Isn't 66 an incomplete number of books in the (Protestant) Bible?

[answermethis]

As for my other question…
By what authority did Martin Luther tweek the Bible in any way, shape or form?..
Did Martin Luther commission a printing of the Bible? Did he segregate or separate the Protocanonical books from the Deuterocanonical books in a way that way different from the Catholic Bibles that were being use at the time?:knight1:

 

[TriuneUnity]

As for my other question…
By what authority did Martin Luther tweek the Bible in any way, shape or form?..
Did Martin Luther commission a printing of the Bible? Did he segregate or separate the Protocanonical books from the Deuterocanonical books in a way that way different from the Catholic Bibles that were being use at the time?:knight1:

I guess it depends on what you mean by tweek. He translated the original Hebrew and Greek into German. He placed the deuterocanonicals in between the Old and New Testaments. However, the placement of a book was not an issue of inspiration, per se. For example, the Hebrew arrangement of the OT is different than the Septuagint. They reckon, I believe, 22 books, because they combine several and they are in a different order.

 

[answermethis]

I guess it depends on what you mean by tweek. He translated the original Hebrew and Greek into German. He placed the deuterocanonicals in between the Old and New Testaments. However, the placement of a book was not an issue of inspiration, per se. For example, the Hebrew arrangement of the OT is different than the Septuagint. They reckon, I believe, 22 books, because they combine several and they are in a different order.

Did his bible then differ from the Catholic Bibles that were in use at the time or was his exactly the same?:knight1:

 

[TriuneUnity]

Did his bible then differ from the Catholic Bibles that were in use at the time or was his exactly the same?:knight1:

Exactly the same in content.

 

[answermethis]

Did his bible then differ from the Catholic Bibles that were in use at the time or was his exactly the same?:knight1:

Martin Luther had printed a Catholic Bible with absolutely no changes and the Pope shook his hand and made him a cardinal???

 

[TriuneUnity]

Martin Luther had printed a Catholic Bible with absolutely no changes and the Pope shook his hand and made him a cardinal???

I’m sure he wishes that had happened LoL.

 

[answermethis]

Did his bible then differ from the Catholic Bibles that were in use at the time or was his exactly the same?:knight1:

How could you tell Martin Luther’s bible apart from one of the Catholic Bibles being used at that time?

 

[TriuneUnity]

How could you tell Martin Luther’s bible apart from one of the Catholic Bibles being used at that time?

It wouldn’t have been in Latin. It would have had the DC’s in between the OT and the NT and it would have said it was translated by Luther.

 

[answermethis]

It wouldn’t have been in Latin. It would have had the DC’s in between the OT and the NT and it would have said it was translated by Luther.

Not all Catholic Bibles of that time were in Latin but that is a tangent so let us leave that for now…
Was there anything like commentary or other demarkations??? Can you think of how Martin Luther’s edition might have varied from the Catholic Bibles in other ways???

 

[Dancelittleewok]

Answermethis, are you trying to lead Triune to say that Luther wrote “alone” in the Bible?

 

[answermethis]

Answermethis, are you trying to lead Triune to say that Luther wrote “alone” in the Bible?

That is something he will need to determine for I am not a Bible scholar. My question I thought was simple…***By what authority ***did Martin Luther tweek the Bible in any way, shape or form?

I must retire as I have been ill for some time now.

Would you like to continue to discover by what authority Martin Luther made changes…oh, if his bible differed of course.:knight2:

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

Yes, the early Christian church did use the LXX. What has not been established is when the Deuterocanonical books became part of the LXX. We simply do not know. The earliest existing copies have different books reflecting the flux of the canon.

As far as the exact OT canon of Christ, that is why we are having this discussion.
While the evidence has support on both sides, I tend to be in the mainstream and say we simply do not know. As far as the DSS, I have studied it some in graduate school. Usually the low amount of the DC found is used to support the Protestant position. Although on occasion it is used to support the fact that some of the DC have a Hebrew original in existence. What exactly would you like to say further about them?

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

1. The Palestinian Jews established the Hebrew canon in 100 ad
2. Why? they already had the Septuagint? To discredit the fast New Way Leader Jesus and his apostles who were Quoting from these texts in there teachings. And many Jews were converting to the New way that was using the Alexandrian Canon (Septuagint).

3.The Jews at Jamnia Palestine rejected the 7 books from the Hebrew canon found in the Septuagint.

1. They are Wisdom, Sirach (Ecclesiastes), Judith, Baruch, Tobit, 1, 2, Maccabees as well as portions of Daniel and Esther.

5.On the grounds they could not find any Hebrew counter manuscripts from the Greek.

1. Jewish Rabbis were Sadducees who favored Roman Empire. They refused to believe in the teachings of the oral Torah Traditions teachings such as the resurrection of the dead and life everlasting. So they took out a lot of the books that pointed to this belief. They were always zealous enemies of Christianity.

They also rewrote the prophetic texts. To mention one of them, a translator by the name of Apulia removed the word Parthenos= Virgin from Isaiah 7:14 to a young woman = shall conceive, in order to discredit the fulfillment prophecy.

For 1600 years 16 centuries The Alexandrian canon was a matter of uncontested faith.

Until 1529 Martin Luther proposed the Palestinian canon of 39 books in Hebrew as the Old Testament Cannon.

Reasons: 1, There did not exist no Hebrew counterpart to the Greek text that Jesus taught from and Quoted from.

2, The Protestant Reformers wanted to deny the importance of works in the cycle of redemption because of their SOLA FE THEOLOGY,
they have to get rid of whole books like Tobit, to deny Purgatory reject Maccabees, James, faith by works, revelation which reveals the mass as we know it today.

3.They rejected whole books 7 when done and finished, Martin Luther Changed Romans 3:28 and added the word alone to sacred scripture.

4.The Protestants finally agreed with the 1st.century Palestinian Jews from the Jamnia hebrew school to reject 7 whole books from the bible. What gets missed here is that the Jews had to run, and hurried in removing these books, because they began to be persecuted by their friends the Romans again.

1. Which Old Testament would you use, the Old Testament used by Jesus and the apostles and the early church and today’s church. The holy bible.
2. Or the Old Testament used by the Jews who rejected Christ and persecuted Christianity along with the Romans.
3. If your bible includes the 7 omitted books by Protestants and Palestinian Jews from 100 ads you follow Jesus and the first century Catholic Church to today.

8.If your bible excludes the 7 books that the Catholic bible has , you follow the non Christian Jews at Jamnia(Palestine) and Martin Luther who insisted on throwing more books out.

UDATE: A discovery was made that rocked the Christian world including the Jewish nation. In 1947 in the Middle East in cave near Qumran some ancient scrolls were found near the Dead Sea. They are now called the Dead Sea scrolls.

1. In them contained the Hebrew counterparts of the Septuagint scriptures translated to Greek of the disputed books that the Jamnia and Protestant reformers rejected. The 7 disputed books were found in ancient Hebrew counter manuscripts. They found other books such as Isaiah (this one of the missing chapters that Jews rejected because in 100ad they had no Hebrew Isaiah just the Greek), as well as Esther.
2. The Catholic Church Popes and Bishops held to these books throughout history, even when it was unpopular to do so. The reason , because Jesus Quoted from the disputed books and the new testament writers, and the Catholic Church was not going to give in to any change what Jesus and the apostles gave her to teach.

 

[BrianH]

He commissioned 70 Jewish scholars (LXX = Septuagint = 72 according to tradition) took 6 from each of the 12 tribes. To come up with a standard canon of Jewish scripture.

The collection of 46 books that the 70 men on this committee established is called the Septuagint (Latin for 70 = LXX) It was completed between 250-125 BC.

The Miracle was that these scholars were locked up in 72 separate rooms transcribing the Old Testament from Hebrew into Greek
When they all came out each one had transliterated the Hebrew Scriptures into Greek exactly the same word for word book for book. This impressed the emperor

Catholic Encyclopedia*(1) The letter of Aristeas is certainly apocryphal. The writer, who calls himself Aristeas and says he is a Greek and a pagan, shows by his whole work that he is a pious, zealous Jew: he recognizes the God of the Jews as the one true God; he declares that God is the author of the Mosaic law; he is an enthusiastic admirer of the Temple of Jerusalem, the Jewish land and people, and its holy laws and learned men.
(2) The account as given in the letter must be regarded as fabulous and legendary, at least in several parts. Some of the details, such as the official intervention of the king and the high priest, the number of the seventy-two translators, the seventy-two questions they had to answer, the seventy-two days they took for their work, are clearly arbitrary assertions*

FACT; Jesus and the Apostles Quoted from this Septuagint text.

Jesus and the Apostles quote from the LXX but they also quote from the MT as well. There are also quotes that do not line up to any existing text.

The whole question is moot though because the citations found in the New Testament do not universally conform to the MT or the LXX. This is not really surprising. As we saw in Part 1, there were variant textual traditions in Jesus’ day—even beyond the classic LXX/MT division. The Qumran library evidences both “proto-Masoretic” and “proto-Septuagintal” Hebrew texts as well as manuscripts similar to neither the MT nor the LXX.[2] It should not be surprising therefore that some of Jesus’ citations agree with the MT text (e. g., Mk 4:26-29=MT Joel 4:13; Mt. 11:29=MT Jer. 6:16), some with the LXX (e.g., Mark 7:6-7=LXX Isa 29:13; Mark 10:8=LXX Gen ; Luke 23:46=LXX Ps 31:5) and others with Aramaic versions similar to neither (e.g., Mark 4:12= Targum Isa 6:9-10).[3]
thesacredpage.com/2006/03/loose-canons-development-of-old_06.html

FACT; there are 300 Quotations from the Septuagint in the New testament,(from the missing protestant books.)

There are no direct quotations from the Deuterocanonical books in the NT. There may be some allusions. In the Canon Debate, Catholic scholar Daniel Harrington postulates three. You are right that the NT quotes the LXX. You are not correct that those quotes can be proven. As Daniel Harrington states about the lists commonly used “many of the alleged sources or parallels disappear.”

3.The Jews at Jamnia Palestine rejected the 7 books from the Hebrew canon found in the Septuagint.

catholic.com/thisrock/2004/0409fea4.asp
You have been corrected on this before I thought.

For 1600 years 16 centuries The Alexandrian canon was a matter of uncontested faith.

When looking at any question regarding the Christian faith it is of course important to turn first to Jesus. In looking at the Old Testament canon debate the question inevitably arises: which books did Jesus and the New Testament recognize? In close connection with this, it is often deemed important to ascertain whether or not Jesus quoted from the MT or the LXX. The underlying assumption often made here is that the two textual traditions preserve two rival canons in use during Jesus’ day: a “Palestinian canon” used by Jews in Jerusalem, that contained only the “proto-canonical books” and an “Alexandrian canon” that, it is said, included the apocrypha, which was accepted by Jews in the diaspora. Jesus’ support of the LXX would therefore imply his recognition of the apocrypha. However, this line of reasoning is full of historical misconceptions.

thesacredpage.com/2006/03/loose-canons-development-of-old_06.html

.

UDATE: A discovery was made that rocked the Christian world including the Jewish nation. In 1947 in the Middle East in cave near Qumran some ancient scrolls were found near the Dead Sea. They are now called the Dead Sea scrolls.

1. In them contained the Hebrew counterparts of the Septuagint scriptures translated to Greek of the disputed books that the Jamnia and Protestant reformers rejected. The 7 disputed books were found in ancient Hebrew counter manuscripts. They found other books such as Isaiah (this one of the missing chapters that Jews rejected because in 100ad they had no Hebrew Isaiah just the Greek), as well as Esther.

The seven disputed books were not found at Qumran.
Fragments of three deuterocanical books have been found among the Dead Sea scrolls found at Qumran. Sirach, whose Hebrew text was already known from the Cairo Geniza, has been found in two scrolls (2QSir or 2Q18, 11QPs_a or 11Q5) in Hebrew. Another Hebrew scroll of Sirach has been found in Masada (MasSir).[7]:597 The Book of Tobit has been found in Qumran in four scrolls written in Aramaic and in one written in Hebrew.[7]:636 The Letter of Jeremiah (or Baruch chapter 6) has been found in cave 7 (7Q5) in Greek.[7]:628

 

[Nominefili]

Most Protestants would agree that in the Bible, 7 is a considered to be a complete or perfect number, whereas 6 is not.

Some quotes (from Protestant and non-Catholic sites)-

"it (6) is 7 minus 1, i.e., man’s coming short of spiritual perfection. In any case, therefore, it has to do with man;** it is the number of imperfection**; the human number; the number of MAN as destitute of God, without God, without Christ. "
biblestudy.org/bibleref/meaning-of-numbers-in-bible/6.html

“Six and Seven together as combining and contrasting what is human and what is spiritual.”
biblestudy.org/bibleref/meaning-of-numbers-in-bible/6and7.html

“Six → **Man, beast, Satan **
Seven → Perfection, completeness”
christcenteredmall.com/teachings/symbolism/numbers.htm

“The most prevalent number in prophecy is the number seven. Its use is clearly related to time and a complete number of a set.”
teachinghearts.org/dre17httnumber.html

“6- represents the worship of man, and is the number of man, signifying his rebellion, imperfection, works, and disobedience.”
“7- represents perfection, and is the sign of God, divine worship, completions, obedience, and rest.”
mostamazingprophecies.com/Resources/KeysToBibleNumbers/tabid/132/Default.aspx

There are many other sites!

The point I want to make is this - Is it not bothersome to Protestants that their Bible contains 66 books? If 7 is a complete number and 6 isn’t, then 66 sounds like an incomplete number of books in the Bible.

I also read on some sites that 6 represents the works of man. As a Catholic, it seems to me that it is indeed a work of man that Protestants have 66 books in the Bible. After all, as a Catholic I would argue that Marin Luther took out 7 books from the Bible, so his “work” (Protestant Bible) had not one but two 6s in it (66 books), showing its incompleteness!

To me, it sounds reasonable that number of books in the Bible should be complete and therefore the number 73 (the number of books in the Catholic Bible) makes more sense to me, especially since 7 and 3 are both complete numbers!

I have already provided evidence for 7 being a complete number. Here’s some evidence for 3 being a complete number as well:

“Three, therefore, stands for that which is solid, real, substantial, complete, and entire.
All things that are specially complete are stamped with this number three.”
biblestudy.org/bibleref/meaning-of-numbers-in-bible/3.html

I like this one-
"The motif of the third day therefore reaches its climax in the fact of the resurrection on the third day. It is then that the emphasis of the** third day as one of spiritual activity and completeness** finds its culmination in Christ’s finished redemptive work. And yet, the motif suggests that there is still more to be seen. (Tradition? ) "
bible.org/seriespage/use-three-bible

Now before someone comes back at me and says that the number of Christ himself is 66, let me quote from that earlier cited website:

“Now the wonderful fact is that we have in the genealogy of Luke 3 exactly 77 names, with GOD at the one end, and JESUS at the other. This is indeed stamping it with the number of spiritual perfection… So that while Jesus is the 77th name in the line which comes through Nathan, it is the 66th name in the line which comes through Solomon. When we remember that six is the human number, and seven the Divine, can we doubt that we are thus pointed to the fact that Jesus was both Son of God and Son of Man?”
biblestudy.org/bibleref/meaning-of-numbers-in-bible/6and7.html

The Lutheran position is not that the additional books contained in the Catholic canon, commonly referred to as the Apocrypha, are to be disregarded, or that they are necessarily not scripture. Our position is that they are valuable for Christian knowledge and growth, and indeed Luther encouraged their study. They just do not, in our opinion, meet the strict standards for canonical inclusion (apostolic authorship, widespread usage, etc.) to the degree that others do. And, being that we subscribe to sola scriptura, we have to be very careful about what exactly that scriptura consists of.

Furthermore, the canon, for Lutherans at least, is not closed. There has never been a ‘protestant council’ where we sat down and decided what’s in the canon and what isn’t and closed the book on it. In theory, if a new book appeared that met the requirements, we could add it to the canon (obviously that’s probably not going to happen, but the point is that we have at no point said what is and what isn’t.) The point is, as we learn at the end of John, “these things have been written that you might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and by believing you may have life in his name.” (20:31) Ultimately, the point of all Scripture, Old and New Testaments, is to point to Christ and, by the power of the Spirit, bring us to faith in the promise of the Messiah, the promise which has been fulfilled in the person and work of Christ Jesus.

Personally, I cannot see someone deciding that Baruch and Tobit are on the same plane as Genesis, Exodus, Isaiah, Matthew, and Romans. That said, I can’t say definitively that Baruch and Tobit are not the word of God; at the same time, I can’t say that they are, and the idea of creating doctrines based on the Apocrypha seems dangerous.

 

[elvisman]

Yes. It is a summary of the Law and the Prophets. Prophets…plural. Its not a direct citation and the wording is not that similiar. But absolutely, the meaning and message is the same. But it is not a case of literary dependence. As I said before, the Deuterocanonicals are not directly quoted in the NT. Can you give an example of where they are? Look, I have read Catholic authors on this topic. The most you get is some possible allusions but no quotes. Now, what else do you wish to discuss?

You keep making the same charge that the Deuterocanonicals are not quoted in the NT. I challenged you to disprove the list - then I chisled it down to just a few.**

So far - you have only addressed two. You brought up some pretty good arguments, although I still I disagree with you.

You still have a few to go. Please address them in order:

*1. Eph. 6:13-17 – when Paul speaks of the armor of God, the helmet, breastplate, sword and shield – he is referencing *Wis. 5:17-20.

1. Matt. 16:18 – What Jesus’ says about “power of death” and “gates of Hades” is from Wisdom 16:13. **

3. Luke 1:52*** – Mary’s response to Elizabeth (the Magnificat) addressing “the mighty falling from their thrones and replaced by lowly” is from Sirach 10:14****. **

*4. Heb 11:35 - Paul talks about what happens to the mother and her sons and how they are martyred in 2 Macc. 7:1-42.

 

[BrianH]

**You keep making the same charge that the Deuterocanonicals are not quoted in the NT. I challenged you to disprove the list - then I chisled it down to just a few.

So far - you have only addressed two. You brought up some pretty good arguments, although I still I disagree with you.

You still have a few to go. Please address them in order:

1. Eph. 6:13-17* – when Paul speaks of the armor of God, the helmet, breastplate, sword and shield – he is referencing *Wis. 5:17-20.

1. Matt. 16:18 – What Jesus’ says about “power of death” and “gates of Hades” is from Wisdom 16:13.

3. Luke 1:52*** – Mary’s response to Elizabeth (the Magnificat) addressing “the mighty falling from their thrones and replaced by lowly” is from Sirach 10:14. ***

4. Heb 11:35* - Paul talks about what happens to the mother and her sons and how they are martyred in *2 Macc. 7:1-42.

Matt. 16:18 – What Jesus’ says about “power of death” and “gates of Hades” is from Wisdom 16:13.

The power of death is not mentioned in Matthew 16:18. How can it be from Wisdom 16:13 if it is not even found in Matthew 16:18?

Mat 16:18 And I also say to you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build My church, and the gates of Hades shall not prevail against it.

Matthew actually uses a phrase first found in Isa 38:10 I said, "In the prime of my life I shall go to the gates of Sheol;
It is also found in Job 38:17 Have the gates of death been revealed to you? Or have you seen the doors of the shadow of death?

The phrase Gates of Hell. Gates of Shoel is used much earlier than Wisdom in a book written hundreds of years earlier.
But the phrase you quoted is misleading. It says that Matthew 16:18 says something it does not. Why would the person say that? Seriously. I know you are using a source but that was either sloppy on their part or intended to trick.

 

[TriuneUnity]

Not all Catholic Bibles of that time were in Latin but that is a tangent so let us leave that for now…
Was there anything like commentary or other demarkations??? Can you think of how Martin Luther’s edition might have varied from the Catholic Bibles in other ways???

Luther wrote prefaces to each of the Biblical books. You are right that it was not the only non-Latin Bible. The exception would have been the Gutenberg. The Latin Vulgate was still the “official” version, however.

 

[answermethis]

Luther wrote prefaces to each of the Biblical books. You are right that it was not the only non-Latin Bible. The exception would have been the Gutenberg. The Latin Vulgate was still the “official” version, however.

I will continue to put the issue of other vernacular Catholic Bible additions circa Martin Luther on the back burner…

Can you please summerize ALL of the features of Martin Luther’s bible that differed from the Catholic Bible of the time so I can see them all in one place?:knight1:

 

[answermethis]

Were you able to answer my question so I can get back to my brother…
Where is there a resource to prove that the Protocanonical books can be ascribed authority by the rules laid out for the Deuterocanonical books to have authority.:knight1: