Martin Luther "edited" The Word of God...

[Pwrlftr]

I’ve provided secular and Protestant sources that you could’ve easily have read and seen that they listed the following books in The Septugaint;

Tobit,
Judith,
Wisdom of Solomon,
Wisdom of Jesus Seirach,
Baruch,
Epistle of Jeremy (sometimes considered part of Baruch), additions to Daniel (The Prayer of Azarias, the Song of the Three Children, Sosanna and Bel and the Dragon),
additions to Esther,
1 Maccabees,
2 Maccabees,
3 Maccabees,
4 Maccabees,
1 Esdras,
Odes, including the Prayer of Manasses, and
Psalm 151.

You asked, I provided. Since you are the accuser here, you have to prove that they “don’t” exist and “never” existed in The Septugaint.

You just don’t want to believe what is historically accepted by mankind…that “that” is the list of the canon of The Septugaint.

1.) The only versions of the septuagint that I am aware of are CHRISTIAN manuscripts that date only to the 4th or 5th century. Your post that quoted the wikipedia article said as much. Anyway, the Christian manuscripts we do have hardly proves what the Jews may have included in their septuagint and even offers less evidence as to what they (the Jews) thought were canonical.

FYI, the three manuscripts that we do have don’t include the same books so they aren’t identical.

Please tell me what manuscripts do we have from the early Jewish septuagint (1st century and earlier) and what books did it include? If you have already done this it should be a simple matter for you to re-post.

2.) Every scholar I have read have all said the same thing, that we don’t know what books the Jews included in their septuagint prior to the first century.

 

[Ginger2]

Here’s a great way to pretty much shut down this thread…

1. When was the doctrine of Sola Scriptura created/revealed…before or after Luther added the word “alone” in his bible?

Sola Scriptura was a doctrine created by Catholics as a means to discredit Martin Luther.

 

[2ndGen]

Sola Scriptura was a doctrine created by Catholics as a means to discredit Martin Luther.

LMCBO!

Yeah, even Jack Chick doesn’t believe that!

 

[Ginger2]

What is LMCBO?

 

[2ndGen]

What is LMCBO?

L.augh
M.y
C.atholic
B.utt
O.ff!

(My Protestant friends have adopted this acronym of course substituting the Catholic for Christian, which is finnnne by me!)

 

[sandusky]

You having probably never been told that Luther was not alone in his “addition” of the word “alone” in that verse, as the Roman Catholic writer Joseph A. Fitzmyer points out:At 3:28 Luther introduced the adv. “only” into his translation of Romans (1522), “alleyn durch den Glauben” (WAusg 7.38); cf. Aus der Bibel 1546, “alleine durch den Glauben” (WAusg, DB 7.39); also 7.3-27 (Pref. to the Epistle). See further his Sendbrief vom Dolmetschen, of 8 Sept. 1530 (WAusg 30.2 [1909], 627-49; “On Translating: An Open Letter” [LuthW 35.175-202]). Although “alleyn/alleine” finds no corresponding adverb in the Greek text, two of the points that Luther made in his defense of the added adverb were that it was demanded by the context and that sola was used in the theological tradition before him.

Robert Bellarmine listed eight earlier authors who used sola (Disputatio de controversiis: De justificatione 1.25 [Naples: G. Giuliano, 1856], 4.501-3):

Origen, Commentarius in Ep. ad Romanos, cap. 3 (PG 14.952).

Hilary, Commentarius in Matthaeum 8:6 (PL 9.961).

Basil, Hom. de humilitate 20.3 (PG 31.529C).

Ambrosiaster, In Ep. ad Romanos 3.24 (CSEL 81.1.119): “sola fide justificati sunt dono Dei,” through faith alone they have been justified by a gift of God; 4.5 (CSEL 81.1.130).

John Chrysostom, Hom. in Ep. ad Titum 3.3 (PG 62.679 [not in Greek text]).

Cyril of Alexandria, In Joannis Evangelium 10.15.7 (PG 74.368 [but alludes to Jas 2:19]).

