enormous historical and intellectual reason to conclude these books were inspired, allow me to approach this topic from a slightly different angle.

Hypothetically, let’s just say that Sola Scriptura is true. If that’s the case, one might reasonably conclude that God did not ensure His word would be completely accurate until approximately 1500 years after the Church started. (That’s a very long time!)
Click to expand...
While it’s true that God acts in time to make changes in the way that He relates to the human race, He normally does so by (and in fact has never done so without) establishing a new Covenant.

There is no indication anywhere and not even the slightest hint that such a thing happened during the Protestant rebellion.
I do not believe God gave the Reformers the authority to dismiss these books; furthermore, I believe that God made certain that His holy word was flawless right from the start. Ultimately, this does come down to faith. I trust it was God’s will, in part because it best reflects His nature.
Click to expand...
I’m with you on that. 👍
 
One and all,

Thanks so much for all your great information on this topic. I have about a half/dozen websites and a great new book to order and read!

I’m new to the forums and am happy with just how kind and considerate almost everyone has been.

God bless you all,
John
 
There is a possible historical reasons why the Jews convening at Jebnah (Jamnia, Yavneh, etc) decided to exclude at least the 2 books of the Maccabees. The Maccabees expounds at length the positive military relationship between the Jewish militias and the Romans, who were at that time still a Republic, not an Empire. If you remember your early history, the Roman Empire had destroyed Jerusalem and massacred many Jews in the year AD 70. This council at Jebnah took place around AD 90, so that stinging experience was still fresh on their minds. No Jew could bear to read a positive account regarding the Romans, even though the accounts of the Maccabees were accurate for their time and described the Romans under a different system of government and outlook on world politics.
That observation is not mine, I read it on an apologetics article, probably written by Karl Keating. Also, (pardon me if I am repeating what someone might have said earlier, I didn’t read all the posts) in 2 Maccabees, there is a reference to prayers for the dead. Martin Luther was especially bothered by this and so decided to cut them out. Later Protestant scholars resurrected the heretofore unknown to Christianity council of Jebnah and its decisions on the Jewish canon to legitimize their truncating of the Christian canon of the holy scriptures. At least in regards to the final form of the Protestant canon of the Bible, Protestant have embraced a logical anomaly. After all, they go the Jesus-rejecting Jews (who rejected the New Testament) to derive their Old Testament and to the Jesus-accepting Catholics (who rejected the limited Jewish Old Testament) for their New Testament and without ever calling an ecumenical council of their own, a hodge podge of Bible scholars declare a dogma.
In order to justify these decisions, the most commonly offered explanation is,“Well, we can’t accept the Apocryphal books because they go against the Bible.” But wait, they were in the Bible to start with, so how is the Bible against the Bible? While most Protestants don’t want to devote brain space to work out the logical conundrums, if any of them would think for a few minutes, the quandary would be clear. It is the Protestants who shortened the Bible, not the Catholics who lengthened it. Some will refer to the Council of Trent and its dogmatic declaration on the Old Testament canon, failing to acknowledge that the Council of Trent only reaffirmed what was finalized 11 centuries prior.
Sorry for the long post, sometimes I get really wound up, especially since I spent my entire youth in a strictly Baptist household and feel that I had the wool pulled over my eyes by just about everybody. Now that I have attempted to learn the truths of historic Christianity, I realize how hard it is going to be to convince those still Protestant in my family. I have to admit, I learned absolutely nothing until I decided to open my mind to what has always been an uncomfortable truth for me.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top