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

  • Thread starter Thread starter WesleyF
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
*Quote:
Originally Posted by Nicea325
I said references not DIRECT quotations. As stated,approximately 350 references made to the Old Testament by the New Testament writers, over 300 refer to the Septuagint. *

Okay, but the best that can be offered in the way of references is similarity in language. That is not a reference. The apostles quoting from Greek translations of Scripture when writing in Greek has no real bearing on the issue of the deuterocanonicals. The Septuagint texts they used are still books which exist in the Hebrew canon, so of course they were going to accept translations of them. The point being, they never quoted from the deuterocanonicals.

It is not reference? Than what do you call it? Draw of the luck? Sorry,but that is reference and even Catholic,Orthodox and Protestant scholarship I have read will differ with you. As I stated even my NIV Study Bible mentions reference to the LXX. Sorry,like it or not it is what it is.

Quote:
Okay…and? So by making refences to other texts it proves the other 7 were never used?

So it was okay to make references to the other text (39) but not the 7?

**It’s hard to see that they accepted the seven as Scripture being as how they never refer to them as Scripture. To say they accepted the DC books as inspired simply based on the fact that they quoted from the Septuagint is, at best, conjecture. **

Who never refers to them as Scripture? The Jews who disliked the Christians who were using their books? Protestants who rejected them as well after 1500 years of usage by the church? Of course! But early church history says other wise and even my NIV Study Bible makes the same declaration. And more conjecture to believe or assume they were never quoted by Jesus or the Apostles. Many things are obscure.Scripture was not written in such a format for us to say: Okay it is a fact that Jesus NEVER quoted or used the LXX.

No where does Jesus adhere only to a 39 book OT canon.

As I said,if the 39 OT canon was set in stone prior to Jesus,I would like to read the ancient sources confirming it as an historical fact?

Strange of the Apostles to never bother or mention such a thing,which would seem vital for instruction?
 
QUOTE=BrianH;6512896]Apostolic teaching that these are direct references or allusions…nah…that does not exist.
Click to expand...
Matthew 13: 14
Isaiah’s prophecy is fulfilled in them, which says: ‘You shall indeed hear but not understand you shall indeed look but never see.
15
Gross is the heart of this people, they will hardly hear with their ears, they have closed their eyes, lest they see with their eyes and hear with their ears and understand with their heart and be converted, and I heal them.’
 
TriuneUnity said:
I base the veracity of the Scriptures on the veracity of Christ. The truthfulness of any section of Scripture, whether Old or New Testaments relies on the authority of the word of Christ, which is the word of God. I do not trust bishops, popes, councils, or theologians when it comes to that matter.
Click to expand...
OK So all of the Protocanonical books had quotes in the New Testament that are acceptible as quotes…by Christ. Is that documented any where I can study?? In the New Testament is that rule stated??? Where can I see that verse, please.
 
40.png
Gabriel_of_12:
Matthew 13: 14
Isaiah’s prophecy is fulfilled in them, which says: ‘You shall indeed hear but not understand you shall indeed look but never see.
15
Gross is the heart of this people, they will hardly hear with their ears, they have closed their eyes, lest they see with their eyes and hear with their ears and understand with their heart and be converted, and I heal them.’

I believe that would be your private interpretation. Or does your Church officially teach that?
 
Nicea325 said:
It is not reference? Than what do you call it? Draw of the luck? Sorry,but that is reference and even Catholic,Orthodox and Protestant scholarship I have read will differ with you. As I stated even my NIV Study Bible mentions reference to the LXX. Sorry,like it or not it is what it is.
Click to expand...
No. Similarity in language is not a reference, sorry. What you just posted above has probably been said similarly in other threads. That doesn’t mean you are referencing them!
Who never refers to them as Scripture? The Jews who disliked the Christians who were using their books?
Click to expand...
No. Jesus or the apostles.
No where does Jesus adhere only to a 39 book OT canon.
Click to expand...
And no where does He adhere to a 46 book canon, either. So we are left with which books He quoted as being Scripture.
Strange of the Apostles to never bother or mention such a thing,which would seem vital for instruction?
Click to expand...
Not really. Given that the Jews of Palestine did not accept them, and as Brian has pointed out… no one knows which deuterocanonical books were in the Septuagint when the apostles were writing their epistles and gospels. If a book existed in the Septuagint then that the Catholic church doesn’t recognize now, would the Church automatically accept it?
 
answermethis said:
OK So all of the Protocanonical books had quotes in the New Testament that are acceptible as quotes…by Christ. Is that documented any where I can study?? In the New Testament is that rule stated??? Where can I see that verse, please.
Click to expand...
Can you rephrase that, answer? I am not sure what you are asking.
 
BrianH said:
I remember reading that the Catholic canon is not officially closed…but I did not recall if it was conjecture or not.
So in your view, what set the canon? The local regional synods?:confused:
Click to expand...
That’s funny:D

Here is a brief over view of history of the Catholic bible books; Let be known why the books of bible were canonized by the Catholic Church. The bible was canonized for the Catholic Liturgical Mass.
  1. Various Bishops developed lists of inspired books
  2. Mileto Bishop of Sardis, C.175 ad
  3. St. Irenaeus, Bishop of Lyons, 185ad
  4. Eusebius, Bishop of Caesarea 325 ad
  5. As soon as the persecutions of Christians and destroying Christian books, in 303 ad, by the Roman Emperor Diocletian died down, the Church began to settle the Canon once and for all.
  6. All the Churches great scholars concentrated on the question as never before.
  7. by 367 ad. St. Athanasius of Alexandria published for the first time the definitive list including all 27 books that we know today.
  8. St. Athanasius is quoted by saying “let no one add to them or take anything away from them”
9.St. Athanasius Canon was accepted widely almost immediately. (Although 3 Corinthians kept showing up for surprisingly a long time.

NEW AND OLD TESTAMENT CANONIZED

1.St. Damasus I in 382 ad adopted the canon in the decretal of Gelasius
  1. This act prompted by the Council of Rome to write a decree listing the present OT/NT canon of 73 books
3.The council of Hippo in North Africa in 393 ad confirmed the approved 73 book canon of inspired books.

4.The council of Carthage in 397 ad approved the same canon (VERY IMPORTANT HERE THIS IS THE COUNCIL THAT MANY PROTESTANTS TO THE CATHOLIC FAITH AND EVANGELICALS TAKE AS THE AUTHORITY FOR THE NT CANON OF BOOKS.

5.Pope St. InnocentI (401-417) In 405ad approved the 73 books canon and closed the canon of the bible.
  1. It is during this time St. Jerome a world renowned triangular scholar on record, new more about Hebrew scripture than anyone else alive. The Jewish hierarchy used to visit him in the desert and consult him about their writings. He alone preserved many of the Jewish prejamnian texts that Judaism had destroyed.
7.Under the urging of Pope St. Damascus set out to make a complete standard Latin translation from the Hebrew and Aramaic texts as well as against the original Greek.

8.St.Jerome completed in 35 years by 426 its called the VULGATE (common language) its old testament is the most complete and accurate record of the scripture that Christ himself used.
  1. Finally in 419ad the second council of Carthage again confirmed the Canon and this time
  2. (Pope Boniface Promulgated it officially, The New Testament as we know it today was born.
  3. Promulgation is the act of announcing a law publicly, with the effect of obliging its observance from the Date expressed.
  4. The Vulgate translation is the official Latin Bible today.
  5. After the Vulgate for 1000 years the story of the bible becomes a story of language.
14 The Canon of the Bible officially determined in the 4th century by Catholic councils and Popes.
  1. Historically the Catholic Church used her authority to determine which books belonged to the bible and to assure us that everything in the bible is inspired of God, and contain divine truth.
  2. The bible is a Catholic book, the NT was written, copied and collected by Catholic Christians, and thus it is from the Catholic Church that Protestants have a bible at all.
 
