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

[BrianH]

**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? **

The issue of the Deuterocanonicals became more of an issue with the Reformation,like it or not! The early Christian Church used the LXX and even my NIV Study Bible states it. Ever heard of the Dead Sea Scrolls? Do some research and let me know if there is any relationship there?

So it has to be an exact quote in order for it to legit? Care to show me where Jesus only adhered to a 39 OT canon? You cannot because there was not set canon during Jesus time. The Sadducees only stuck to the 5 books of Moses and the Pharisees followed more than just 5 books. Protestants act as though Jesus only followed the current Jew/Protestant canon and no where does scripture support such a belief.

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?

 

[Nicea325]

**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. **

Same is applied to the Jewish/Protestant canon. During Jesus life time there was no ‘set’ canon.

**As far as the exact OT canon of Christ, that is why we are having this discussion. **

Yup!

**While the evidence has support on both sides, I tend to be in the mainstream and say we simply do not know. **

What evidence that supports both sides?

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.

Care to provide some scholarship work from Jewish,Protestant,Catholic and Orthodox? If I am correct,that is not what I once read.

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

That it was not such a big issue until the Reformation. Frankly, I could careless if Protestants want to adhere to a Jewish canon. I rather stick to what the ealy church used as their Bible.

 

[BrianH]

Same is applied to the Jewish/Protestant canon. During Jesus life time there was no ‘set’ canon.

I do not know if there was. The evidence is mixed in my view.

What evidence that supports both sides?

The evidence to support the Deuterocanoncial revolve around the approval of them by the majority of patristic writers around the 4th century and the local synods that approved them. Although not all local synods did. For example, The council of Laodicea which was before Hippo and Carthage approved some but not all reflecting possibly a shift to their acceptance around this time.
It is the argument from antiquity essentially. Why would a council not approve these if they had always been accepted? In his book, Why Catholic Bibles are Bigger, other patristic writers opposed to them are cited as well. This starts to disapate once again around the 375-425 range but existed before.

The arguments against them include from the book Roman Catholics and Evangelicals: agreements and differences include:

1. The lack of citations by Philo.
2. A very specific list of the canon given by Josephus.
3. Jewish teachers teach the prophetic line ended in the fourth century.
4. There are no direct citations in the NT.
5. No lists support them until the fourth century. Earlier lists, like cited above, reject most of them. Once again, if they were always accepted, the earliest evidence is mixed.
6. Etc etc

Care to provide some scholarship work from Jewish,Protestant,Catholic and Orthodox? If I am correct,that is not what I once read.

Bruce Metzgers book will contain all three of these scholars and reflect the arguments. Its called the Canon debate I believe.

That it was not such a big issue until the Reformation. Frankly, I could careless if Protestants want to adhere to a Jewish canon. I rather stick to what the ealy church used as their Bible.

Goodness yes it was a big issue! Even the book Why Catholic Bibles are Bigger reflects a lot of this debate but other less apologetically oriented books address this as well as I cited the Metzger book above. It includes a section on this from a Catholic scholar that is quite balance, Daniel Harrington I believe once again.

 

[Subrosa]

The Palestinian canon always included only 39 books. That didn’t happen “long after the church was established.” I assume you refer to the council of Jamnia, which doesn’t have much evidence that it ever existed, let alone was it the official Jewish ruling on the canon.

Hi TriuneUnity. The peace of Christ be with you.

The problem is that the early church used the Alexandrian canon. The Eastern Orthodox, Coptic, Armenian and Catholic churches all use it today, as do others from that era.

Think about this - if the, let’s say “controversial”, books where not in use, then Martin Luther would not have objected to them, simply because they were not there to object to. He objected to the things he disagreed with that are in the books, obviously, but they had to be there for him to make the objection to in the first place.

Now, let me ask you this - if the whole Church took about 400 years to decide which books were canonical, and decided over a series of 5 or 6 councils on which books they were, by what authority did Martin Luther remove the books? What gave him the right to do so?

Also, think about this - whether or not the Council of Jamnia exists, the fact is that the Palestinian canon does not include these books. But the books were used during Jesus’ time in Jerusalem. We know this because The Jewish scholars ordered by Ptolomy II to translate the Jewish holy books into Greek (The Septuagint) obtained them from Jerusalem, including the deuterocanon, which are included in the Septuagint.

The Irony is that the books were taken out of the Palestinian canon because they were so instrumental to the spread of Christianity. The Palestinian Canon reflects Judaism, which has rejected Christ. For instance, in many synogogues these people are taught that there is no afterlife, no resurrection.