Bernard, In Canticum serm. 22.8 (PL 183.881): “solam justificatur per fidem,” is justified by faith alone.

Theophylact, Expositio in ep. ad Galatas 3.12-13 (PG 124.988).

To these eight Lyonnet added two others (Quaestiones, 114-18):

Theodoret, Affectionum curatio 7 (PG 93.100; ed. J. Raeder [Teubner], 189.20-24).

Thomas Aquinas, Expositio in Ep. I ad Timotheum cap. 1, lect. 3 (Parma ed., 13.588): “Non est ergo in eis [moralibus et caeremonialibus legis] spes iustificationis, sed in sola fide, Rom. 3:28: Arbitramur justificari hominem per fidem, sine operibus legis” (Therefore the hope of justification is not found in them [the moral and ceremonial requirements of the law], but in faith alone, Rom 3:28: We consider a human being to be justified by faith, without the works of the law). Cf. In ep. ad Romanos 4.1 (Parma ed., 13.42a): “reputabitur fides eius, scilicet sola sine operibus exterioribus, ad iustitiam”; In ep. ad Galatas 2.4 (Parma ed., 13.397b): “solum ex fide Christi” [Opera 20.437, b41]).

See further:

Theodore of Mopsuestia, In ep. ad Galatas (ed. H. B. Swete), 1.31.15.

Marius Victorinus (ep. Pauli ad Galatas (ed. A. Locher), ad 2.15-16: “Ipsa enim fides sola iustificationem dat-et sanctificationem” (For faith itself alone gives justification and sanctification); In ep. Pauli Ephesios (ed. A. Locher), ad 2.15: “Sed sola fides in Christum nobis salus est” (But only faith in Christ is salvation for us).

Augustine, De fide et operibus, 22.40 (CSEL 41.84-85): “licet recte dici possit ad solam fidem pertinere dei mandata, si non mortua, sed viva illa intellegatur fides, quae per dilectionem operatur” (Although it can be said that God’s commandments pertain to faith alone, if it is not dead [faith], but rather understood as that live faith, which works through love”). Migne Latin Text: Venire quippe debet etiam illud in mentem, quod scriptum est, In hoc cognoscimus eum, si mandata ejus servemus. Qui dicit, Quia cognovi eum, et mandata ejus non servat, mendax est, et in hoc veritas non est (I Joan. II, 3, 4). Et ne quisquam existimet mandata ejus ad solam fidem pertinere: quanquam dicere hoc nullus est ausus, praesertim quia mandata dixit, quae ne multitudine cogitationem spargerent [Note: [Col. 0223] Sic Mss. Editi vero, cogitationes parerent.], In illis duobus tota Lex pendet et Prophetae (Matth. XXII, 40): licet recte dici possit ad solam fidem pertinere Dei mandata, si non mortua, sed viva illa intelligatur fides, quae per dilectionem operatur; tamen postea Joannes ipse aperuit quid diceret, cum ait: Hoc est mandatum ejus, ut credamus nomini Filii ejus Jesu Christi, et diligamns invicem (I Joan. III, 23) See De fide et operibus, Cap. XXII, §40, PL 40:223.

Source: Joseph A. Fitzmyer Romans, A New Translation with introduction and Commentary, The Anchor Bible Series (New York: Doubleday, 1993) 360-361.

 

[Ginger2]

L.augh
M.y
C.atholic
B.utt
O.ff!

(My Protestant friends have adopted this acronym of course substituting the Catholic for Christian, which is finnnne by me!)

Glad you appreciate my sense of humor.

 

[2ndGen]

Glad you appreciate my sense of humor.

To be totally honest, I must confess…when I first read your quote, I jumped the gun and was ready to fire off a list of objections, but that one smiley ( ) made me realize that you were playing (like when I played before with my LOL’s and people mistook my sentiments).

Thank God! I was smart enough to doublecheck your post and catch my error in time.



But I always appreciate a sense of humor, especially on a forum where the text alone (without being able to hear or see the sentiment in which it is expressed) can be so erroneously taken into the wrong direction.

 

[Pwrlftr]

You having probably never been told that Luther was not alone in his “addition” of the word “alone” in that verse, as the Roman Catholic writer Joseph A. Fitzmyer points out:At 3:28 Luther introduced the adv. “only” into his translation of Romans (1522), “alleyn durch den Glauben” (WAusg 7.38); cf. Aus der Bibel 1546, “alleine durch den Glauben” (WAusg, DB 7.39); also 7.3-27 (Pref. to the Epistle). See further his Sendbrief vom Dolmetschen, of 8 Sept. 1530 (WAusg 30.2 [1909], 627-49; “On Translating: An Open Letter” [LuthW 35.175-202]). Although “alleyn/alleine” finds no corresponding adverb in the Greek text, two of the points that Luther made in his defense of the added adverb were that it was demanded by the context and that sola was used in the theological tradition before him.

Robert Bellarmine listed eight earlier authors who used sola (Disputatio de controversiis: De justificatione 1.25 [Naples: G. Giuliano, 1856], 4.501-3):

Origen, Commentarius in Ep. ad Romanos, cap. 3 (PG 14.952).

Hilary, Commentarius in Matthaeum 8:6 (PL 9.961).

Basil, Hom. de humilitate 20.3 (PG 31.529C).

Ambrosiaster, In Ep. ad Romanos 3.24 (CSEL 81.1.119): “sola fide justificati sunt dono Dei,” through faith alone they have been justified by a gift of God; 4.5 (CSEL 81.1.130).

John Chrysostom, Hom. in Ep. ad Titum 3.3 (PG 62.679 [not in Greek text]).

Cyril of Alexandria, In Joannis Evangelium 10.15.7 (PG 74.368 [but alludes to Jas 2:19]).

Bernard, In Canticum serm. 22.8 (PL 183.881): “solam justificatur per fidem,” is justified by faith alone.

Theophylact, Expositio in ep. ad Galatas 3.12-13 (PG 124.988).

To these eight Lyonnet added two others (Quaestiones, 114-18):

Theodoret, Affectionum curatio 7 (PG 93.100; ed. J. Raeder [Teubner], 189.20-24).

Thomas Aquinas, Expositio in Ep. I ad Timotheum cap. 1, lect. 3 (Parma ed., 13.588): “Non est ergo in eis [moralibus et caeremonialibus legis] spes iustificationis, sed in sola fide, Rom. 3:28: Arbitramur justificari hominem per fidem, sine operibus legis” (Therefore the hope of justification is not found in them [the moral and ceremonial requirements of the law], but in faith alone, Rom 3:28: We consider a human being to be justified by faith, without the works of the law). Cf. In ep. ad Romanos 4.1 (Parma ed., 13.42a): “reputabitur fides eius, scilicet sola sine operibus exterioribus, ad iustitiam”; In ep. ad Galatas 2.4 (Parma ed., 13.397b): “solum ex fide Christi” [Opera 20.437, b41]).

See further:

Theodore of Mopsuestia, In ep. ad Galatas (ed. H. B. Swete), 1.31.15.

Marius Victorinus (ep. Pauli ad Galatas (ed. A. Locher), ad 2.15-16: “Ipsa enim fides sola iustificationem dat-et sanctificationem” (For faith itself alone gives justification and sanctification); In ep. Pauli Ephesios (ed. A. Locher), ad 2.15: “Sed sola fides in Christum nobis salus est” (But only faith in Christ is salvation for us).

Augustine, De fide et operibus, 22.40 (CSEL 41.84-85): “licet recte dici possit ad solam fidem pertinere dei mandata, si non mortua, sed viva illa intellegatur fides, quae per dilectionem operatur” (Although it can be said that God’s commandments pertain to faith alone, if it is not dead [faith], but rather understood as that live faith, which works through love”). Migne Latin Text: Venire quippe debet etiam illud in mentem, quod scriptum est, In hoc cognoscimus eum, si mandata ejus servemus. Qui dicit, Quia cognovi eum, et mandata ejus non servat, mendax est, et in hoc veritas non est (I Joan. II, 3, 4). Et ne quisquam existimet mandata ejus ad solam fidem pertinere: quanquam dicere hoc nullus est ausus, praesertim quia mandata dixit, quae ne multitudine cogitationem spargerent [Note: [Col. 0223] Sic Mss. Editi vero, cogitationes parerent.], In illis duobus tota Lex pendet et Prophetae (Matth. XXII, 40): licet recte dici possit ad solam fidem pertinere Dei mandata, si non mortua, sed viva illa intelligatur fides, quae per dilectionem operatur; tamen postea Joannes ipse aperuit quid diceret, cum ait: Hoc est mandatum ejus, ut credamus nomini Filii ejus Jesu Christi, et diligamns invicem (I Joan. III, 23) See De fide et operibus, Cap. XXII, §40, PL 40:223.

Source: Joseph A. Fitzmyer Romans, A New Translation with introduction and Commentary, The Anchor Bible Series (New York: Doubleday, 1993) 360-361.

James Swan over at beggarsallreformation.blogspot.com has an excellent series on Luther that answers most of what 2nd generation posted previously.

BTW, good post.

 

[Arnobius]

nope, not sola. what you are saying is “solo” (scripture by itself). “sola” says that scripture is the only authority. “prima” says that scripture is one of a number of authorities, but it is the highest authority. all of them say that all doctrines of the church are subject to scripture.

Sola is a neutral form of Solus:
solus: alone, only, single, sole

There are enough Protestant groups out there who call the Bible the Sole rule of faith to indicate your interpretation is not the only interpretation.

The Early 16th century dispute between Luther, Zwingli and the Anabaptists showed that Protestants felt free to discard any doctrines not in line with their personal reading of the Scriptures, and over time these interpretations would lead to interpretations reviving heresies from the first centuries of Christianity

You needn’t take my word for it though. You could read Alister Mcgrath, a Protestant Scholar who wrote an insightful work entitled Christianity’s Dangerous Idea on that very issue.

Or you could read the 17th century poet John Dryden and his lament about the divisions of Protestant meaning in scripture in the work Religio Laici, reading in part:

305 Must all tradition then be set aside?
306 This to affirm were ignorance, or pride.
307 Are there not many points, some needful sure
308 To saving faith, that Scripture leaves obscure?
309 Which every sect will wrest a several way
310 (For what one sect interprets, all sects may: )
311 We hold, and say we prove from Scripture plain,
312 That Christ is God; the bold Socinian
313 From the same Scripture urges he’s but man.
314 Now what appeal can end th’important suit;
315 Both parts talk loudly, but the Rule is mute?
rpo.library.utoronto.ca/poem/747.html

Alas, your claims are merely your interpretation, disputed by other Protestants

 

[Ginger2]

You needn’t take my word for it though. …
… you could read the 17th century poet John Dryden …

To quote poetry as some sort of prove text is silly. This poem demonstrates one man’s personal view and feelings about a situation, which may or may not be an accurate portrayal based on reality.

I have personally experience, several times, Catholics in this forum misinterpreting my beliefs.

Sometimes, even after I clearly state my position, I am told that what I’ve said is not what I believe.

Alas, your claims are merely your interpretation, disputed by other Protestants

Just as John Dryden’s poetry was based on his interpretation, disputed by other Catholics. Afterall, it was Catholics who split from the RCC.

John Dryen:
305 “Must all tradition then be set aside?”
306 “This to affirm were ignorance, or pride.”

These first 2 lines you quote are of special interest to me. I was told in another thread,

Jesus did many things that are not written in Scriptures. Are these things irrelevant?

Certainly not! But are they necessary for humans to know?

What if Jesus healed 500 more lepers? Would that change who Jesus is? Would that mean that Jesus is greater than we previously thought?

What if we found another Gospel that told how Jesus made one more man walk? Would atheists suddenly become Christians because of this new information?

Do you really think we need to know and understand everything there is to know about God?

Then what do we need with faith?

I exercise faith because I do not know. I trust God because I am not in control.

Adam and Eve wanted to be like God knowing everything - look where it got them.