K
Katholikos
Guest
P.S. I’m very grateful for the many kind comments that have been made about this thread. My thanks to you all. I will offer a rosary for your intentions. Jay
- Status
S
Servant1
Guest
I’ve seen the APOCRYPHA. I’ve NEVER seen a Gospel of Thomas included in it. I agree about the “Council” of Jamnia. But no published Apocrypha I’ve ever seen includes the Gospel of Thomas.
K
Katholikos
Guest
About Luther’s rejection of Revelation: found on a Lutheran website
bible-researcher.com/antilegomena.html
Preface to the Revelation of St. John (1522) 7
About this book of the Revelation of John, I leave everyone free to hold his own opinions. I would not have anyone bound to my opinion or judgment. I say what I feel. I miss more than one thing in this book, and it makes me consider it to be neither apostolic nor prophetic.
First and foremost, the apostles do not deal with visions, but prophesy in clear and plain words, as do Peter and Paul, and Christ in the gospel. For it befits the apostolic office to speak clearly of Christ and his deeds, without images and visions. Moreover there is no prophet in the Old Testament, to say nothing of the New, who deals so exclusively with visions and images. For myself, I think it approximates the Fourth Book of Esdras; 8 I can in no way detect that the Holy Spirit produced it.
Moreover he seems to me to be going much too far when he commends his own book so highly – indeed, more than any of the other sacred books do, though they are much more important – and threatens that if anyone takes away anything from it, God will take away from him, etc. Again, they are supposed to be blessed who keep what is written in this book; and yet no one knows what that is, to say nothing of keeping it. This is just the same as if we did not have the book at all. And there are many far better books available for us to keep.
Many of the fathers also rejected this book a long time ago; 9 although St. Jerome, to be sure, refers to it in exalted terms and says that it is above all praise and that there are as many mysteries in it as words. Still, Jerome cannot prove this at all, and his praise at numerous places is too generous.
Finally, let everyone think of it as his own spirit leads him. My spirit cannot accommodate itself to this book. For me this is reason enough not to think highly of it: Christ is neither taught nor known in it. But to teach Christ, this is the thing which an apostle is bound above all else to do; as Christ says in Acts 1, “You shall be my witnesses.” Therefore I stick to the books which present Christ to me clearly and purely.
JMJ Jay
bible-researcher.com/antilegomena.html
Preface to the Revelation of St. John (1522) 7
About this book of the Revelation of John, I leave everyone free to hold his own opinions. I would not have anyone bound to my opinion or judgment. I say what I feel. I miss more than one thing in this book, and it makes me consider it to be neither apostolic nor prophetic.
First and foremost, the apostles do not deal with visions, but prophesy in clear and plain words, as do Peter and Paul, and Christ in the gospel. For it befits the apostolic office to speak clearly of Christ and his deeds, without images and visions. Moreover there is no prophet in the Old Testament, to say nothing of the New, who deals so exclusively with visions and images. For myself, I think it approximates the Fourth Book of Esdras; 8 I can in no way detect that the Holy Spirit produced it.
Moreover he seems to me to be going much too far when he commends his own book so highly – indeed, more than any of the other sacred books do, though they are much more important – and threatens that if anyone takes away anything from it, God will take away from him, etc. Again, they are supposed to be blessed who keep what is written in this book; and yet no one knows what that is, to say nothing of keeping it. This is just the same as if we did not have the book at all. And there are many far better books available for us to keep.
Many of the fathers also rejected this book a long time ago; 9 although St. Jerome, to be sure, refers to it in exalted terms and says that it is above all praise and that there are as many mysteries in it as words. Still, Jerome cannot prove this at all, and his praise at numerous places is too generous.
Finally, let everyone think of it as his own spirit leads him. My spirit cannot accommodate itself to this book. For me this is reason enough not to think highly of it: Christ is neither taught nor known in it. But to teach Christ, this is the thing which an apostle is bound above all else to do; as Christ says in Acts 1, “You shall be my witnesses.” Therefore I stick to the books which present Christ to me clearly and purely.
- This short preface appeared in the September Testament of 1522 and in other editions up to 1527. It was supplanted from 1530 on by a much longer preface which offers an interpretation of the symbolism of the book.
- Luther means II Esdras, which was called IV Esdras in the Vulgate.
- The canonicity of Revelation was disputed by Marcion, Caius of Rome, Dionysius of Alexandria, Cyril of Jerusalem and the Synod of Laodicea in A.D. 360, though it was accepted by most as Eusebius reports. In the annotations of his edition Erasmus had noted in connection with chapter 4 that the Greeks regarded the book as apocryphal.
JMJ Jay
W
whit
Guest
Katholikos, Thank you very much for your information. I have wanted this type of info for a long time. I hate to ask you becasuse you have spent so much time already on this thread, but is there a listing of the dates the various books/letters of the NT are thought to have been written. I understand the first book was written in approximately 60 AD but don’t know what book that is for sure. I think Matthew but not positive. Do we know or have fairly good info on these books/letters & dates?
Thank you again for what you have already given us and God bless.
Whit
Thank you again for what you have already given us and God bless.
Whit
W
whit
Guest
Katholikos, forgive me. I missed Malachi4U’s post where he gives dates of the various books. God bless. Whit
K
Katholikos
Guest
The Gospel of Thomas is in the New Testament apocrypha.
Here’s a United Methodist website with good info on the different canons, the OT and the NT apocrypha, the pseudipigrapha, and related matters. You might want to browse around the website. It’s quite interesting.
gbgm-umc.org/umw/bible/apocot.stm
S
Seeker
Guest
Katholikos - thank you sooo much for providing thisinformation about the Bible Canon 
. My question is I know that the protestants have a a different canon from ours but what about the Orthodox Churches, e.g., the Russian and Ethopian, they too have additional books added to the LXX right?.
thanks
seeker
. My question is I know that the protestants have a a different canon from ours but what about the Orthodox Churches, e.g., the Russian and Ethopian, they too have additional books added to the LXX right?.thanks
seeker
D
DennisS
Guest
Well, I really don’t like to get off on the wrong foot. I spent several hours today reading posts on this site. I must disagree with some of the “facts” as presented (and apparently accepted) on this thread. This does not mean that these quotes from post #3 are the only ones I disagree with, but this is certainly plenty to begin with.
The Jews of the Diaspora were largely illiterate. Of course a large majority didn’t know how to write or read Hebrew. However, you overstate the case - they did understand Hebrew, and they did know Scripture by heart. They memorized Scripture - something we would do well to follow as well. (The word of God is “sweeter than honey.”) The Jews of the Diaspora knew the Hebrew Scriptures better than the Catholics of the Diaspora knew the Vulgate in 1962.
The Septuagent was used by Jesus? NO! Jesus read from the Hebrew Scrolls in the Synagogue. Your very first point, stating it is fact, is actually incorrect.
Jesus did not call the scroll he read of Isaiah - “Scripture.” The word used, as found in Scripture, is more properly translated “writing.” The scroll he read from is called a Biblos in the NT, that is, a book. Perhaps you are reading a translation of a translation of a translation, and reading the word “Scripture.”
If Luther rejects books of the Bible, that is actually not our concern. Luther did not, and does not, represent any church, let alone, the Church. Luther did not say that anyone (other Catholics or the resulting Protestants) had to believe that the books he “downgraded” were less than Scripture. First, Luther knew he did not have that authority. Second, this was not part of the 95 thesis. Third, Luther considered himself a Catholic till his dying day. It is the church that determines (a process that may need expanded on this thread) what is Scripture. Being fairly new here, I imagine there are plenty of threads regarding/disregarding Luther, so I will stop here. I plan to check back tomorrow night to see what is written in response to this.
P
petra
Guest
Katholikos, thank you so much for your investment of time and energy here. This is been sooooo informative. You rock!
S
Servant1
Guest
The scripture you mentioned does indeed say Jesus used (read in synagogue) what would have been from the scrolls of writing. However, Jesus DID use the Septuagint in his own discourses, as evidenced by the times the Bible quotes him as quoting from it.
D
DennisS
Guest
I don’t believe for one second that Jesus quoted the scrolls in Greek. The LXX was written in Greek, so how can one really know for sure that Jesus quoted the scrolls in Greek? When did Jesus speak, and when was it written down? There was a lag of time between these events. It is possible that those who wrote the books that make up the NT used the LXX, but that is far from proving that Jesus quoted the scrolls in Greek.
S
Servant1
Guest
Believe what you want. There’s nothing I can do to force you to believe anything you don’t want to believe. I never said Jesus quoted in Greek. But in his words, in his discourses, he made numerous references to all parts of what were then known as the scriptures. The LXX was what was known as scriptures in thgose times. Including the deuterocanonicals. Jesus quoted liberally from them, whether he was “reading the scrolls” or not. Doesn’t matter what he quoted “from” - his using quotes of the deuterocanonicals verifies he quoted from the LXX, which contained those books at that time.
In…
Matthew 6:10, He referenced 1Maccabees 3:60
Matthew 6:12, He referenced Sirach (Ecclesiasticus) 28:2
Matthew 6:13, He referenced Sirach 33:1
Matthew 7:12, and Luke 6:31, He referenced Tobit 4:16
Matthew 9:13, He quoted Hosea 6:6
Matthew 11:25, He quoted Tobit 7:18
Matthew 12:42, He quoted the Book of Wisdom itself
Matthew 13:43, He quoted Wisdom 3:7
Matthew 16:18, He quoted Wisdom 16:13
Matthew 24:16, He quoted 1Maccabees 2:28
Mark 4:5,16-17, He quoted Sirach 40:15
Mark 9:47-48, He quoted Judith 16:17
Luke 13:29, He quoted Baruch 4:37
Luke 21:24, He quoted Sirach 28:18
John 1:3, He quoted Wisdom 9:1
John 3:13, He quoted Baruch 3:29
John 4:48, He quoted Wisdom 8:8
John 5:18, He quoted Wisdom 2:16
John 6:35-59, He quoted Sirach 24:21
John 14:23, He referenced Sirach 2:15-16, (Septuagint) or Sirach 2:18 (Confraternity).
John 15:6, He referenced Wisdom 4:5
M
Mariusz
Guest
Jesus quotes the LXX - Luke 4:14-21. This passage ends with Jesus saying: “Today this scripture has been fulfilled in your hearing.” Jesus was in the synagogue in Nazareth reading from a scroll of the LXX Isaiah. This is proof positive that the LXX was used both in the synagogues of the Diaspora and in Palestine.
Katholikos,
How do we know that Jesus quoted the LXX (Luke 4:14-21)? In my opinion he might have quoted the Hebrew version.
Thank you,
Mariusz
Katholikos,
How do we know that Jesus quoted the LXX (Luke 4:14-21)? In my opinion he might have quoted the Hebrew version.
Thank you,
Mariusz
R
Ray_Marshall
Guest
This is a great thread. There should be forums here on both the Old Testament and New Testament.
S
Servant1
Guest
Without being there, we can’t absolutely KNOW… but we DO know that the LXX was in common use in the area at the time, it’s something that was available to them as scriptures, and we do know that what was quoted IS in the LXX. Putting all that together is pretty convincing. Certainly more convincing than claims insisting it could not be the LXX. It was just way too common. It adds up. Does it matter? It is still a fact that the LXX was what was widely known and used as “the scriptures” in those days in those areas.
S
SCTA-1
Guest
If the N.T. canon of 27 books was definitely defined by Hippo and Carthage,how then did the Epistle to the Laodiceans stay in the Latin Vulgate for the next 9 centuries when it was quietly dropped at the Council of Florence? I guess my question is: there were 28 N.T. books well after Hippo and Carthage not 27,why?
R
RNRobert
Guest
I bought a Catholic Bible (NAB) some time before I became Catholic because I wanted to read the so-called ‘Apocrypha.’ I was reading the book of Wisdom when I came to a passage that just blew me away:
“Let us lie in wait for the righteous man, because he is inconvenient to us and opposes our actions; he reproaches us for sins against the law, accuses us of sins against our training. He professes to have knowledge of God, and calls himself a child of the Lord. He became to us a reproof of our thoughts; the very sight of him is a burden to us, because his manner of life is unlike that of others, and his ways our strange. We are considered by him as something base, and he avoids our ways as unclean; he calls the last end of the righteous happy, and boasts that God is his father. Let us see if his words are true, and let us test what will happen at the end of his life; for if the righteous man is God’s son, he will help him and deliver him from the hands of his adversaries. Let us test him with insult and torture, that we may find out how gentle he is, and make trial of his forbearance. Ler us condemn him to a shameful death, for according to what he says he will be protected.” Wisdom 2:12-20
When In read this passage I saw the immediate parallel with how the Pharisees reacted to Jesus. Being written at least a century before the birth of Christ I said to myself, "Now that passage *had *to be an inspired prophecy. No wonder the Jewish leaders wanted it out of their Bible.
“Let us lie in wait for the righteous man, because he is inconvenient to us and opposes our actions; he reproaches us for sins against the law, accuses us of sins against our training. He professes to have knowledge of God, and calls himself a child of the Lord. He became to us a reproof of our thoughts; the very sight of him is a burden to us, because his manner of life is unlike that of others, and his ways our strange. We are considered by him as something base, and he avoids our ways as unclean; he calls the last end of the righteous happy, and boasts that God is his father. Let us see if his words are true, and let us test what will happen at the end of his life; for if the righteous man is God’s son, he will help him and deliver him from the hands of his adversaries. Let us test him with insult and torture, that we may find out how gentle he is, and make trial of his forbearance. Ler us condemn him to a shameful death, for according to what he says he will be protected.” Wisdom 2:12-20
When In read this passage I saw the immediate parallel with how the Pharisees reacted to Jesus. Being written at least a century before the birth of Christ I said to myself, "Now that passage *had *to be an inspired prophecy. No wonder the Jewish leaders wanted it out of their Bible.
S
SCTA-1
Guest
Was St.Athanasius the first to proclaim a full Biblical canon in 367A.D. not Damasus in 382 A.D.?
D
DennisS
Guest
Very interesting. This summer I’m away from home, so I don’t have all my reference books. Because of this I will not be able to reference the Greek in the deuterocanonical books. However, let me proceed with what I have before me at the moment (two Bibles).
Regarding the long list compiled by Servant1 in post #52. I see the first three references in Matthew are of “the Lord’s Prayer.” Do you really think Jesus quoted from other places to form this prayer he taught? Let’s look at the first comparison offered. 1Maccabees 3:60 “Whatever be the will of heaven, he will perform it.” This is in the context of preparing for battle at Mizpah, with their backs against the wall, “better to die in battle than to watch the ruin of our nation and our holy place.” And you really think this compares to “thy kingdom come, thy will be done” which is directed to the Father, and is in a posture of humility?
Do you realize that of the references you lift up as quotes of Jesus - Maccabees, Tobit, Judith, Baruch, Hosea, and Sirach were originally written in Hebrew!!! St. Jerome and the rabbis who quote from Ecclesiasticus knew it in its original language of Hebrew. Behind Tobit is a semitic original (Hebrew or Aramaic).
Regarding the long list compiled by Servant1 in post #52. I see the first three references in Matthew are of “the Lord’s Prayer.” Do you really think Jesus quoted from other places to form this prayer he taught? Let’s look at the first comparison offered. 1Maccabees 3:60 “Whatever be the will of heaven, he will perform it.” This is in the context of preparing for battle at Mizpah, with their backs against the wall, “better to die in battle than to watch the ruin of our nation and our holy place.” And you really think this compares to “thy kingdom come, thy will be done” which is directed to the Father, and is in a posture of humility?
Do you realize that of the references you lift up as quotes of Jesus - Maccabees, Tobit, Judith, Baruch, Hosea, and Sirach were originally written in Hebrew!!! St. Jerome and the rabbis who quote from Ecclesiasticus knew it in its original language of Hebrew. Behind Tobit is a semitic original (Hebrew or Aramaic).
D
DennisS
Guest
Out of your list, only the Book of Wisdom (although often attributed to Solomon) was likely written in Greek. For this reason, I looked deeper into your “quotes.” You didn’t name the reference for Mt. 12:42 in Wisdom, so lets look at the others.
Wis. 3:7 “When the time comes for his visitation they will shine out; as sparks run through the stubble, so will they.”
Mt 13:43 “Then the righteous will shine like the sun in the kingdom of their father. He who has ears, let him hear.”
But, have you considered Daniel 12:3 “Those who are wise will shine like the brightness of the heavens, and those who lead many to righteousness, like the stars for ever and ever.” If Jesus had in mind a quote, it could have easily been from Daniel.
Wis. 16:13 “For you have power of life and death, you bring down to the gates of Hades and bring back again.”
Mt. 16:18 “And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it.”
So, in Wisdom, is this an unnamed Pope, well before Peter? Couldn’t Jesus have been quoting Dt. 32:39 or 1Sam 2:6 “The Lord brings death and makes alive; he brings down to the grave and raises up.” Perhaps Wisdom is quoted from one of these sources.
Wis. 9:1 you compare to Jn. 1:3, which does not include a quote of Jesus.
Wis. 8:8 “….she (wisdom) has foreknowledge of signs and wonders, of the unfolding of the ages and the times.”
John 4:48 “Unless you people see miraculous signs and wonders,” Jesus told him, “you will never believe.” This is in the context of healing the son of a royal official. Two words are the same. Probably every sentence you have spoken has at least two words in common with what someone else has said. Hey, they are in the same order. Ever notice that some things are almost always said in the same order? Salt and pepper, bread and butter, etc. Do you really think this is conclusive that Jesus quoted from this source?
Wis. 2:16 “In his opinion we are counterfeit; he holds aloof from our doings as though from filth; he proclaims the final end of the virtuous as happy and boasts of having God for his father.” This is in the context of life as the godless see it, and being gravely mistaken in their understanding.
John 5:18 “For this reason the Jews tried all the harder to kill him; not only was he breaking the Sabbath, but he was even calling God his own Father, making himself equal with God.” This isn’t a quote of Jesus, and I really don’t see much resemblance, especially when context is considered.
Wis. 4:5 “hardly grown, their branches will be snapped off, their fruit be useless, too unripe to eat, fit for nothing.” The idea is basically: better to be barren than have godless children.
John 15:6 “If anyone does not remain in me, he is like a branch that is thrown away and withers; such branches are picked up, thrown into the fire and burned.” These are certainly not unique types of expressions in an agricultural society.
Jesus knew and referenced the Hebrew Scriptures, not the LXX. You really need a language expert with substantial amounts of study to even suggest otherwise. The “evidence” that was supplied was circumstantial, and does not prove Jesus quoted the LXX.
“The LXX was what was known as scriptures in those times. Including the deuterocanonicals. Jesus quoted liberally from them” NOT! Only the Hebrew was read in the synagogues, only the Hebrew was memorized in Hebrew speaking areas, which is where Jesus did the majority of his historical earthly ministry. The deuterocanonicals were not accepted as canon in Hebrew speaking areas. They were included in the LXX, but most would not have recognized them as on the same level as the Hebrew Scriptures.
Wis. 3:7 “When the time comes for his visitation they will shine out; as sparks run through the stubble, so will they.”
Mt 13:43 “Then the righteous will shine like the sun in the kingdom of their father. He who has ears, let him hear.”
But, have you considered Daniel 12:3 “Those who are wise will shine like the brightness of the heavens, and those who lead many to righteousness, like the stars for ever and ever.” If Jesus had in mind a quote, it could have easily been from Daniel.
Wis. 16:13 “For you have power of life and death, you bring down to the gates of Hades and bring back again.”
Mt. 16:18 “And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it.”
So, in Wisdom, is this an unnamed Pope, well before Peter? Couldn’t Jesus have been quoting Dt. 32:39 or 1Sam 2:6 “The Lord brings death and makes alive; he brings down to the grave and raises up.” Perhaps Wisdom is quoted from one of these sources.
Wis. 9:1 you compare to Jn. 1:3, which does not include a quote of Jesus.
Wis. 8:8 “….she (wisdom) has foreknowledge of signs and wonders, of the unfolding of the ages and the times.”
John 4:48 “Unless you people see miraculous signs and wonders,” Jesus told him, “you will never believe.” This is in the context of healing the son of a royal official. Two words are the same. Probably every sentence you have spoken has at least two words in common with what someone else has said. Hey, they are in the same order. Ever notice that some things are almost always said in the same order? Salt and pepper, bread and butter, etc. Do you really think this is conclusive that Jesus quoted from this source?
Wis. 2:16 “In his opinion we are counterfeit; he holds aloof from our doings as though from filth; he proclaims the final end of the virtuous as happy and boasts of having God for his father.” This is in the context of life as the godless see it, and being gravely mistaken in their understanding.
John 5:18 “For this reason the Jews tried all the harder to kill him; not only was he breaking the Sabbath, but he was even calling God his own Father, making himself equal with God.” This isn’t a quote of Jesus, and I really don’t see much resemblance, especially when context is considered.
Wis. 4:5 “hardly grown, their branches will be snapped off, their fruit be useless, too unripe to eat, fit for nothing.” The idea is basically: better to be barren than have godless children.
John 15:6 “If anyone does not remain in me, he is like a branch that is thrown away and withers; such branches are picked up, thrown into the fire and burned.” These are certainly not unique types of expressions in an agricultural society.
Jesus knew and referenced the Hebrew Scriptures, not the LXX. You really need a language expert with substantial amounts of study to even suggest otherwise. The “evidence” that was supplied was circumstantial, and does not prove Jesus quoted the LXX.
“The LXX was what was known as scriptures in those times. Including the deuterocanonicals. Jesus quoted liberally from them” NOT! Only the Hebrew was read in the synagogues, only the Hebrew was memorized in Hebrew speaking areas, which is where Jesus did the majority of his historical earthly ministry. The deuterocanonicals were not accepted as canon in Hebrew speaking areas. They were included in the LXX, but most would not have recognized them as on the same level as the Hebrew Scriptures.
- Status