But clearly in the book the Wisdom of Solomon it states…
Wisdom 3

1] But the souls of the righteous are in the hand of God,
and no torment will ever touch them.
2] In the eyes of the foolish they seemed to have died,
and their departure was thought to be an affliction,
3] and their going from us to be their destruction;
but they are at peace.
4] For though in the sight of men they were punished,
their hope is full of immortality.

This is certainly a Christian doctrine, but completely removed from the Palestinian canon, which the Protestant churches use.

Subrosa

 

[answermethis]

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.

 

[Benadam]

One problem with that analysis; what is the “memory of the Church”; this pertains to individuals, not a magisterium.

 

[boeck249]

Remember Matthew was written especially for the Jews of Palestine. Greek was considered a foreign tongue. That is why it was written entirely in Aramaic. Yet most protestant insist on studying it in Greek. Next time someone mentions that they have studied the bible in it original Greek, ask them why would study something in Greek was not written entirely in Greek. What verse in the bible indicates which books belong in the Bible?

 

[Dancelittleewok]

I have a 1611 edition with those books; it is not a question if the books existed, we know they do, but if they are the WORD, if they are, then we should not believe anything God has said because these books, which were used as “devotionals”, not inspired of God, contain errors and that is easily proved. the Catholic Church allowed their priests at one time to teach then as devotionals or spiritual lessons or to treat them as Scripture; it was their choice. It was until later that it became etched in stone in order to combat the reformers on issues like praying to saints for example…:dancing:

I thought about what you said and it doesn’t add up. Since you believe that Deutrocanonical were merely devotionals in the 1611 edition but not the Word of God and contain errors, then why did the KJV publishers put them in? If these are devotionals, then it can believed that KJV publishers thought the readers faith could be strengthened by something that contains errors and isn’t the Word of God. Since you believe that only Catholic added them to combat the Reformers, then you must admit that KJV publishers–the arguably the most well-known Protestant version–are in league with them as well, wanting believers to read uninspired, error-ridden books that aren’t the Word of God as a devotional.

Sorry, my friend, but your argument proves too much.

 

[TriuneUnity]

Hi TriuneUnity. The peace of Christ be with you.

The problem is that the early church used the Alexandrian canon. The Eastern Orthodox, Coptic, Armenian and Catholic churches all use it today, as do others from that era.

Think about this - if the, let’s say “controversial”, books where not in use, then Martin Luther would not have objected to them, simply because they were not there to object to. He objected to the things he disagreed with that are in the books, obviously, but they had to be there for him to make the objection to in the first place.

Luther disagreed with the various books he raised objection to for a variety of reasons, Subrosa. It would be simplistic to say that he did so merely because he disagreed with a certain doctrine that it taught. For example, Catholics will argue that Luther objected to the Macc. because of purgatory. However, the first public statement of Luther’s that raises objections about Macc. was during a debate with John Eck. Luther still believed in purgatory at this point in time and doesn’t raise any issue of purgatory in that debate. In many cases, Luther objected to a book because of the length of time it took to be accepted or because of objections by various church fathers. One must look at his reasons for objecting to a specific book, rather than just carte blanche assumption.

Now, let me ask you this - if the whole Church took about 400 years to decide which books were canonical, and decided over a series of 5 or 6 councils on which books they were, by what authority did Martin Luther remove the books? What gave him the right to do so?

Luther never removed them. His objections to the canonicity of a book were entirely his own opinion. His opinions were also shared by numerous Catholics of his own time (such as Cardinal Cajetan), as well as prior.

 

[answermethis]

Luther disagreed with the various books he raised objection to for a variety of reasons, Subrosa. It would be simplistic to say that he did so merely because he disagreed with a certain doctrine that it taught. For example, Catholics will argue that Luther objected to the Macc. because of purgatory. However, the first public statement of Luther’s that raises objections about Macc. was during a debate with John Eck. Luther still believed in purgatory at this point in time and doesn’t raise any issue of purgatory in that debate. In many cases, Luther objected to a book because of the length of time it took to be accepted or because of objections by various church fathers. One must look at his reasons for objecting to a specific book, rather than just carte blanche assumption.

Luther never removed them. His objections to the canonicity of a book were entirely his own opinion. His opinions were also shared by numerous Catholics of his own time (such as Cardinal Cajetan), as well as prior.

By what authority did Martin Luther tweek the Bible in any way, shape or form?

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:

 

[TriuneUnity]

By what authority did Martin Luther tweek the Bible in any way, shape or form?

How did he tweek it?

 

[Dancelittleewok]

Luther disagreed with the various books he raised objection to for a variety of reasons, Subrosa. It would be simplistic to say that he did so merely because he disagreed with a certain doctrine that it taught. For example, Catholics will argue that Luther objected to the Macc. because of purgatory. However, the first public statement of Luther’s that raises objections about Macc. was during a debate with John Eck. Luther still believed in purgatory at this point in time and doesn’t raise any issue of purgatory in that debate. In many cases, Luther objected to a book because of the length of time it took to be accepted or because of objections by various church fathers. One must look at his reasons for objecting to a specific book, rather than just carte blanche assumption.

Luther never removed them. His objections to the canonicity of a book were entirely his own opinion. His opinions were also shared by numerous Catholics of his own time (such as Cardinal Cajetan), as well as prior.

Who did remove them then?

 

[answermethis]

How did he tweek it?

This question first since it has been ignored the longest. It shouldn’t be to hard to answer.

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:

 

[TriuneUnity]

Who did remove them then?

I may be wrong on this, but the first non-Roman Catholic Bible to exclude the deuterocanonicals were later editions of the KJV. This began to occur with printings as early as 1640. Since 1826 they have been excluded from all editions of the KJV.

 

[answermethis]

I may be wrong on this, but the first non-Roman Catholic Bible to exclude the deuterocanonicals were later editions of the KJV. This began to occur with printings as early as 1640. Since 1826 they have been excluded from all editions of the KJV.

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. :knight2:

 

[Dancelittleewok]

I may be wrong on this, but the first non-Roman Catholic Bible to exclude the deuterocanonicals were later editions of the KJV. This began to occur with printings as early as 1640. Since 1826 they have been excluded from all editions of the KJV.

I’ve been thinking: It’s really a matter if you take it as a given that these are uninspired or inspired Word of God are not. If it’s uninspired–say like the Gospel of Thomas–then it would make sense to remove them. If it’s inspired, then you are violating canon and unjustly removing the Word of God from the Word of God.

To me, this debate is not really if the deutrocanonicals added or removed but rather are they uninspired or not? But on the other hand, if you have the “added” or “removed” mindset then this questions is already answered.

 

[TriuneUnity]

I’ve been thinking: It’s really a matter if you take it as a given that these are uninspired or inspired Word of God are not. If it’s uninspired–say like the Gospel of Thomas–then it would make sense to remove them. If it’s inspired, then you are violating canon and unjustly removing the Word of God from the Word of God.

To me, this debate is not really if the deutrocanonicals added or removed but rather are they uninspired or not? But on the other hand, if you have the “added” or “removed” mindset then this questions is already answered.

Very true, Dance. That is ultimately what it comes down to. However, even if they are uninspired, they may still prove useful, like any other human work.

For the sake of addressing Luther, specifically, here are some of his introductions to various deuterocanonical works.

The Book of Judith: “If one could prove from established and reliable histories that the events in Judith really happened, it would be a noble and fine book, and should properly be in the Bible. Yet it hardly squares with the historical accounts of the Holy Scriptures, especially Jeremiah and Ezra… Thus as to both time and name, error and doubt are still present, so that I cannot reconcile the accounts at all.
Some people think this is not an account of historical events but rather a beautiful religious fiction by a holy and ingenious man who wanted to sketch and depict therein the fortunes of the whole Jewish people and the victory God always miraculously granted them over all their enemies… Such an interpretation strikes me as fancy, and I think that the poet deliberately and painstakingly inserted the errors of time and name in order to remind the reader that the book should be taken and understood as that kind of a sacred, religious, composition.
Now the names fit into this sort of an interpretation extraordinarily well. [E.g.,] Judith means Judea, that is the Jewish people… It may even be that in those days they dramatized literature like this, just as among us the Passion and other sacred stories are performed… Therefore this is a fine, good, holy, useful book, well worth reading by us Christians. For the words spoken by the persons in it should be understood as though they were uttered in the Holy Spirit by a spiritual, holy poet or prophet who, in presenting such persons in his play, preaches to us through them.”

 

[answermethis]

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.:tiphat:

 

[TriuneUnity]

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.:tiphat:

Sorry, answer for not getting to this sooner. There are numerous sources which point to discussions of the DC books, their authority, the standard for authority within Scripture, etc. I will try to find various resources for you, but I am not a walking dictionary of theological issues LoL.

 

[answermethis]

Sorry, answer for not getting to this sooner. There are numerous sources which point to discussions of the DC books, their authority, the standard for authority within Scripture, etc. I will try to find various resources for you, but I am not a walking dictionary of theological issues LoL.

I will look forward to your answer. With the complexities of these threads, a simple answer can get overlooked and I wanted to be able to fully understand my brother’s position. I am sure there are multiple sources that will show how each of the Protocanonical books is so referenced and give the applicable quotations. I will keep checking in periodically.:knight1: