Different versions of the Bible

[unacanta]

Deuterocanonical books of the Bible. In fact, he wound up strenuously defending their status as inspired Scripture, writing, "What sin have I committed if I followed the judgment of the churches?

Stating that he followed the judgment of the Churches is “strenuous” defense in itself is very weak. Notice the words “if I”. He did not state here that he was following the judgment of the church, he simply was saying “so what if I do follow the judgment of the church”, it still does not mean that the Hebrews believed the books in the Apocrypha were inspired.

But he who brings charges against me for relating the objections that the Hebrews are wont to raise against the story of Susanna, the Son of the Three Children, and the story of Bel and the Dragon, which are not found in the Hebrew volume (ie. canon), proves that he is just a foolish sycophant.

Again, my point has been and shall continue to be so that the Jews, held that the twenty-two books in the OT are the only ones considered inspired. The very fact that he states that the “Hebrews are wont to raise against the story of Susanna, the Son of the Three Children, and the story of Bel and the Dragon” are not part of the Hebrew canon demonstrates not that he is not a “foolish sycophant” but rather understood which books were in the Jewish canon and which were not.

For I wasn’t relating my own personal views, but rather the remarks that they [the Jews] are wont to make against us" (Against Rufinus 11:33 [A.D. 402]). In earlier correspondence with Pope Damasus, Jerome did not call the deuterocanonical books unscriptural, he simply said that Jews he knew did not regard them as canonical.

But for himself, he acknowledged the authority of the Church in defining the canon.

When Pope Damasus and the Councils of Carthage and Hippo included the deuterocanon in Scripture, that was good enough for St. Jerome. He “followed the judgment of the churches.” And that’s the important part - he deferred to the judgement of the Church and it’s authority to pronounce such things.

On the contrary both the Councils of Carthage and Hippo were local councils and not binding on the entire church. The actual books that these councils approved were different than those of Trent, so are we saying that for a thousand years, the Church was in error following their pronouncements.

No where did I find Jerome actually saying or stating that the books (Apocrypha) were inspired. Since both Carthage and Hippo were local, I don’t think he ever felt he was in contention with Church Authority. He may have not called “deuterocanonical books unscriptural” in the writing Against Rufinus, but he never said they were inspired either in the correspondence , or at least what I been research.

 

[unacanta]

unacanta. I will not post no more after this.

First, you will never find a Church Fathers who rejected all the deuteros books, which is why you haven’t quoted a Church Fathers saying “Tobit is not inspired”. I wrote to you many quotes from variable sources proving that the same Fathers you mentioned said these books were inspired but you ignore it because you know you are dead wrong

The Tobit is grouped with the other Apocrypha and as such was never considered inspired by the Hebrews. Even Greogory the Great who was the Bishop of Rome from A.D. 590-604 writes that the book of 1 Maccabees was not canonical in his commentary on the book of Job

" With reference to which particular we are not acting irregularly, if from the books, though not Canonical, yet brought out for the edification of the Church, we bring forward testimony. Thus Eleazar in the battle smote and brought down an elephant, but fell under the very beast that he killed (1 Macc. 6.46)."

1. What the Jewish canon consist of has no value to us Christians. They do not even accept the NT. Therefore, if you want to follow Jewish people in determine what belongs in the Canon, instead of the Church, then you should become a Jew unacanta.

The Jewish canon is of tremendous value since it was they in whom were entrusted with the ordinances (Rom3:2). Just because the Jews fell away and taught things which Jesus and the Apostles took them task does not mean the Scriptures which were intrusted to them were less true.

1. Jesus and the Apostles never quoted from about 12 books of the OT. Your remark is that these was in the “approved” books, yet there is no support of that in Scriptures.

True, just because a particular book was never quoted does not necessarily mean that it was not considered inspired, it is important to note that none of the Apocrypha was ever quoted. The books which were and are considered inspired by the Jews stand on their own.

