Deutero-canonical / Apocryphal Books

[Salvatore123]

Rightly,

More than 7 hours and still no response to my question . . .

You said that I could not legitimately claim that Christ and the Apostles quoted from the Septuagint, because I am looking at a Septuagint translation that I have NO WAY of proving was the same Septuagint translation that Christ and the Apostles were looking at.

Well, if you put that limitation on me,

Please answer my question: What book are you relying on in basing your religious beliefs and debating the word of God, if you must admit that you, too, do not have any book (uh, that would be a “bible”) NOW that we KNOW (according to you) reflects the exact wording of the scriptures of the OT and NT that Christ (for the OT) and the Apostles (for the OT and some of the NT) used those scriptures?

You cannot put conditions on my arguments and not have them apply to you.

You say the Septuagint I am using cannot be proven to be the same Septuagint that Christ and the Apostles referred to.

Well, I want YOU to prove to ME that the bible that YOU quote from every day is the SAME translation that existed at the time of Christ and the Apostles. I want to know:

1. The name of that translation
2. The proof that translation is a verbatim copy of a translation that existed at the time of Christ and the Apostles, and
3. The authority you have for stating that the book YOU rely on is an exact replica of the translation of the book/books/texts/codices that Christ and the Apostles had during their lifetime

Thank you.

 

[Little_Mary]

Rightly,

More than 7 hours and still no response to my question . . .

You said that I could not legitimately claim that Christ and the Apostles quoted from the Septuagint, because I am looking at a Septuagint translation that I have NO WAY of proving was the same Septuagint translation that Christ and the Apostles were looking at.

Well, if you put that limitation on me,

Please answer my question: What book are you relying on in basing your religious beliefs and debating the word of God, if you must admit that you, too, do not have any book (uh, that would be a “bible”) NOW that we KNOW (according to you) reflects the exact wording of the scriptures of the OT and NT that Christ (for the OT) and the Apostles (for the OT and some of the NT) used those scriptures?

You cannot put conditions on my arguments and not have them apply to you.

You say the Septuagint I am using cannot be proven to be the same Septuagint that Christ and the Apostles referred to.

Well, I want YOU to prove to ME that the bible that YOU quote from every day is the SAME translation that existed at the time of Christ and the Apostles. I want to know:

1. The name of that translation
2. The proof that translation is a verbatim copy of a translation that existed at the time of Christ and the Apostles, and
3. The authority you have for stating that the book YOU rely on is an exact replica of the translation of the book/books/texts/codices that Christ and the Apostles had during their lifetime

Thank you.

looks at watch, sits down beside Salvatore to wait, checks phone for text messages, looks at watch again, yawns…

 

[Salvatore123]

Just curious . . . why do Protestants discount Catholic history but they so readily accept history about people and things such as (1) the founding of our country and the Founding Fathers, (2) the battles and loss of life during the American Civil War, (3) the Russian Revolution and the effects of Lenin and Stalin, (4) the antiquities periods dealing with the Romans and the Greeks, etc. (I could go on and on and on).

My experience is that Protestants will attend a history class in college or read an Encyclopedia Britannica, take a test on the subject, pass it, recount it as “fact”, but they will NOT accept a history of the Catholic Church unless it is written by either someone who is not Catholic or is an ex-Catholic who has an axe to grind with the Church

 

[Salvatore123]

Rightly,

And while I am thinking about it, please tell me if you accept that the Declaration of Independence and US Constitution our government has kept in a specially designed chamber, are REALLY the Declaration of Independence and the US Constitution that was “supposedly” signed by our Founding Fathers, and if you believe they are, could you please explain to me (1) WHY you accept that they are, and (2) how would you go about proving that those documents accurately reflect the reasons why our country was formed in the late 1700’s.

If you are wondering what these questions have to do with this thread, it is because these questions deal with the SAME thing that you raised in this thread: the authenticity of the contents of certain documents/books.

I am curious how you would go about proving the writings YOU rely on, as you are so quick to discount what I rely on . . .

 

[NHInsider]

I spent some time poking around on Wikipedia because I was curious about Rightly’s remark

It is my understanding that the list from Rome in 382 is not considered legitimate. The only internet link I can find confirming this is Wikipedia though.

Drilled down to get to a footnote referring to an article by F.C. Burkitt, an Anglican scholar, published in 1913. It was an review of Von Dobshutz’ research, published in 1912, on the Decretal commonly attributed to Pope Gelasius. That decree was issued around 500 and included material supposed to be from the 382 Council of Rome/Pope Damasus. The decree has five sections, 3 of them are lists of books - a list of “canonical books,” a list of “books to be received” (non-canonical but authentic/worth reading) and a list of books to be rejected, “apocrypha.” According to Burkitt, Von Dobshutz proved conclusively that the decree could not have been issued in its present form by Pope Damasus because it includes a lengthy quote from Augustine, written in about 415. (The review does not address the possibility about whether the list could be authentic with a commentary from Augustine interpolated in the copy - I don’t know whether the German scholar did or not.)

Burkitt, for what it’s worth, was a very well-respected New Testament Scholar of his day. He embraced the then-cutting edge theories about the origins of the gospels, including the two-source theory and the statement that John was not about the historical Jesus but the Christ of faith. That more recent biblical scholarship (aided by archaeology) has thrown many of the assumptions of that school of criticism into doubt does not necessarily undermine all his observations, obviously.

But as to the list of books approved by the Council of Rome, I think the date of the list in the Decretal is relatively insignificant - the table of contents of the Jerome Vulgate, commissioned by Damasus the year after the Council (383) would seem to be evidence enough of what books the Council had approved - particularly since Jerome is on record as having doubts, as a scholar, about several of the books included in both the New and Old Testaments, but included them in obedience to the Pope and Council.

That list, remember, was the same as the list promulgated by the North African Bishops at Hippo and the Western Church as a whole at Carthage. (The Eastern churches resisted including John’s Apocalypse for some time.) So none of this discussion stands or falls on the validity of the Decretal.

Probably more than anyone besides me wanted to know . . .

 

[Little_Mary]

Just curious . . . why do Protestants discount Catholic history but they so readily accept history about people and things such as (1) the founding of our country and the Founding Fathers, (2) the battles and loss of life during the American Civil War, (3) the Russian Revolution and the effects of Lenin and Stalin, (4) the antiquities periods dealing with the Romans and the Greeks, etc. (I could go on and on and on).

My experience is that Protestants will attend a history class in college or read an Encyclopedia Britannica, take a test on the subject, pass it, recount it as “fact”, but they will NOT accept a history of the Catholic Church unless it is written by either someone who is not Catholic or is an ex-Catholic who has an axe to grind with the Church

They discount Catholic history because they don’t WANT it to be true, because it’s, well…it’s…you know…that “C” word… Catholic! They will also readily accept ANYTHING from ANY source that either fits their own erroneous arguments or generally bashes Catholic teachings.

And it is not fair to issue a blanket accusation upon ALL protestants for being this closed minded, there are some rational thinkers out there.

I have sources that quote protestant theologians that SUPPORT Catholic teachings…even these have been rejected by the protestants I was talking to at the time because it’s, well…it’s supporting Catholicism and they don’t WANT to support Catholicism because it’s …well…you know…it’s :bigyikes:Catholic.

 

[Poco]

looks at watch, sits down beside Salvatore to wait, checks phone for text messages, looks at watch again, yawns…

:yawn: :coffeeread:

I spent some time poking around on Wikipedia because I was curious about Rightly’s remark

Drilled down to get to a footnote referring to an article by F.C. Burkitt, an Anglican scholar, published in 1913. It was an review of Von Dobshutz’ research, published in 1912…
…Probably more than anyone besides me wanted to know . . .

While Rightly is correct that there doesn’t seem to be much info online about the Council of Rome 382 A.D., the Wikipedia article seems questionable. As NHI pointed out there are limited sources.

In any case…

From this page:

The first is the so-called “Decretal of Gelasius”, de recipiendis et non recipiendis libris, the essential part of which is now generally attributed to a synod convoked by Pope Damasus in the year 382. The other is the Canon of Innocent I, sent in 405 to a Gallican bishop in answer to an inquiry. Both contain all the deuterocanonicals, without any distinction, and are identical with the catalogue of Trent.

St. Augustine seems to theoretically recognize 'degrees of inspiration; in practice he employs protos and deuteros without any discrimination whatsoever. Moreover in his “De Doctrina Christiana” he enumerates the components of the complete O. T. The Synod of Hippo (393) and the three of Carthage (393, 397, and 419), in which, doubtless, Augustine was the leading spirit, found it necessary to deal explicitly with the question of the Canon, and drew up identical lists from which no sacred books are excluded.

