If the Scripture is inspired then why do the Protestant reject the Deutrocanonical Books?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Mannyfit75
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
This old discredited list again? A pathetic apologetic attempt to find any string of words in the Deuterocanonical books that matches words in the NT EVEN WHEN THE SAME WORDS APPEAR IN EARLIER OT BOOKS. Shame shame.
confrontingcatholicism.com/apocrypha_21.html
The opening statement to that link is

The Apocrypha was not in the Bible of Jesus. The Catholic apologists are saying that the Bible OF Jesus had the Deuterocanonical or Apocrypha in it.

Well my friend,

The NT was written in Greek. The language rejected by the Jews who also rejected Jesus. The OT accepted by the Church was also written in Greek (the Septuagint). The Septuagint was finished being written by 150 B.C… Most of the OT references in the NT come from the Septuagint. This is the OT of Jesus. Afterall, HE is the one who gave it to the prophets in the 1st place… And as you already know, the Septuagint has 46 books. This is the list of books that the Jews who converted to Christianity accepted. The Jews who Jesus called blind guides, hyporcrits, whitewashed tombs, chose only 39 books. Jesus took authority away from those guys and gave it to the Church HE established and promised to build, the pillar and foundation of truth. Protestants follow the canon of the pharisees, NOT the Church.
 
The opening statement to that link is

The Apocrypha was not in the Bible of Jesus. The Catholic apologists are saying that the Bible OF Jesus had the Deuterocanonical or Apocrypha in it.

Well my friend,

The NT was written in Greek. The language rejected by the Jews who also rejected Jesus. The OT accepted by the Church was also written in Greek (the Septuagint). The Septuagint was finished being written by 150 B.C… Most of the OT references in the NT come from the Septuagint. This is the OT of Jesus. Afterall, HE is the one who gave it to the prophets in the 1st place… And as you already know, the Septuagint has 46 books. This is the list of books that the Jews who converted to Christianity accepted. The Jews who Jesus called blind guides, hyporcrits, whitewashed tombs, chose only 39 books. Jesus took authority away from those guys and gave it to the Church HE established and promised to build, the pillar and foundation of truth. Protestants follow the canon of the pharisees, NOT the Church.
You have greatly oversimplified the topic.
The LXX in 30 AD cannot be proven to have 46 books and any reputable person (scholar) knows that.
The earliest existing copies of the LXX have different books.
You are aware of that?
 
You have greatly oversimplified the topic.
The LXX in 30 AD cannot be proven to have 46 books and any reputable person (scholar) knows that.
The earliest existing copies of the LXX have different books.
You are aware of that?
If waht you are saying is true, then the Catholic view, could be right, could it not? And wouldn’t one want to err on the side of having a complete, rather than incomplete Canon?
 
Most Orthodox (except for a few under the influence of Protestants) accept the Septuagint tradition of the Old Testament canon, but since the Septuagint tradition was not fixed (i.e., some versions of the Septuagint contained a few books that others didn’t), there was still flux on this point. Since Greek was the language of the East, the Orthodox never migrated from using the Septuagint as their Old Testament, and its fuzzy boundaries were not sufficiently clarified in the East by the time of the breakaway.
catholic.com/thisrock/2003/0309qq.asp
 
If waht you are saying is true, then the Catholic view, could be right, could it not? And wouldn’t one want to err on the side of having a complete, rather than incomplete Canon?
Of course the Catholic view could be right. I believe the evidence points the other way rather clearly. On a side note, the inclusion of the Deuterocanonical books would have no impact on dispensational theology. But that point would be lost on most everyone on this particular site.
 
explain the relevance. This does not dispute the veracity of the Catholic OT canon.
It supports, as many other sources would as well, the COMMON knowledge among Catholic and Protestant scholars that the content of the LXX at the time of Christ were in flux. You cannot historically say that the LXX at the time of Christ contained the 46. It cannot be proven. On ther other hand, not to tell you guys how to do your apologetics, it does not matter from your perspective. In other words, the Catholics are overreaching and they do not need to. They can simply point to other factors and leave the revisionist history aside like the original post is trying to do.
A great argument can be made for the Deutercanonicals. So far, no one on this thread is doing it. I have read brilliant ones, but not in these parts…
 
You have greatly oversimplified the topic.
The LXX in 30 AD cannot be proven to have 46 books and any reputable person (scholar) knows that.
I notice you are a fundamentalist. Are you getting your commentary from Beckwith? During Jesus and His apostles’ time the canon of the Old Testament was still open-ended. They never gave us the list of inspired books of both the Old and New Testaments. The Church later through the guidance of the Holy Spirit defined the canon of the New Testament AND the canon of the Old Testament as well.
divide:
The earliest existing copies of the LXX have different books.
You are aware of that?
Are you speaking of the Dead Sea Scrolls
 
Were any of those “scholars” there? I notice you are a fundamentalist. Are you getting your commentary from Beckwith?

No, I do not know who that is I am afraid. I have not read them I believe. Do you have access to a research engine to look at the journals from any Catholic or Protestant seminary? I still have mine because my student ID still works to access any article in the last 30 years. I am not talking internet hacks.
Are you speaking of the Dead Sea Scrolls
 
No, I do not know who that is I am afraid. I have not read them I believe. Do you have access to a research engine to look at the journals from any Catholic or Protestant seminary? I still have mine because my student ID still works to access any article in the last 30 years. I am not talking internet hacks.
 
No, I do not know who that is I am afraid. I have not read them I believe. Do you have access to a research engine to look at the journals from any Catholic or Protestant seminary? I still have mine because my student ID still works to access any article in the last 30 years. I am not talking internet hacks.
Oh P…L…E…A…S…E

Why should I have to guess what you meant? I don’t know you. All I see is that you’re identifying yourself as a fundamentalist.
 
Catholics often say that Jerome changed his mind with respect to the Deutrocanonical books by quoting the following.
What sin have I committed in following the judgment of the churches? But when I repeat what the Jews say against the Story of Susanna and the Hymn of the Three Children, and the fables of Bel and the Dragon, which are not contained in the Hebrew Bible, the man who makes this a charge against me proves himself to be a fool and a slanderer; for I explained not what I thought but what they commonly say against us.
Apology Against Rufinus, Book 2, paragraph 33
newadvent.org/fathers/27102.htm

However, this is badly taken out of context when used in this way. Jerome is explaining why he used the Hebrew Scriptures rather than the Septuagint. In the same treatise, before and after the above statement he says:
My brother Eusebius writes to me that, when he was at a meeting of African bishops which had been called for certain ecclesiastical affairs, he found there a letter purporting to be written by me, in which I professed penitence and confessed that it was through the influence of the press in my youth that I had been led to turn the Scriptures into Latin from the Hebrew; in all of which there is not a word of truth…But I was encouraged above all by the authoritative publications of the Evangelists and Apostles, in which we read much taken from the Old Testament which is not found in our manuscripts. For example, ‘Out of Egypt have I called my Son?’ (Matthew 2:15): ‘For he shall be called a Nazarene’ (Ibid. 23): and ‘They shall look on him whom they pierced’ (John 19:37): and ‘Rivers of living water shall flow out of his belly’ (John 7:38): and ‘Things which eye has not seen, nor ear heard, nor have entered into the heart of man, which God has prepared for them that love him’ (1 Corinthians 2:9), and many other passages which lack their proper context. Let us ask our opponents then where these things are written, and when they are unable to tell, let us produce them from the Hebrew. The first passage is in Hosea, (xi. 1), the second in Isaiah (xi. 1), the third in Zechariah (xii. 10), the fourth in Proverbs (xviii. 4), the fifth also in Isaiah (lxiv. 4). Being ignorant of all this many follow the ravings of the Apocrypha, and prefer to the inspired books the melancholy trash which comes to us from Spain…In a word, wherever Scripture evidenced some sacred truth respecting Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, they either translated the passage differently, or passed it over altogether in silence, so that they might both satisfy the king, and not divulge the secrets of the faith. I do not know whose false imagination led him to invent the story of the seventy cells at Alexandria, in which, though separated from each other, the translators were said to have written the same words…Hearken then, my rival: listen, my calumniator; I do not condemn, I do not censure the Seventy, but I am bold enough to prefer the Apostles to them all. It is the Apostle through whose mouth I hear the voice of Christ, and I read that in the classification of spiritual gifts they are placed before prophets (1 Corinthians 12:28; Ephesians 4:11), while interpreters occupy almost the lowest place…Wherever in translation I seem to you to go wrong, ask the Hebrews, consult their teachers in different towns. The words which exist in their Scriptures concerning Christ your copies do not contain. The case is different if they have rejected passages which were afterward used against them by the Apostles, and the Latin texts are more correct than the Greek, the Greek than the Hebrew…We have four versions to choose from: those of Aquila, Symmachus, the Seventy, and Theodotion. The churches choose to read Daniel in the version of Theodotion. What sin have I committed in following the judgment of the churches? But when I repeat what the Jews say against the Story of Susanna and the Hymn of the Three Children, and the fables of Bel and the Dragon, which are not contained in the Hebrew Bible, the man who makes this a charge against me proves himself to be a fool and a slanderer; for I explained not what I thought but what they commonly say against us…The Hebrew Scriptures are used by apostolic men; they are used, as is evident, by the apostles and evangelists. Our Lord and Saviour himself whenever he refers to the Scriptures, takes his quotations from the Hebrew; as in the instance of the words He that believes in me, as the Scripture has said, out of his belly shall flow rivers of living water, and in the words used on the cross itself, Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani, which is by interpretation My God, my God, why have you forsaken me? not, as it is given by the Septuagint, My God, my God, look upon me, why have you forsaken me? and many similar cases. I do not say this in order to aim a blow at the seventy translators; but I assert that the Apostles of Christ have an authority superior to theirs. Wherever the Seventy agree with the Hebrew, the apostles took their quotations from that translation; but, where they disagree, they set down in Greek what they had found in the Hebrew.
paragraphs 24-34

Jerome is saying that the Septuagint was his day was not accurate when it came to many Old Testament quotations by Jesus and the Apostles. He does not change what he expressed about the Deutrocanonical books. If the contents of the Septuagint were as incomplete or inaccurate as Jerome indicates, why should we trust that the books it contained should also be considered canonical. How do we know what was in the original Septuagint and what might have been added later?
 
This always concerned me so much by Non-Catholic Christians who insist the Bible as the sole rule of faith. Despite that, if they truly believe that the Sacred Book is inspired then why do they reject the Deutrocanonical Books since the Early Christians clearly used these text. Not only did the early Christian used them but the Apostles and Jesus also used them.

The Deutrocanonical Books have always been part of the Christian Canon for 2,000 yrs. The Eastern Orthodox Church and the Catholic Church affirms these books to be inspired in the fourth Century. I see no reason why Protestant Christians should reject these. Indirectly, Protestants do not profess the full authority of the Bible by rejecting the Deutro books.
I find it stranger that Protestants accept the post-Ascencion canon of the Jews but will not touch the Jewish teachings about contraception and auto-erotic activities with a ten foot pole.
 
Catholics often say that Jerome changed his mind with respect to the Deutrocanonical books by quoting the following.

Apology Against Rufinus, Book 2, paragraph 33
newadvent.org/fathers/27102.htm

However, this is badly taken out of context when used in this way. Jerome is explaining why he used the Hebrew Scriptures rather than the Septuagint. In the same treatise, before and after the above statement he says:

paragraphs 24-34

Jerome is saying that the Septuagint was his day was not accurate when it came to many Old Testament quotations by Jesus and the Apostles. He does not change what he expressed about the Deutrocanonical books. If the contents of the Septuagint were as incomplete or inaccurate as Jerome indicates, why should we trust that the books it contained should also be considered canonical. How do we know what was in the original Septuagint and what might have been added later?
Interestingly enough you left out this important quote which was in the body of the section in the apology agianst Rufinus
accuses me of having translated the Holy Scriptures with a view to disparage the Septuagint.
So, who is misquoting whom?
 
Interestingly enough you left out this important quote which was in the body of the section in the apology agianst Rufinus

So, who is misquoting whom?
He is not disparaging the Septuagint. However he says the Hebrew version is more reliable than the Septuagint that he had.
 
He is not disparaging the Septuagint. However he says the Hebrew version is more reliable than the Septuagint that he had.
Nice attempt at back tracking 😃

Lets look a little critically at what he is saying. Interesting to note that as he quotes his own prologue he makes this statement
a translation of the Pentateuch from Hebrew into Latin. The work is certainly hazardous and it is exposed to the attacks of my calumniators, who maintain that it is through contempt of the Seventy that I have set to work to forge a new version to take the place of the old.
So it seems that the LXX was already widely accepted by the church at that time. He runs into problems because he’s using Hebrew text to fill out the Latin translation. So at this point which version is already accepted? Well, the LXX. Which makes historical sence when reading the ECF and understanding that Christianity moved from Palistine into a primarily Greek speaking world as it was centered in Turkey and Greece and finally Rome. He then he states:
What then? Are we condemning our predecessors? By no means; but following the zealous labours of those who have preceded us we contribute such work as lies in our power in the name of the Lord. They translated before the Advent of Christ, and expressed in ambiguous terms that which they knew not. We after His Passion and Resurrection write not prophecy so much as history. For one style is suitable to what we hear, another to what we see. The better we understand a subject, the better we describe it. Hearken then, my rival: listen, my calumniator;** I do not condemn, I**** do not censure the Seventy**,
 
Rightlydivide;4467220:
Since the Catholic Church has been here for 2000 years, we don’t need to appeal to hacks.

newadvent.org/cathen/03267a.htm
newadvent.org/cathen/14526a.htm

Oh P…L…E…A…S…E

Why should I have to guess what you meant? I don’t know you. All I see is that you’re identifying yourself as a fundamentalist.
A couple of things about your links. First of all, **they agree **that the contents of the LXX were in flux at the time of Christ. But I think it interesting that you believe there has been no research in this area in 96 years. I do not think a high school history term paper would accept the 1912 Catholic Encyclopedia on the LXX as being a recent source. But the funny thing is they agree with me:
These venerable manuscripts of the Septuagint vary somewhat in their content outside the Palestinian Canon, showing that in Alexandrian-Jewish circles the number of admissible extra books was not sharply determined either by tradition or by authority
It is common knowledge what the earliest copies of the LXX were. Well…maybe not so common it appears…
 
I think this is a little harsh. Most Protestants who are sincere followers of Christ do not even know that Luther took books out. You will often hear them complian that the Catholic Church “added books” to the bible, just like Catholics “add to the word of God with the traditions of man”.

People became Christian, such as those at Pentecost, with no Bible at all. Although these Jews on pilgrimmage were familiar with the Septuagint, not a word of the NT had yet been written.

The truth is that it is possible to be a Christian without a Bible, and Christians did this for centuries until the printing press was created (by a Catholic).
Might I point out that the deciples had witnissed and recounted orally what later was redacted as what we know as the “NT.” That said, the Church does acknowledge “Baptism by Intent” for those denied the sacrement by force, lack of opportunity, or denial of the hearing of the Gospel. That was one of the first thing I had to learn years ago when I began my first chapalancy, along with the macinations of “Conditional Baptism.” Oh, and not all those at the Pentecaust were Jews, but were from “all nations”. Remember, each heared in their own toung (nothing to do with glosinalia; it had to do with the hearing, not the speaking). Finally, before the Bible, there was the Church. While I’m at it, there have been many canons of Scripture; as to Luther, he never intended to formulate one. Indeed, press a Lutheran who knows his or her denomination and they will admit that there is no fixed canon in the Lutheran tradition, all Luther said about the sacrements is that they must be availed of whatever their number, and that Lutherans are not Protistants. The Articles of Concord was written to make just that point.:rolleyes:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top