1. Josephus was a Jews who rejected Christ and the NT. Why are following Him as your “leader” in determining the OT Canon? He was Jew. Period. He has no authority to determined what Christians should believe or not. Shame on you for believing otherwise!

The fact is that he was and is one of our main sources of history is very relevant to our discussion. We are trying to determine if indeed the twenty books that the Jews held to be inspired are limited or if the Apocrypha should be included. I find no shame in looking to an authority other than the Teaching Magisterium whom has taught contrary to bible. The shame is placing authority in men period, rather than the inspired word of God.

1. Again, Philo was a Jew. Why not go to these Jews (who rejected Christ and NT) and determined if Jesus really is the Messiah? You seem to believe they have “authority” instead of Christ’s Bride (The Church). Shame on you.

The shame is not on me, but rather on Teaching Magisterium which claims infallibility when they have misrepresented or taught doctrine contrary to what the Apostles or even Jesus taught. I have not placed authority in the Jews, only their OT canon which is the inspired word of God.

1. 1. St. Jerome did doubt them AT FIRST, but He later accepted. His argument with the other Church leaders was that this list was the canon. Here are some quotes:

Does not the SCRIPTURE say: ‘Burden not thyself above thy power’ [SIRACH 13:2] Jerome, To Eustochium, Epistle 108 (A.D. 404), in NPNF2, VI:207

Sirach is not scripture in the since it is inspired, so therefore not binding on the Christians.

“I would cite the words of the psalmist: 'the sacrifices of God are a broken spirit,’ [Ps 51:17] and those of Ezekiel 'I prefer the repentance of a sinner rather than his death,’ [Ez 18:23] AND THOSE OF BARUCH,'Arise, arise, O Jerusalem,’ [Baruch 5:5] AND MANY OTHER PROCLAMATIONS MADE BY THE TRUMPETS OF THE PROPHETS.” Jerome, To Oceanus, Epistle 77:4 (A.D. 399), in NPNF2, VI:159

And your point is? We find Paul quoting from Greek philosophers and yet we don’t consider all of their work inspired do we? Jerome maintained that the Apocrypha was good for reading but not for establishing doctrine.

There are other quotes. In Jerome, Letter 1:9, NPNF2, VI:2, 370 AD and Jerome, to Eustochium, Letter 22:21, 384 AD, NPNF2, VI:30, he uses Judith and the Three Children in Daniel and the story of Susanna as Scripture to prove doctrines. Therefore, Jerome later accepted them. And He use them to reprove doctrine. I challenge you to find a quote from Jerome or the 50 Church Fathers you said that wrote that everyone of these books are “not inspired” not “non-canonical” as I alreadly explain to you how the Church Fathers used the word “canon”. I give $1,000. Think you hack it?

I quote Bill Webster’s book:

“A number of Church fathers also testified to the traditional Jewish numeration of the canon. Origen, who had contact with Jews wrote that the number of canonical books handed down by them was twenty-two.16 Other fathers who listed the number of books as twenty-two were Hilary of Poitiers,17 Cyril of Jerusalem,18 Athanasius,19 Epiphanius,20 who was a native of Palestine, Gregory of Nazianzus,21 Basil the Great,22 and Rufinus,23 while Jerome24 gave numberings of both twenty-two and twenty-four. The pseudepigraphal work, Jubilees, found among the Essene community at Qumran, also numbered the Old Testament books at twenty-two and was likely the earliest witness to the number of books that comprised the Hebrew canon…”

As you can see it was not only Jerome but many Church fathers numbered the canon to be 22. Yes there were many who did not, as I stated in a previous post that The New Catholic Encyclopedia affirms:
For the Old Testament Protestants follow the Jewish canon; they have only the books that are in the Hebrew Bible. Catholics have, in addition, seven deuterocanonical books of the Old Testament.

 

[unacanta]

1. That is not the case. Origin believed HIMSELF that these books were Scripture. He said the Church of His time uses it. Who has more authority? The Jewish people of Christ Bride (The Church)?

The Word of God is where the authority is, the Bride is always and should be subservient to it.

“** ‘It should be stated that the canonical books, as the Hebrews have handed them down, are twenty-two; **corresponding with the number of their letters.’ Farther on he says: ‘The twenty-two books of the Hebrews are the following: That which is called by us Genesis, but by the Hebrews, from the beginning of the book, Bresith, which means, ‘In the beginning’; Exodus, Welesmoth, that is, ‘These are the names’; Leviticus, Wikra, ‘And he called’; Numbers, Ammesphekodeim; Deuteronomy, Eleaddebareim, ’ These are the words’; Jesus, the son of Nave, Josoue ben Noun; Judges and Ruth, among them in one book, Saphateim; the First and Second of Kings, among them one, Samouel, that is, ‘The called of God’; the Third and Fourth of Kings in one, Wammelch David, that is, ‘The kingdom of David’; of the Chronicles, the First and Second in one, Dabreiamein, that is, ‘Records of days’; Esdras, First and Second in one, Ezra, that is, ‘An assistant’; the book of Psalms, Spharthelleim; the Proverbs of Solomon, Me-loth; Ecclesiastes, Koelth; the Song of Songs (not, as some suppose, Songs of Songs), Sir Hassirim; Isaiah, Jessia; Jeremiah, with Lamentations and the epistle in one, Jeremia[Baruch 6]; Daniel, Daniel; Ezekiel, Jezekiel; Job, Job; Esther, Esther. And besides these there are the Maccabees, which are entitled Sarbeth Sabanaiel.” Origen, Canon of the Hebrews, Fragment in Eusebius’ Church History,6:25[A.D. 244],in NPNF2,I:272

He does not mention all the Deuterocanonical books, he does put Baruch and the two Maccabees books in the canon. Remember, canonical does not necessarily mean all that is Scripture.In the Fathers age, it was also meant “books are not read in Church but are still Scripture”.

“books are not read in Church but are still Scripture”.???

Why would a book be scripture but never read in Church? The books were read but never used for establishing doctrine because the were not considered divine or inspired.

You begin by saying, that when, in my discussion with our friend Bassus,I used the Scripture which contains the prophecy of Daniel when yet a young man in the affair of Susanna, I did this as if it had escaped me that this part of the book was spurious. You say that you praise this passage as elegantly written, but find fault with it as a more modern composition, and a forgery; and you add that the forger has had recourse to something which not even Philistion the play-writer would have used in his puns between prinos and prisein, schinos and schisis, which words as they sound in Greek can be used in this way, but not in Hebrew. In answer to this, I have to tell you what it behoves us to do in the cases not only of the History of Susanna, which is found in every Church of Christ in that Greek copy which the Greeks use, but is not in the Hebrew, or of the two other passages you mention at the end of the book containing the history of Bel and the Dragon, which likewise are not in the Hebrew copy of Daniel; but of thousands of other passages also which I found in many places when with my little strength I was collating the Hebrew copies with ours… ( Origen,To Africanus, 5 (ante A.D. 254), in ANF,IV:386).

Origin believe it is Scripture.Origen defends the use of the passage in Daniel 3 that Catholics/Orthodox have, the Song of the 3 children, Susanna, and Bel and the Dragon, as found in Daniel 13 and 14 of the Catholic Bible/Orthodox Bible.

“We need not wonder, then, if this history of the evil device of the licentious elders against Susanna is true, but was concealed and removed from the Scriptures by men themselves not very far removed from the counsel of these elders.” Origen,To Africanus,9(ante A.D. 254),in ANF,IV:389

"But he ought to know that those who wish to live according to the teaching of Sacred Scripture understand the saying, ‘The knowledge of the unwise is as talk without sense,’ [Sirach 21:18] and have learnt 'to be ready always to give an answer to everyone that asketh us a reason for the hope that is in us.’ [1 Pt 3:15] " Origen, Against Celsus, 7:12 (A.D. 248),in ANF, IV:615

Sirach is Scripture according to Origin.

A]s is written in the book of Tobit: ‘It is good to keep close the secret of a king, but honourable to reveal the works of God,’ [Tobit 12:7]–in a way consistent with truth and God’s glory, and so as to be to the advantage of the multitude." Origen, Against Celsus, 5:19(A.D. 248),in ANF,IV:551.

“Tobias (as also Judith), we ought to notice, the Jews do not use. They are not even found in the Hebrew Apocrypha, as I learned from the Jews themselves.” However, since the Churches use Tobias, you must know that even in the captivity some of the captives were rich and well to do. ( Origen, To Africanus, 13 (ante A.D. 254), in ANF, IV:391.)

Tobit too. Other quotes can be given. I stop here. Again, you will never find a Church who said all these books were “not Scriptures”. You will never find a Church who rejected all 7 books.

The problem you see is that many Fathers did consider some of the various Apocrypha scripture and many did not. It was not until Trent that they were identified and held to be inspired scripture. For example:

“The distinction that Athanasius made between the canonical Scriptures and other writings which were not canonical, but nonetheless used for edification in the Church, was further expressed by Rufinus at the beginning of the fifth century. He was greatly influenced by Origen and likewise listed the canonical books according to the Jewish numbering. He claimed that the canon he gave was that which had been handed down by tradition through the fathers as authoritative and that the specific books he enumerated were alone to be used for establishing the doctrines of the faith. He cited the major works of the Apocrypha, specifically the Wisdom of Solomon, Ecclesiasticus, Tobit, Judith, and the Maccabees as books that were not canonical but ecclesiastical. These were appropriate to be read in the Churches but were not authoritative for the confirmation of doctrine. Such, says Rufinus, was the tradition handed down from the fathers. Significantly, Rufinus expressed this view after the Councils of Hippo and Carthage, demonstrating that they did not possess universal authority for the Church at large.”

 

[sodak]

The Word of God is where the authority is, the Bride is always and should be subservient to it.

This is correct. The Word of God is Jesus Christ and his Holy Catholic Church is definitely subservient to Him.

 

[garysibio]

The Tobit is grouped with the other Apocrypha and as such was never considered inspired by the Hebrews.

Even if this were true, so what? Neither was the entire New Testament. If you are going to use Jewish acceptance as the criteria for canonicity, you need to be consistent. The NT was never accepted as canonical by any Jews. At least the Deuterocanonical books were accepted as canonical by the Greek-speaking Jews.

Look at the bright side. Now that you have no NT, your pocket-sized version of the Bible will be that much smaller.

Gary

 

[unacanta]

Even if this were true, so what? Neither was the entire New Testament. If you are going to use Jewish acceptance as the criteria for canonicity, you need to be consistent. The NT was never accepted as canonical by any Jews. At least the Deuterocanonical books were accepted as canonical by the Greek-speaking Jews.

Look at the bright side. Now that you have no NT, your pocket-sized version of the Bible will be that much smaller.

Gary

I have to admit, I now buy bibles with giant size print rather than admit my eyes are weaker than in my youth. Perhaps, you are right!

Romans specifically cites that the Jews were entrusted with the orcacls of God, which means that the OT was indeed entrusted to them, since Scripture is my authority, I place myself in its hands, not the Jews. They did preserve and keep the Word of God through out the generations, they did not of course abide by it as history reveals. Concerning the rejection of the NT, they rejected Christ, so not a surprise there. Just as the Hebrews were entrusted with Word of God in the OT, so the Apostles were given the Word in the NT.

We need to be careful in making a blanket statements such as " At least the Deuterocanonical books were accepted as canonical by the Greek-speaking Jews." Many did not believe the deuterocanonical books or Apocrypha if you will, were inspired. So it was not actually until Trent that we see a Council binding to the hearts of Christians that the Apocrypha were inspired. As I have stated before the New Catholic Encyclopedia confirms this.

I think the biggest difference is any argument here will be rejected by the faithful to the Church and the Teaching Magisterium not on merit but because “Trent says so”. The Catholic is not able to weigh the facts, consult history and arrive at a un-bias conclusion. The conclusion has been made by Trent, if you are to remain in communion, then you must accept no matter what the evidence is that the Apocrypha is inspired.

I quote the following from the book THE ORIGIN OF THE BIBLE, something more for the “faithfull” to reject.

FROM JEWISH CANON TO CHRISTIAN
R.T. Beckwith
Pages 62 and 63

The Septuagint manuscripts are paralleled by the writings of the early Christian Fathers who (at any rate outside Palestine and Syria) normally used the Septuagint of the derived Old Latin version. In their writings, there is both a wide and narrow canon. The former comprises those books form before the time of Christ which were generally read and esteemed in the church (including the Apocrypha), but the latter is confined to the books of the Jewish Bible, which scholars like Melito, Origen, Epiphanius, and Jerome take the trouble to distinguish from the rest as alone inspired. The Apocrypha were know in the church from the start, but the further back one goes, the more rarely are they treated as inspired. In the New Testament itself, one finds Christ acknowledging the Jewish Scriptures, by various of their current titles, and accepting the three sections of the Jewish canon and traditional order of its books; one finds most of the books being referred to individually as having divine authority-but not so for any of the Apocrypha. The only apparent exceptions are found in Jude: Jude 9 (citing the apocryphal work, The Assumption of Moses) and Jude 14 citing Enoch. Jud’s citation of these works does not mean he believed they were divinely inspired, just as Paul’s citation of various Greek poets (see Acts 17:28; 1Cor.15:33; Tit.1:12) does not attribute divine inspiration to their poetry.
What evidently happened in the early centuries of Christianity was this: Christ passed on to his followers, as Holy Scriptures, the Bible which he had received, containing the same books as the Hebrew Bible today. The first Christians shared with their Jewish contemporaries a full knowledge of the identity of the canonical books. However, the Bible was not yet between two covers: it was a memorized list of scrolls.

End of Quote

At the end of the day one must fall back to the Authority of Scripture or rely on the Teaching Magisterium to tell them what they believe to be true. In many cases we see the Teaching Magisterium opposed to revelation of scripture, alas, that is for yet another discussion.

 

[garysibio]

I have to admit, I now buy bibles with giant size print rather than admit my eyes are weaker than in my youth. Perhaps, you are right!

I know what you mean. I’m not exactly young myself. However, eliminating the NT will make an even bigger impact on large print editions.

Romans specifically cites that the Jews were entrusted with the orcacls of God, which means that the OT was indeed entrusted to them, since Scripture is my authority, I place myself in its hands, not the Jews. They did preserve and keep the Word of God through out the generations, they did not of course abide by it as history reveals. Concerning the rejection of the NT, they rejected Christ, so not a surprise there. Just as the Hebrews were entrusted with Word of God in the OT, so the Apostles were given the Word in the NT.

Yes, the Jews were entrusted with the oracles but why limit them. St. Paul does not say that was over. God made His revelation to them. However, you are assuming that the Jews accepted your version of the OT. That is a bad assumption. Different groups of Jews had different canons. The Pharisees had the same canon that you use except that they didn’t adopt it until around 90AD. The Saducees only accepted Gen through Deut. The Essenes had your canon with some of the Deuterocanonicals along with some books which neither of accept and the Greek-speaking Jews used the same canon as the Catholics. There may have even been more. At any rate, it is impossible to speak of “the canon of the Jews” because they did not agree.

Also, if we are to interpret St. Paul’s words as you do, then we still have no basis on which to take the NT as canonical since all Jews rejected it. It doesn’t matter that it’s not surprising, if Jewish acceptance is the criteria then it has to apply to both OT and NT.

We need to be careful in making a blanket statements such as " At least the Deuterocanonical books were accepted as canonical by the Greek-speaking Jews." Many did not believe the deuterocanonical books or Apocrypha if you will, were inspired. So it was not actually until Trent that we see a Council binding to the hearts of Christians that the Apocrypha were inspired. As I have stated before the New Catholic Encyclopedia confirms this.

Can you point to some evidence that there were Greek-speaking Jews who used the LXX yet rejected the Deuterocanonical books?

Even if there were, you still have to prove that Jewish acceptance is a valid criteria for determining canonicity and, if it is, how can you accept the canonicity of the NT which, again, all of the Jews rejected.

It doesn’t matter that the canon was not defined in a binding way until Trent. Councils don’t usually do this sort of thing unless the issue has become a problem. The canon was defined at the end of the 4th century. No one had a problem with it until Luther and Calvin. (Keep in mind that Luther wanted to get rid of the Epistle of James so he might not be the most reliable authority.) But, the canon was now an issue and had to be decided on.

I think the biggest difference is any argument here will be rejected by the faithful to the Church and the Teaching Magisterium not on merit but because “Trent says so”. The Catholic is not able to weigh the facts, consult history and arrive at a un-bias conclusion. The conclusion has been made by Trent, if you are to remain in communion, then you must accept no matter what the evidence is that the Apocrypha is inspired.

I assume you are Protestant. Although I was born and raised Catholic, my wife and I left for a while and later returned when we saw the error of our ways. When I was a Baptist I found it odd that church history jumped from the end of the first century AD to the Reformation. Apparently nothing happened in between. (Fortunately I believe this is starting to change.) Therefore it strikes me as a bit odd to claim that the Catholic Church cannot consult history.

Let’s be honest. Luther rejected the Deuterocanonical books because he couldn’t deal with the teachings of 1 & 2 Maccabees. However he couldn’t justify just dropping them and not the others. Say what you want about the Catholic Church but it is certainly a more trustworthy authority than Luther who wrote to his friend Dr. Link regarding his (Luther’s) addition of the word ‘alone’ to his translation of Rom 3:28 saying that if anyone asked why that word should be there they should be told that it was there because Martin Luther said it should be. He is clearly untrustworthy.

re: Beckwith quote

I’m sorry but I could not take his logic seriously. Essentially he is saying that when Jesus or any of the human authors of the NT quote the Protocanonical books, they were indicating their acceptance of these as canonical but, when the quoted material was not part of his accepted OT, then they were not.

Beckwith also ignores two factors. The first is that he ignores the rather large number of quotations and references to the Deuterocanonical books that are found in the NT. Here is a link to a list of these:

cin.org/users/james/files/deutero3.htm

Secondly, the Esther problem. The OT book of Esther neither quoted nor alluded to in the NT yet both Catholics and Protestants accept it as part of their canon. Clearly NT references are not a valid criteria for determining canonicity.

One more point I’d like to bring up. None of the criteria you have mentioned fall under sola scriptura which is supposed to be the foundation for doctrine. No where does Scripture teach any of the criteria on which you have been relying. They are merely the traditions of men.

Gary

 

[victus]

The Word of God is where the authority is, the Bride is always and should be subservient to it.

First let’s get it correct before you go on saying things wrongly.

Catechism of the Catholic Church - 108

Still, the Christian faith is not a “religion of the book.” Christianity is the religion of the “Word” of God, a word which is “not a written and mute word, but the Word which is incarnate and living”.73 If the Scriptures are not to remain a dead letter, Christ, the eternal Word of the living God, must, through the Holy Spirit, "open [our] minds to understand the Scriptures."74

 

[tobinatorstark]

I would assume that the protestant version of the bible would go against Revelation in adding and subtracting from the bible. Protestant Bibles once did include the 7 books of Tobit, Judith, Wisdom, Ecclesaticus, Baruch, 1 and 2 Maccabees as well parts of Easter and Daniel. Also mention that the protestant bibles don’t include the apocrypha books of Prayer of Mannasee, Epistle of Jeremy or Psalm 151