And from this page:

Pope St. Damasus I in 382 AD approved the work of the first Council of Constantinople, accepting St. Athanasius’ list as divinely inspired, and indicated that if any bishop used a list of books inconsistent with the Roman canon he would need a convincing explanation. Then the Council of Hippo, a regional council for some of the bishops in the Diocese of Africa, in 393 AD reaffirmed The Decree of Damasus. The third Council of Carthage was far more authoritative than the Council of Hippo. The Diocese of Africa then had its see at Carthage, so Carthage had authority to speak for all of the northwest African bishops. The Council of Carthage in 397 AD also reaffirmed The Decree of Damasus. Carthage, unlike Hippo, sent its decisions to Rome for ratification. Pope St. Boniface I (418-422) ratified the decision and declared the canon settled for the Western Patriarchate. He also sent the decision to the Eastern patriarchs in Alexandria, Antioch and Jerusalem. At that point, the Catholic Canon of Sacred Scripture was informally accepted worldwide. The Fourth Council of Carthage in 419 reaffirmed Pope St. Boniface. The Council of Nicea II in 787 ratified the same canon as authoritative for the Eastern Churches. Finally, the Council of Trent, a worldwide Ecumenical Council, formally proclaimed the Catholic Canon of Sacred Scripture in 1546 as authoritative for the whole world.

Even if the canon of the Council of Rome 382 A.D. is questionable, it is still obvious that the current canon of 73 books has been accepted for many centuries before the refomation. Ergo, the Bible has always had 73 books. Any Bible that has less, well, somebody removed something.

 

[Rightlydivide]

Rightly,

I answered YOUR questions, and I would please answer mine:

You say that you do not accept my contention that Christ and his Apostles quoted from the Septuagint because you say that we have no idea of what the Septuagint said at their time.
Given your limitation on me,

What book do YOU rely on for quoting scripture, considering no original books of the bible survive from the date they were originally written?

What post did I say that? In looking over this thread and trying to decided if you are a person I want to spend time conversing with, it appears you are debating…what you think I am saying but certainly not what I am actually writing.

 

[Salvatore123]

Rightly,

Post No. 11 - YOUR POST TO ME!!!

And I quote you: “The contents of the LXX at the time of Christ are unknown. The earliest existing versions 300 years later disagreed so no one should be too certain about what the LXX did or did not contain 300 years earlier. There is simply no evidence either way.
Your thoughts?”

I gave you my thoughts and more. Now please give me the courtesy of answering the questions I posed in my last posts. They are not that difficult.

 

[Rightlydivide]

Rightly,

Post No. 11 - YOUR POST TO ME!!!

And I quote you: “The contents of the LXX at the time of Christ are unknown. The earliest existing versions 300 years later disagreed so no one should be too certain about what the LXX did or did not contain 300 years earlier. There is simply no evidence either way.
Your thoughts?”

I gave you my thoughts and more. Now please give me the courtesy of answering the questions I posed in my last posts. They are not that difficult.

That is not the same thing as

You say that you do not accept my contention that Christ and his Apostles quoted from the Septuagint because you say that we have no idea of what the Septuagint said at their time.

Saying the contents of the LXX are unknown is not the same thing as saying they did not quote in some circumstances, even most circumstances, from a Greek translation of the Hebrew scriptures.

 

[UnityofTrinity]

That is not the same thing as

Saying the contents of the LXX are unknown is not the same thing as saying they did not quote in some circumstances, even most circumstances, from a Greek translation of the Hebrew scriptures.

Jesus did not quote many books, so we must conclude that those books which Jesus did not quote(which is a majority of the Bible), so how would you know which books to use?

 

[Rightlydivide]

Jesus did not quote many books, so we must conclude that those books which Jesus did not quote(which is a majority of the Bible), so how would you know which books to use?

I never said that quotation is equated with canonicity either. Did I?

 

[Salvatore123]

Rightly,

If you SERIOUSLY contend that the following do not mean the same thing (and they are both your quotes):

YOU: “The contents of the LXX at the time of Christ are unknown. The earliest existing versions 300 years later disagreed so no one should be too certain about what the LXX did or did not contain 300 years earlier”

YOU: “Saying the contents of the LXX are unknown is not the same thing . . .”