Nicea
Lets be clear. No one is saying he did not quote the LXX. The LXX did not always contain the DC. Some where composed quite late. We do not know when the DC were added to the LXX. What is being said is that Christ or His apostles did not quote the DC.
 
Gabriel_of_12 said:
That’s funny:D

Here is a brief over view of history of the Catholic bible books; Let be known why the books of bible were canonized by the Catholic Church. The bible was canonized for the Catholic Liturgical Mass.
  1. Various Bishops developed lists of inspired books
  2. Mileto Bishop of Sardis, C.175 ad
  3. St. Irenaeus, Bishop of Lyons, 185ad
  4. Eusebius, Bishop of Caesarea 325 ad
  5. As soon as the persecutions of Christians and destroying Christian books, in 303 ad, by the Roman Emperor Diocletian died down, the Church began to settle the Canon once and for all.
  6. All the Churches great scholars concentrated on the question as never before.
  7. by 367 ad. St. Athanasius of Alexandria published for the first time the definitive list including all 27 books that we know today.
  8. St. Athanasius is quoted by saying “let no one add to them or take anything away from them”
9.St. Athanasius Canon was accepted widely almost immediately. (Although 3 Corinthians kept showing up for surprisingly a long time.

NEW AND OLD TESTAMENT CANONIZED

1.St. Damasus I in 382 ad adopted the canon in the decretal of Gelasius
  1. This act prompted by the Council of Rome to write a decree listing the present OT/NT canon of 73 books
3.The council of Hippo in North Africa in 393 ad confirmed the approved 73 book canon of inspired books.

4.The council of Carthage in 397 ad approved the same canon (VERY IMPORTANT HERE THIS IS THE COUNCIL THAT MANY PROTESTANTS TO THE CATHOLIC FAITH AND EVANGELICALS TAKE AS THE AUTHORITY FOR THE NT CANON OF BOOKS.

5.Pope St. InnocentI (401-417) In 405ad approved the 73 books canon and closed the canon of the bible.
  1. It is during this time St. Jerome a world renowned triangular scholar on record, new more about Hebrew scripture than anyone else alive. The Jewish hierarchy used to visit him in the desert and consult him about their writings. He alone preserved many of the Jewish prejamnian texts that Judaism had destroyed.
7.Under the urging of Pope St. Damascus set out to make a complete standard Latin translation from the Hebrew and Aramaic texts as well as against the original Greek.

8.St.Jerome completed in 35 years by 426 its called the VULGATE (common language) its old testament is the most complete and accurate record of the scripture that Christ himself used.
  1. Finally in 419ad the second council of Carthage again confirmed the Canon and this time
  2. (Pope Boniface Promulgated it officially, The New Testament as we know it today was born.
  3. Promulgation is the act of announcing a law publicly, with the effect of obliging its observance from the Date expressed.
  4. The Vulgate translation is the official Latin Bible today.
  5. After the Vulgate for 1000 years the story of the bible becomes a story of language.
14 The Canon of the Bible officially determined in the 4th century by Catholic councils and Popes.
  1. Historically the Catholic Church used her authority to determine which books belonged to the bible and to assure us that everything in the bible is inspired of God, and contain divine truth.
  2. The bible is a Catholic book, the NT was written, copied and collected by Catholic Christians, and thus it is from the Catholic Church that Protestants have a bible at all.
Click to expand...
LOL
Where did you get this? Why did number 9 occur IF number 5 closed the canon? Meeting just to meet…
but first, where did you copy this from?
 
BrianH said:
Nicea
Lets be clear. No one is saying he did not quote the LXX. The LXX did not always contain the DC. Some where composed quite late. We do not know when the DC were added to the LXX. What is being said is that Christ or His apostles did not quote the DC.
Click to expand...
Is what books Jesus quoted from what should determine what should be in the canon?

I have a friend who is protestant and used the same argument. Then he said there is one book that is in the protestant canon that Jesus didn’t quote. I can’t remember which. I’ll have to try to find it.
 
lastinline said:
Is what books Jesus quoted from what should determine what should be in the canon?

I have a friend who is protestant and used the same argument. Then he said there is one book that is in the protestant canon that Jesus didn’t quote. I can’t remember which. I’ll have to try to find it.
Click to expand...
There are several books not referenced in the NT I thought. I was addressing the weak arguments currently being used for the DC. Although not all of them are weak, trying to seperate the wheat from the tares.
 
BrianH said:
LOL
Where did you get this? Why did number 9 occur IF number 5 closed the canon? Meeting just to meet…
but first, where did you copy this from?
Click to expand...
Iam trying not to laugh at your ignorance here; :DWhat you are seeing are the Catholic scholars refuting the already canon of scripture, but the gates of hell never prevailed over what the Holy Spirit confirmed to the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church in assisting her canonizing all the books of the bible.
Click to expand...
 
Gabriel_of_12 said:
Iam trying not to laugh at your ignorance here; :DWhat you are seeing are the Catholic scholars refuting the already canon of scripture, but the gates of hell never prevailed over what the Holy Spirit confirmed to the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church in assisting her canonizing all the books of the bible.
Click to expand...
What link did you use? And once again, if 5 closed the canon, why did they meet again?
You can laugh at my ignorance or you can answer my questions…or you can do both 😉
 
TriuneUnity said:
Can you rephrase that, answer? I am not sure what you are asking.
Click to expand...
My apologies, I am trying to understand.
You accept scripture based on Christ’s authority. How are each book of the Protocanonical scirpitures assigned that authority? Since no official “canon” existed, Christ would need to have quoted from each of the Protocanonical scriptures for that authority to be binding…yes??..otherwise how is the authority known?
 
Gabriel_of_12 said:
This is interesting; what can you tell me about 1Esdras?
Click to expand...
Hippo and Carthage stated that 1 Esdras and 2 Esdras were canonical, referring to the Septuagint version of 1 and 2 Esdras, the Bible their Latin version was based upon. In that version, 1 Esdras was the apocryphal additions to Ezra and Nehemiah not found in the Hebrew Bible, while 2 Esdras was the canonical Jewish version of Ezra/Nehemiah. The Jews only acknowledged Ezra and Nehemiah which they combined into one book. This was 2 Esdras in the Septuagint version. It was Jerome, who, out of a desire to adhere to the Hebrew canon, separated Ezra and Nehemiah into two books, calling them 1 Esdras and 2 Esdras respectively, thereby replacing the Septuagint I Esdras with the Hebrew Ezra and calling it I Esdras. This became standard for the Vulgate and the basis upon which Trent declared the Septuagint I Esdras to be noncanonical. 1 Esdras in the Septuagint then became 3 Esdras in the Vulgate and the other Apocryphal apocalyptic work of 3 Esdras became 4 Esdras in the Vulgate. In the earliest Septuagint manuscripts, Codex Vaticanus (early 4th century) and Codex Alexandrinus (early 5th century), I Esdras is listed as one book and Ezra/Nehemiah is listed separately as a second book. The New Catholic Encyclopedia confirms these facts:
Code: 
    **Four books are attributed to Esdras (Ezra in the Hebrew spelling). The distinction between these books is confusing because of the manuscript and denominational differences:
Vulgate (Catholic) Septuagint
1 Esdras 2 Esdras (Ezra/Nehemiah)*
2 Esdras 1 Esdras
3 Esdras 3 Esdras
4 Esdras

Hebrew Text Protestant/Jewish
Ezra* Ezra*
Nehemiah* Nehemiah*
Missing 1 Esdras
Missing 2 Esdras
Code: 
*Canonical Books

   III Esdras (I Esdras in the Septuagint) was certainly compiled before A.D. 90, for the Jewish historian Josephus quoted from it (Ant. 11); but its exclusive concern with Jewish interests puts its composition before the Christian era, closer to 100 B.C. Until the 5th century, Christians very frequently ranked 3 Esdras with the Canonical books; it is found in many LXX MSS (Septuagint manuscripts) and in the Latin Vulgate (Vulg) of St. Jerome. Protestants therefore include 3 Esdras with other apocrypha (deuterocanonical) books such as Tobit or Judith. The Council of Trent definitively removed it from the canon (New Catholic Encyclopedia (New York: McGraw Hill, 1967), Volume II, Bible, III, pp. 396-397).**
Herbert Edward Ryle gives the following history of the differences in the books of Esdras as represented in the Septuagint and the Vulgate:

In the lists of the Old Testament which include the Apocryphal books, an element of confusion is caused by the Apocryphal Ezra, our First Book of Esdras. In the LXX Version, the Old Latin, and the Syriac, this Apocryphal Greek Book was placed, out of regard probably for chronology, before the Hebrew Ezra, and was called the First of Ezra…while our Ezra and Nehemiah appeared as one book, with the title of the Second of Ezra. In his translation of the Vulgate, Jerome did not recognize the Canonicity of the Apocryphal Books. He translated the Hebrew Ezra (our Ezra and Nehemiah) as one book with the title of Ezra; but he acquiesced in the division of the Canonical Ezra into two books, for he speaks of the Apocryphal books as the third and fourth of Ezra…In the Vulgate, accordingly, Ezra and Nehemiah were called the First and Second of Ezra; the Apocryphal Greek Ezra was called the Third of Ezra; the Apocalyptic work, the Fourth of Ezra…The influence of the Vulgate caused the names applied in the books in that version to be generally adopted in the West. At the Council of Trent, Ezra and Nehemiah are called the first book of Ezra and the second of Ezra which is called Nehemiah (Herbert Edward Ryle, Ezra and Nehemiah (Cambridge: Cambridge University, 1907), pp. xiii-xiv).

These references make it clear that the Septuagint version of 1 and 2 Esdras was different from the one decreed by Trent. The New Catholic Encyclopedia (quoted above) states that for the first five centuries many fathers of the Church regarded 1 Esdras of the Septuagint to be canonical because they followed the Septuagint. Jerome was the first to separate Ezra and Nehemiah into separate books and to assign the title of I Esdras to Ezra and 2 Esdras to Nehemiah in order to conform to the Hebrew canon. The Septuagint version of 1 Esdras is quoted, for example, by Justin Martyr, Origen, Clement of Alexandria, Eusebius, Athanasius, Gregory of Nazianzus, Ephrem Syrus, Basil the Great, Chrysostom, Cyprian, Ambrose, Theophilus of Antioch, Dionysius of Alexandria, Augustine and Prosper of Aquaitaine. Augustine quoted from Septuagint I Esdras in his work The City of God (Book XVIII.36). Thus, when the Council of Carthage gave its list of canonical books for the Old Testament it followed the Septuagint translation. In referring to Esdras I and II it was referring to I and II Esdras of the Septuagint. And when Carthage sent these decrees to Rome for confirmation, it was these books which were confirmed as canonical. Innocent I affirmed this in his letter to Exuperius and they were later included in the decrees of Popes Gelasius and Hormisdas. This contradicts the decree passed by Trent which followed Jerome in assigning I and II Esdras to the canonical Hebrew books of Ezra and Nehemiah respectively. Therefore, Trent declared noncanonical what the Council of Carthage and the bishops of Rome, in the fourth, fifth and sixth centuries, declared to be canonical.
 
answermethis said:
My apologies, I am trying to understand.
You accept scripture based on Christ’s authority. How are each book of the Protocanonical scirpitures assigned that authority? Since no official “canon” existed, Christ would need to have quoted from each of the Protocanonical scriptures for that authority to be binding…yes??..otherwise how is the authority known?
Click to expand...
Well, with the understanding that only one person has the authority to declare what is and is not canonical. That would be the Author, who happened to be Christ. When Jesus quotes a section of the Old Testament as Scripture, that immediately makes it Scripture. Since Christ is speaking through the apostles as they write the NT, it would mean when they quote Scripture, it also assigns this value to it.
 
Also, who decides what qualifies as a scripture having the “Authority of Christ” (i.e. direct quote)? Off to Mass. Will look forward to the clarification.:knight2:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top