You, sir, are being disingenuous at best and clearly do NOT want to answer questions put to you that would undermine one of THE primary foundations of your faith: sola scriptura.

Because once you say that “we cannot rely on translations for accuracy because we have no idea what the originals said”, then you completely undercut the idea behind sola scriptura, because WHICH scripture are you going to SOLEY rely on?

Logic can be a heck of a thing to deal with, huh?

P.S.

You said in your last post: “Saying the contents of the LXX are unknown is not the same thing as saying they did not quote in some circumstances, even most circumstances, from a Greek translation of the Hebrew scriptures.”

That, sir, makes absolutely no sense.

If:

(1) you do not have the original books as written (you don’t, nor does anyone else)

(2) you claim that without the original books, we can never know if the translations of the originals were accurate,

then, logically,

(3) NO TRANSLATION TODAY CAN BE TAKEN AS ACCURATE IN ANY SENSE, AS WE HAVE NO ORIGINAL WRITINGS TO COMPARE THEM TO FOR ACCURACY. AND AS WE HAVE NO ORIGINALS, YOU HAVE NO BASIS TO SAY THAT PART OF A MODERN TRANSLATION IS ACCURATE WHILE ANOTHER IS NOT, BECAUSE AGAIN, YOU HAVE NO ORIGINAL TO USE TO DISTINGUISH BETWEEN THE ACCURATE AND INACCURATE VERSIONS.

 

[UnityofTrinity]

I never said that quotation is equated with canonicity either. Did I?

Then what is equivalent to canonicity because I still don’t understand how can you know that the books you’re having right now contain the fullness of God’s written word? How do you know they’re not missing some other books? Why don’t you accept the Deuterocanonical in your Bible? Why don’t you accept the Infancy of Jesus, Gospel of Thomas, the Gospel of Mary, the Gospel of Phillips, the Epistles of Clement…? In fact why none of us accept these books as cannonical? At the end, you will have to admit base on Sola Scriptura alone, it is insufficient to know how these books came into being. My guess is that most Protestants, as loving and as God-fearing they can be, often will turn a blind eye on these facts for the sake of their religion.

 

[SemperReformada]

Rightly,

If you SERIOUSLY contend that the following do not mean the same thing (and they are both your quotes):

YOU: “The contents of the LXX at the time of Christ are unknown. The earliest existing versions 300 years later disagreed so no one should be too certain about what the LXX did or did not contain 300 years earlier”

YOU: “Saying the contents of the LXX are unknown is not the same thing . . .”

You, sir, are being disingenuous at best and clearly do NOT want to answer questions put to you that would undermine one of THE primary foundations of your faith: sola scriptura.

Because once you say that “we cannot rely on translations for accuracy because we have no idea what the originals said”, then you completely undercut the idea behind sola scriptura, because WHICH scripture are you going to SOLEY rely on?

Logic can be a heck of a thing to deal with, huh?

P.S.

You said in your last post: “Saying the contents of the LXX are unknown is not the same thing as saying they did not quote in some circumstances, even most circumstances, from a Greek translation of the Hebrew scriptures.”

That, sir, makes absolutely no sense.

Well, what were the contents of the LXX at the time of Christ and how do you know this?

As was probably already mentioned all we have are Christian copies of the LXX and they date no earlier than the 4th century + they all contain different books.

 

[Poco]

Well, what were the contents of the LXX at the time of Christ and how do you know this?

As was probably already mentioned all we have are Christian copies of the LXX and they date no earlier than the 4th century + they all contain different books.

Regardless of any extant copies of the Septuagint containing different books, we still have the following:

Council of Rome 382 A.D. (disputed in previous posts)
Council of Carthage 397
Council of Carthage 419
Council of Nicea II 787
Council of Florence 1442
Council of Trent 1546 (canon closed)

In each council the same 73 books that are in the current Catholic Bible were ratified. If any “Bible” contains something different, well…

 

[UnityofTrinity]

Well, what were the contents of the LXX at the time of Christ and how do you know this?

As was probably already mentioned all we have are Christian copies of the LXX and they date no earlier than the 4th century + they all contain different books.

Well, then I guess we have no basis whatsoever to trust the Bible.

 

[Rightlydivide]

=Salvatore123;7664539]Rightly,

If you SERIOUSLY contend that the following do not mean the same thing (and they are both your quotes):

YOU: “The contents of the LXX at the time of Christ are unknown. The earliest existing versions 300 years later disagreed so no one should be too certain about what the LXX did or did not contain 300 years earlier”

Correct

YOU: “Saying the contents of the LXX are unknown is not the same thing . . .”

You did not finish my quote

Saying the contents of the LXX are unknown is not the same thing as saying they did not quote in some circumstances, even most circumstances, from a Greek translation of the Hebrew scriptures.

We know that in many cases the Old Testament quote reflects a Greek version. However, we do not have any historical evidence or textual evidence about the exact contents of the LXX at the time of Christ. Which is the basis of the link provided by the OP. These two statements are not contradictory; even when someone removes part of the quote.

You, sir, are being disingenuous at best and clearly do NOT want to answer questions put to you that would undermine one of THE primary foundations of your faith: sola scriptura.

It seems you are angry. I am not being disingenous. I believe you have not accurately quoted me.

Because once you say that “we cannot rely on translations for accuracy because we have no idea what the originals said”, then you completely undercut the idea behind sola scriptura, because WHICH scripture are you going to SOLEY rely on?

Logic can be a heck of a thing to deal with, huh?

I never said what you just said though. If I had, then we could discuss it. But I did not. It is not an accurate representation of what I have said.

You said in your last post: “Saying the contents of the LXX are unknown is not the same thing as saying they did not quote in some circumstances, even most circumstances, from a Greek translation of the Hebrew scriptures.”

That, sir, makes absolutely no sense.

Yes it does. The LXX is a compilation and collection of a Greek translation of the Hebrew scriptures that existed in various forms. While we know that a Greek version of some of the OT quotes is used, knowing the contents of the collection is not possible because of a lack of historical information. In fact, textual variants as well as different books in their entirety is the hallmark of the earliest existing copies of the LXX.

If:

(1) you do not have the original books as written (you don’t, nor does anyone else)

(2) you claim that without the original books, we can never know if the translations of the originals were accurate,

then, logically,

This point is off topic and has a fundamentally flawed presuppositon. And it is not the argument I have made.

(3) NO TRANSLATION TODAY CAN BE TAKEN AS ACCURATE IN ANY SENSE, AS WE HAVE NO ORIGINAL WRITINGS TO COMPARE THEM TO FOR ACCURACY. AND AS WE HAVE NO ORIGINALS, YOU HAVE NO BASIS TO SAY THAT PART OF A MODERN TRANSLATION IS ACCURATE WHILE ANOTHER IS NOT, BECAUSE AGAIN, YOU HAVE NO ORIGINAL TO USE TO DISTINGUISH BETWEEN THE ACCURATE AND INACCURATE VERSIONS.

Ouch. Quit shouting. You are yelling at someone based upon your flawed presuppositions about my argument. Reread it again and see if you still feel your question is germane.
Thanks

 

[Rightlydivide]

Then what is equivalent to canonicity because I still don’t understand how can you know that the books you’re having right now contain the fullness of God’s written word? How do you know they’re not missing some other books? Why don’t you accept the Deuterocanonical in your Bible? Why don’t you accept the Infancy of Jesus, Gospel of Thomas, the Gospel of Mary, the Gospel of Phillips, the Epistles of Clement…? In fact why none of us accept these books as cannonical? At the end, you will have to admit base on Sola Scriptura alone, it is insufficient to know how these books came into being. My guess is that most Protestants, as loving and as God-fearing they can be, often will turn a blind eye on these facts for the sake of their religion.

Okay, it seems you do understand that I did not make that argument.
To answer your quesiton, I could type a long answer or just google Sola Scriptura, canon, defense or any such combination and get the thousands of articles or web sites if I were you. Its interesting because I believe you will find the Catholic and the Protestant rely on the same things but phrased differently and with slightly disagreeing areas of emphasis. Its actually…a rather common area in my estimation.
I have never turned a blind eye and certainly fundamentalists do not. Its one of the reasons I am what I am! I DO know the facts!

 

[Rightlydivide]

Well, then I guess we have no basis whatsoever to trust the Bible.

Interesting. Perhaps this is a good time to consider your existing presuppositions about the canon of the Jews? Perhaps…