Proof on Luther's changes to the bible

[fish90]

Does anybody have a good non-catholic source to prove that Martin Luther changed the original bible?

Also as a side note, do the Orthodox accept the full Canon or omit the “Apocrypha” like the Protestants do? What about the followers of Judaism?

I want to be equipped to handle this when I am asked by a Protestant about the Canon.

Thanks in advance.

 

[jana4ou]

Martin Luther did not “change” the original Bible.

 

[Scoobyshme]

Well, since there was nothing but Catholic Christians up till the time of Martin Luther, wouldn’t one expect the majority of history from that time to be written by the Catholic Church?

Anyway, you may find the three part video series “Origin of the Bible” helpful at the following link: alabamacatholicresources.com/bible.html

 

[BerhaneSelassie]

The Jews of Jesus’ time debated what books were canonical. For example one School of Rabbinical Jews believed the book of Ecclesiates was canonical (Beth Hillel), whereas the other rival school denied it (Beth Shammai). Some Jewish canons of the Bible in those days included all the books the Catholic Church recognizes. The reason the Rabbinical council of Jamnia around AD 90-100 rejected the “deuterocanonicals” was they despised Greek writings, and many of the Deuterocanonical were written in Greek, or showed Greek influence. This Greek influence was no problem to ST Paul since he occasionally in the New Testament quotes Greek philosophers, since some of the rabbis of Paul’s day did read Greek philosophy and possibly used it to help them interpret the Scriptures.

The Protestant canon is based on a council of non believing post Christian Pharisaical Jews.

 

[JacobG]

The Jews of Jesus’ time debated what books were canonical. For example one School of Rabbinical Jews believed the book of Ecclesiates was canonical (Beth Hillel), whereas the other rival school denied it (Beth Shammai). Some Jewish canons of the Bible in those days included all the books the Catholic Church recognizes. The reason the Rabbinical council of Jamnia around AD 90-100 rejected the “deuterocanonicals” was they despised Greek writings, and many of the Deuterocanonical were written in Greek, or showed Greek influence. This Greek influence was no problem to ST Paul since he occasionally in the New Testament quotes Greek philosophers, since some of the rabbis of Paul’s day did read Greek philosophy and possibly used it to help them interpret the Scriptures.

The Protestant canon is based on a council of non believing post Christian Pharisaical Jews.

Can you please qualify your last statement with references?

The apocryphal books were never part of the Hebrew OT. The New Catholic Encyclopedia, has even acknowledged that the Jews did not accept the Apocrypha.

The Apostle Paul said the the Jews were given the “Oracles of God”, meaning God had entrusted them with His holy Word. (Rom 3:1,2) Jesus never once quoted from these books. He said the Scriptures consisted of the Law, the Prophets and the Psalms…no other writings!

Just because Paul quoted from a Greek philosophy source, does that mean the source was inspired? The Jews rejected the apocrypha (which were Jewish books) because they have serious historical and other errors, and contained some fables. Most of these books were written during the 400 year silence after Malachi during a time when there were no prophets on the earth. No Scripture could be written during this time period!

 

[fish90]

My understanding is that Luther decided that the Catholic Church was bad and the Canon of the bible that was accepted throughout most of Christendom since the Council of Trent (right?) was wrong as well. He did not agree with certain doctrine like Purgatory so he deleted books from the Canon that the Catholic Church canonized since around 300A.D. (I believe). Luther would have taken more but more conservative reformists decided that taking books away like James would be detrimental and would be a bad decision. Also, to reflect his beliefs Luther added words such as “alone” to fit his theology.

Is this a true understanding of what Lutheran did or am I been believing in some falsehood? Can you please provide any sources that proves this that are not from a Catholic source?

Also, do the Jews and the Orthodox accept the Canon that includes the “Apocrypha?”

Thanks again.

 

[BrianH]

The Jews of Jesus’ time debated what books were canonical. For example one School of Rabbinical Jews believed the book of Ecclesiates was canonical (Beth Hillel), whereas the other rival school denied it (Beth Shammai). Some Jewish canons of the Bible in those days included all the books the Catholic Church recognizes. The reason the Rabbinical council of Jamnia around AD 90-100 rejected the “deuterocanonicals” was they despised Greek writings, and many of the Deuterocanonical were written in Greek, or showed Greek influence. This Greek influence was no problem to ST Paul since he occasionally in the New Testament quotes Greek philosophers, since some of the rabbis of Paul’s day did read Greek philosophy and possibly used it to help them interpret the Scriptures.

The Protestant canon is based on a council of non believing post Christian Pharisaical Jews.

For a long time it was believed that the Hebrew Bible was closed at the end of the first century C. E. It was believed that a group of Rabbis made an official binding decision at a gathering known as “the Council of Jamnia.” Today, however, it is largely recognized that there is virtually no evidence that such a “council” ever occurred. While some Rabbis may have gathered in Jamnia at the end of the first century C. E. to discuss the status of some disputed books such as Ecclesiastes or Song of Songs, they most certainly did not make any binding decisions about the canon.[29]

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

Michael Barber - Professor of Theology, Scripture and Catholic Thought.

 

[thistle]

Can you please qualify your last statement with references?

The apocryphal books were never part of the Hebrew OT. The New Catholic Encyclopedia, has even acknowledged that the Jews did not accept the Apocrypha.

The Apostle Paul said the the Jews were given the “Oracles of God”, meaning God had entrusted them with His holy Word. (Rom 3:1,2) **Jesus never once quoted from these books. He said the Scriptures consisted of the Law, the Prophets and the Psalms…no other writings! **
Just because Paul quoted from a Greek philosophy source, does that mean the source was inspired? The Jews rejected the apocrypha (which were Jewish books) because they have serious historical and other errors, and contained some fables. Most of these books were written during the 400 year silence after Malachi during a time when there were no prophets on the earth. No Scripture could be written during this time period!

Oh really. Where did say that?

DEUTEROCANONICALS REFERENCED IN THE NEW TESTAMENT

Matt. 2:16 - Herod’s decree of slaying innocent children was prophesied in Wis. 11:7 - slaying the holy innocents.

Matt. 6:19-20 - Jesus’ statement about laying up for yourselves treasure in heaven follows Sirach 29:11 - lay up your treasure.

Matt… 7:12 - Jesus’ golden rule “do unto others” is the converse of Tobit 4:15 - what you hate, do not do to others.

Matt. 7:16,20 - Jesus’ statement “you will know them by their fruits” follows Sirach 27:6 - the fruit discloses the cultivation.

Matt. 9:36 - the people were “like sheep without a shepherd” is same as Judith 11:19 - sheep without a shepherd.

Matt. 11:25 - Jesus’ description “Lord of heaven and earth” is the same as Tobit 7:18 - Lord of heaven and earth.

Matt. 12:42 - Jesus refers to the wisdom of Solomon which was recorded and made part of the deuterocanonical books.

Matt. 16:18 - Jesus’ reference to the “power of death” and “gates of Hades” references Wisdom 16:13.

Matt. 22:25; Mark 12:20; Luke 20:29 - Gospel writers refer to the canonicity of Tobit 3:8 and 7:11 regarding the seven brothers.

Matt. 24:15 - the “desolating sacrilege” Jesus refers to is also taken from 1 Macc. 1:54 and 2 Macc. 8:17.

Matt. 24:16 - let those “flee to the mountains” is taken from 1 Macc. 2:28.

Matt. 27:43 - if He is God’s Son, let God deliver him from His adversaries follows Wisdom 2:18.

Mark 4:5,16-17 - Jesus’ description of seeds falling on rocky ground and having no root follows Sirach 40:15.

Mark 9:48 - description of hell where their worm does not die and the fire is not quenched references Judith 16:17.

Luke 1:42 - Elizabeth’s declaration of Mary’s blessedness above all women follows Uzziah’s declaration in Judith 13:18.

Luke 1:52 - Mary’s magnificat addressing the mighty falling from their thrones and replaced by lowly follows Sirach 10:14.

Luke 2:29 - Simeon’s declaration that he is ready to die after seeing the Child Jesus follows Tobit 11:9.

Luke 13:29 - the Lord’s description of men coming from east and west to rejoice in God follows Baruch 4:37.

Luke 21:24 - Jesus’ usage of “fall by the edge of the sword” follows Sirach 28:18.

Luke 24:4 and Acts 1:10 - Luke’s description of the two men in dazzling apparel reminds us of 2 Macc. 3:26.

John 1:3 - all things were made through Him, the Word, follows Wisdom 9:1.

John 3:13 - who has ascended into heaven but He who descended from heaven references Baruch 3:29.

John 4:48; Acts 5:12; 15:12; 2 Cor. 12:12 - Jesus’, Luke’s and Paul’s usage of “signs and wonders” follows Wisdom 8:8.

John 5:18 - Jesus claiming that God is His Father follows Wisdom 2:16.

John 6:35-59 - Jesus’ Eucharistic discourse is foreshadowed in Sirach 24:21.

John 10:22 - the identification of the feast of the dedication is taken from 1 Macc. 4:59.

John 15:6 - branches that don’t bear fruit and are cut down follows Wis. 4:5 where branches are broken off.

Acts 1:15 - Luke’s reference to the 120 may be a reference to 1 Macc. 3:55 - leaders of tens / restoration of the twelve.

Acts 10:34; Rom. 2:11; Gal. 2:6 - Peter’s and Paul’s statement that God shows no partiality references Sirach 35:12.

Acts 17:29 - description of false gods as like gold and silver made by men follows Wisdom 13:10.

Rom 1:18-25 - Paul’s teaching on the knowledge of the Creator and the ignorance and sin of idolatry follows Wis. 13:1-10.

Rom. 1:20 - specifically, God’s existence being evident in nature follows Wis. 13:1.

Rom. 1:23 - the sin of worshipping mortal man, birds, animals and reptiles follows Wis. 11:15; 12:24-27; 13:10; 14:8.

Rom. 1:24-27 - this idolatry results in all kinds of sexual perversion which follows Wis. 14:12,24-27.

Rom. 4:17 - Abraham is a father of many nations follows Sirach 44:19.

Rom. 5:12 - description of death and sin entering into the world is similar to Wisdom 2:24.

Rom. 9:21 - usage of the potter and the clay, making two kinds of vessels follows Wisdom 15:7.

 

[thistle]

continued…

1 Cor. 2:16 - Paul’s question, “who has known the mind of the Lord?” references Wisdom 9:13.

1 Cor. 6:12-13; 10:23-26 - warning that, while all things are good, beware of gluttony, follows Sirach 36:18 and 37:28-30.

1 Cor. 8:5-6 - Paul acknowledging many “gods” but one Lord follows Wis. 13:3.

1 Cor. 10:1 - Paul’s description of our fathers being under the cloud passing through the sea refers to Wisdom 19:7.

1 Cor. 10:20 - what pagans sacrifice they offer to demons and not to God refers to Baruch 4:7.

1 Cor. 15:29 - if no expectation of resurrection, it would be foolish to be baptized on their behalf follows 2 Macc. 12:43-45.

Eph. 1:17 - Paul’s prayer for a “spirit of wisdom” follows the prayer for the spirit of wisdom in Wisdom 7:7.

Eph. 6:14 - Paul describing the breastplate of righteousness is the same as Wis. 5:18. See also Isaiah 59:17 and 1Thess. 5:8.

Eph. 6:13-17 - in fact, the whole discussion of armor, helmet, breastplate, sword, shield follows Wis. 5:17-20.

1 Tim. 6:15 - Paul’s description of God as Sovereign and King of kings is from 2 Macc. 12:15; 13:4.

2 Tim. 4:8 - Paul’s description of a crown of righteousness is similar to Wisdom 5:16.

Heb. 4:12 - Paul’s description of God’s word as a sword is similar to Wisdom 18:15.

Heb. 11:5 - Enoch being taken up is also referenced in Wis 4:10 and Sir 44:16. See also 2 Kings 2:1-13 & Sir 48:9 regarding Elijah.

Heb 11:35 - Paul teaches about the martyrdom of the mother and her sons described in 2 Macc. 6:18, 7:1-42.

Heb. 12:12 - the description “drooping hands” and “weak knees” comes from Sirach 25:23.

James 1:19 - let every man be quick to hear and slow to respond follows Sirach 5:11.

James 2:23 - it was reckoned to him as righteousness follows 1 Macc. 2:52 - it was reckoned to him as righteousness.

James 3:13 - James’ instruction to perform works in meekness follows Sirach 3:17.

James 5:3 - describing silver which rusts and laying up treasure follows Sirach 29:10-11.

James 5:6 - condemning and killing the “righteous man” follows Wisdom 2:10-20.

1 Peter 1:6-7 - Peter teaches about testing faith by purgatorial fire as described in Wisdom 3:5-6 and Sirach 2:5.

1 Peter 1:17 - God judging each one according to his deeds refers to Sirach 16:12 - God judges man according to his deeds.

2 Peter 2:7 - God’s rescue of a righteous man (Lot) is also described in Wisdom 10:6.

Rev. 1:18; Matt. 16:18 - power of life over death and gates of Hades follows Wis. 16:13.

Rev. 2:12 - reference to the two-edged sword is similar to the description of God’s Word in Wisdom 18:16.

Rev. 5:7 - God is described as seated on His throne, and this is the same description used in Sirach 1:8.

Rev. 8:3-4 - prayers of the saints presented to God by the hand of an angel follows Tobit 12:12,15.

Rev. 8:7 - raining of hail and fire to the earth follows Wisdom 16:22 and Sirach 39:29.

Rev. 9:3 - raining of locusts on the earth follows Wisdom 16:9.

Rev. 11:19 - the vision of the ark of the covenant (Mary) in a cloud of glory was prophesied in 2 Macc. 2:7.

Rev. 17:14 - description of God as King of kings follows 2 Macc. 13:4.

Rev. 19:1 - the cry “Hallelujah” at the coming of the new Jerusalem follows Tobit 13:18.

Rev. 19:11 - the description of the Lord on a white horse in the heavens follows 2 Macc. 3:25; 11:8.

Rev. 19:16 - description of our Lord as King of kings is taken from 2 Macc. 13:4.

Rev. 21:19 - the description of the new Jerusalem with precious stones is prophesied in Tobit 13:17.

Exodus 23:7 - do not slay the innocent and righteous - Dan. 13:53 - do not put to death an innocent and righteous person.

 

[BrianH]

Thistle
Have you checked this list? We go through this about every month it seems…
The list is not supported by Catholics who have examined it but before we go into it…have you?

 

[jana4ou]

My understanding is that Luther decided that the Catholic Church was bad and the Canon of the bible that was accepted throughout most of Christendom since the Council of Trent (right?) was wrong as well. He did not agree with certain doctrine like Purgatory so he deleted books from the Canon that the Catholic Church canonized since around 300A.D. (I believe). Luther would have taken more but more conservative reformists decided that taking books away like James would be detrimental and would be a bad decision. Also, to reflect his beliefs Luther added words such as “alone” to fit his theology.

Is this a true understanding of what Lutheran did or am I been believing in some falsehood? Can you please provide any sources that proves this that are not from a Catholic source?

Also, do the Jews and the Orthodox accept the Canon that includes the “Apocrypha?”

Thanks again.

Whoa, Luther did NOT think the Church was bad. Luther was a Catholic priest, and did not want to leave the Church. He thought the selling of absolutions went against Christ’s teachings. After being excommunicated, he did not want a church named after him. This is from his writings.

Best regards.

 

[jana4ou]

Well, since there was nothing but Catholic Christians up till the time of Martin Luther, wouldn’t one expect the majority of history from that time to be written by the Catholic Church?

With all due respect, your statement is incorrect.

 

[adriancombe]

Does anybody have a good non-catholic source to prove that Martin Luther changed the original bible?

Also as a side note, do the Orthodox accept the full Canon or omit the “Apocrypha” like the Protestants do? What about the followers of Judaism?

I want to be equipped to handle this when I am asked by a Protestant about the Canon.

Thanks in advance.

scripturetext.com/romans/3-28.htm

Here you see where he added the word alone (allein in German) to Romans 3:28

 

[adriancombe]

Thistle
Have you checked this list? We go through this about every month it seems…
The list is not supported by Catholics who have examined it but before we go into it…have you?

Good question. The list Thistle has provided is a microcosm of what is available. The entire list, which includes all the OT passages, many other references in the deuterocanonicals, plus apocrypha, pseudepigrapha, secular Greek writers and straight up “Jesus quoted from where?!” is in the loci citati vel allegati of the Nestle Aland Greek English New Testament and can be found here with all the passages cited as well. The scholarship of Nestle Aland is of a depth well beyond me and anyone else I have seen on these forums, with the possible exception of Copland 3. Also, the fellow who compiled the list at bombaxo.com, Kevin P. Edgecomb, has degree in Near Eastern Studies with an emphasis in Classical Hebrew. He is Eastern Orthodox, so there would be some areas where he and I would not see eye to eye, but if you dig around his website, it obvious he is no slouch.

The point is God is not sola scriptura and neither should we be. The NT authors were not sola scriptura (duh) and did not practice it when they wrote the NT! You cannot use referencing from the NT as a determinant of the OT canon.

Luther was disobedient to the authority of the Church which decreed the canon of the OT and NT in the 400s.

 

[fish90]

Do some Jews and most Eastern Orthodox Christians accept the “Apocrypha?”

 

[Randy_Carson]

The Protestant canon is based on a council of non believing post Christian Pharisaical Jews.

Sure.

Recently, many Protestant apologists have been attempting to discredit the deuterocanonical books of the Bible by claiming that it would not be possible for Luther to delete books from a canon that had not been finalized.

In a private email, Gary Michuta, author of Why Catholic Bibles Are Bigger, provided the following in response to this issue**:**
This type of argument is quickly beginning to become a favorite among our separated brethren. They want to take attention away from how these books were accepted within Christianity and focus on technical language in regards to their definition by the Church.

Even if something like the definition given at Trent happened before Luther, Luther would have rejected it as being in error and Protestants wouldn’t have abandoned Luther because of it any more than they abandoned Luther when he brushed aside other councils. In other words, this argument really isn’t about the legitimacy of the Protestant position, but rather it is a form of propaganda to make it look like the Church is dishonest.

However, what about the claim? Here is my two cents on the matter. After the first Christian to cause a major stir by attempting to reject the Deuterocanon as Apocrypha (St. Jerome), there were a series of local councils that met in North Africa to reaffirm the Christian Old Testament and New Testament. These were the councils of Hippo (393), Carthage I (397), and Carthage IV (419). All three of these reaffirmed the Catholic canon as canonical and divine Scripture. However, they were local councils that were confirmed by the Pope. Therefore, they were authoritatively defined but not with the solemnity of that of an Ecumenical Council. You must remember, however, that solemnity does not effect the authority of the definition given. Usually Ecumenical Councils met to address something that has disturbed the universal Church. By the end of the fourth century, Jerome’s views had caused trouble mainly in North Africa. Regardless of their solemnity these councils are the first to authoritatively define the canon. After them, Innocent I (417) was question by a bishop as to the canon and Innocent’s reply repeats the decree of Hippo / Carthage. This is the first Papal decision on the canon There were a series of decrees attributed to Popes Damasus, Gelasius, and Hormisdas (266-523) that also reaffirmed the canon as well. By the end of the ninth century, Pope Innocent I could write to the bishops of Gaul (modern day France) that Pope Innocent I’s letter on the canon was the “universal law of the Church.” To this, we could add that there are about a dozen local and regional councils (not to mention popes) during this period who issued decrees that quoted the Deutero’s to confirm doctrine and with the formal introduction normally given to Scripture showing that the issue was largely settled and that bishops throughout the world were confident in appealing to these texts to quiet heresies.

Probably the most important council to bring up is the Council of Florence, which promulgated a decreed on canon of Scripture on Feb. 4, 1441. Florence’s decree states that the Catholic canon is given by the Holy Spirit and the Church accepts and venerates them. In terms of solemnity, this decree is greater than the previous ones. However, in terms of authority it is just as authoritative as the rest.

In 1519, Johann Eck debated Luther and pointed out to him that the Church had already confirmed that the Deuterocanon was canonical Scripture and he explicitly cited Florence as a proof of this. What was Luther’s response? Was it that the Church has authoritatively defined the canon yet so everything is still up for grabs? This is what the Protestant historian H. H. Howorth says about what Luther said:

“He [Luther] says he knows that he Church had accepted this book [Second Maccabees], but the Church could not give a greater authority and strength to a book than it already possessed by its own virtue.” (Why Catholic Bibles Are Bigger, 251).

So Luther knew the Church accepted the Deuterocanon as canonical Scripture. He was aware of Florence and the other decrees (apparently), but by this point he believed that Church councils could err. Moreover, Luther seems to have been working on a principle that he would more explicitly develop a few years later that a book is canonical and authoritative to the extent that Luther heard “Christ preached” in it.

Now what about Trent? Why do all these sources say that it wasn’t until Trent that we had a definitive decision on the canon? First, the fathers at Trent decided early on do adopt the canon of Florence without comment. For them, the issue was already closed in previous councils. However, since some otherwise solid Catholics have seem to adopted Jerome’s views on the Deuterocanonicals over and against these previous councils something more was necessary to drive the point home that the matter has already been closed hundreds of years early. So, Trent attached an anathema to its decree on the canon. Trent wasn’t the first council or Church authority to define the canon, but it was the first to anathematize those who did not follow the canon. In terms of the authority of the canon, nothing was really changed, but the solemnity of Trent’s definition was, because of the anathema, far greater than any previous council.

 

[Randy_Carson]

The reason the Rabbinical council of Jamnia around AD 90-100 rejected the “deuterocanonicals” was they despised Greek writings, and many of the Deuterocanonical were written in Greek, or showed Greek influence… The Protestant canon is based on a council of non believing post Christian Pharisaical Jews.

The “Council” of Jamnia
By Gary Michuta
handsonapologetics.com/deuterocanon.htm

Objection:* “At the end of the first century, the Jews gathered together at the Council at Jamnia (also known as Jabneh or Yabneh) to discuss the canon of Scripture. From this Council, the rabbis drew up an authoritative list of sacred books which is identical to the Jewish / Protestant canon.”*

Answer: Unfortunately, this short objection suffers from so many inaccuracies and overstatements that the best way to respond is to provide here a description of the real “council” of Jamnia.

After the fall of Jerusalem to the Romans in 70 AD, Rabban Jonathan ben Zakkai asked the Roman General Vespasian, who was well disposed to the Rabbi since it was known that he supported peace with the Romans, to spare the city of Jamnia and its rabbinical scholars.1 Permission was granted and the school set up in the “vineyards of Jamnia.”2 The problems that faced the new school were serious. The destruction of the Temple in Jerusalem made it impossible to continue the prescribed sacrifices required in the Old Testament. Judaism needed to make a radical change from a cultic (sacrifice and Temple centered) religion to a “religion of the Book.” This change, combined with the growth of Christianity (especially its use of the Jewish Greek Old Testament for evangelism) provided Judaism with the occasion to address the question of the canon of Scripture.3 The information that has come down to us about this canonical activity is fragmentary and certainly open to conjecture.

Note that our objector called this body the “Council of Jamnia”. Jamnia was not a council, in the sense of the Council of Trent or the Council of Nicaea, it was rather was an on-going rabbinical school. The idea of a “council” crept into everyone’s vocabulary via the writings of the famous Jewish historian H. Graetz who was the first to call Jamnia a “synode.”4 Christians interpreted Graetz’s synode to mean council. However, the word council implies quite a few features that Jamnia did not possess. For example, unlike a Christian council, there were no ballots cast, nor did this body promulgate formal decrees. Rather, Jamnia lasted for a number of years, and its significant opinions is persevered in piecemeal fashion in later Jewish writings. It is difficult to ascertain exactly what Jamnia had for Judaism as a whole. In some ways it acts much like the authoritative body of the Sanhedrin although it never took for itself that name.5 Therefore, it is inaccurate to speak about the council of Jamnia. It is more accurate description would be a rabbinical school.6

Jamnia never published or promulgated a list the list of books of the canon nor did it discuss the canon as a whole. Most of the debates surrounded the Book of Ecclesiastes and possibly the Song of Songs.7 Even so, there is no evidence that the decisions of this school were binding upon the Jewish popular at large.8 In fact, rabbinical disputes over the inspiration of certain books (e.g. the fringe books and Sirach) persisted throughout the first three Christian centuries. For this reason, the Protestant scholar F.F. Bruce wisely warns against stating that the assembly at Jamnia “laid down the limits” of the Old Testament canon.9

Like the two-canon theory, the Jamnia theory has fallen on hard times. As the Jewish scholar Sid Leiman concludes:

“The widespread view that the Council of Jamnia closed the biblical canon, or that it canonized any books at all, is not supported by the evidence and need no longer be seriously maintained.”10

If there were a candidate for an authoritative closing of the Old Testament canon in the first century AD, Jamnia would probably be it. However, there is no evidence that such a closing occurred this early in the life of this school.

1. See The Encyclopedia of Talmudic Sages, Gershom Bader ed., Translated by Solomon Katz, (Northvale, New Jersey: Jason Aronson, Inc.), 152-154 for various rabbinical accounts of Rabban Johnathan ben Zakkai’s escape from the siege of Jerusalem and his role in beginning the school at Jamnia.
2. There is some question as to whether the “vineyards of Jamnia” refer to the meeting place of the school (i.e. the met in a vineyard) or that the school of was organized like a vine with grapes. The school began under rabbi Johanan ben Zakkai (70 AD) until the time of the second Jewish Revolt under rabbi Akiba ben Joseph (132 AD). After the Second Revolt, the school of reconstituted at Usha.
3. W.O.E. Oesterley, An Introduction to the Books of the Apocrypha (London: SPCK, 1958), 122-123
4. A.C. Sundberg, "The Old Testament of the Early Church Revisited,” – Graetz may have borrowed this terminology from Jewish Philosopher Baruch Spinoza’s comment about the “concilium Pharisaeorum.”
5. Lieman, 121.
6. See ABD, 1.841.
7. Cox, 44; See M. Yadayim, 3:5.
8. cf. Encyclopedia Judaica (Coronet Books, reprint 1994) 6.1147.
9. Bruce, 34.
10. Lieman, 124. Also see ABD, 1.843 – the evidence for a closed canon prior to the end of the first Christian century is “at best weak and unconvincing.”

 

[Randy_Carson]

Why Protestant Bibles Are Smaller

Paul’s disciple, Timothy, was a Greek, and the Old Testament that Timothy would have been most familiar with from the time of his youth (cf. 2 Tim 3:14-17) was the Greek Septuagint. Because of his travels outside of Israel, Paul, too, would have been familiar with and would have used the Greek version of the Old Testament writings. Therefore, in this passage of scripture, Paul encouraged Timothy to continue in what he had learned from the Septuagint.

This has important implications for a controversy concerning seven books of the Old Testament now known collectively to Catholics as the “Deuterocanonicals” and to Protestants as the “Apocrypha”. Catholics consider the Deuterocanonicals to be inspired scripture while Protestants reject them. The Greek Septuagint contains these seven books while the Hebrew version of the Old Testament does not.

There is no doubt that the Septuagint was known to and used by Jesus, Paul and Timothy and yet, in the 16th century, Martin Luther removed these seven books from the Bible because they contain passages that support distinctly Catholic doctrines like praying for the dead and purgatory—doctrines which he rejected. Luther justified his action in part upon the fact that the Jews themselves rejected the Deuterocanonicals as part of their canon.

This development in the history of the Jewish canon is interesting in itself. Beginning as early as 90 A.D. at the so-called “Council of Jamnia”, Jewish leaders began to re-think which books of the Bible should and should not be considered scripture. In the second century, the Jews finally removed the Deuterocanonical books from their canon of scripture, and this was due in large part to the fact that the early Christian Church was using the Deuterocanonicals to support the Christian belief in the resurrection from the dead. The Jewish scriptures were being used to win converts to the Christian faith! Consequently, the Jews ultimately rejected the Deuterocanonical books some two centuries after Christ’s death and resurrection. Martin Luther used their decision to justify his own.

This leads to a couple of obvious questions: “Why would the Holy Spirit guide a group of rabbis on matters related to the Old Testament canon when there was already a Christian Church in existence that was under His infallible guidance as Jesus had promised? And why should Luther accept the revised Hebrew canon instead of the canon of the Septuagint that had been in continuous use in the Church for over fifteen centuries?

Luther picked that truncated canon for the same reason the rabbis did: in order to undermine the teachings of the Catholic Church which did not fit his new theology.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Thistle
Have you checked this list? We go through this about every month it seems…
The list is not supported by Catholics who have examined it but before we go into it…have you?

Eleven Points of Contact Between the New Testament and the Deuterocanonical Books of the Old Testament
By Gary Michuta

Is it true that the New Testament contains no references to the Deuterocanonical books, indicating that the inspired writers did not consider them to be an inspired source?

As all readers of the New Testament know, Our Blessed Lord and the sacred writers who consigned His doctrine to writing very often alluded to and actually quoted from the existing books of Scripture already complete at that time (the books which later became known as the Old Testament). There are over 330 direct quotations from the Old Testament included within the New and many more oblique references. This is an important fact; indeed, it was used by several of the early Fathers as a refutation of Marcionism, that ancient heresy which denied the inspiration of the Hebrew Scriptures and held them to be of no value for Christians. More recently, however, some Protestant polemicists have suggested that the quoting of an Old Testament book within the pages of the New can be used as a test of canonicity; and that there are no such quotations from the Deuterocanonical books. The New Testament writers ignored the Deuteros altogether (or so the argument goes) and this apostolic “cold shoulder” is an infallible sign that the books in question are not to be regarded as Scripture.

Actually, the force of this argument, so commonly heard today, depends almost entirely upon ignorance of the contents of the Deuteros; most of the early Protestants were too familiar with them to even suggest such an absurd idea. Several early Protestant bibles not only included the Deuterocanon along with the New Testament, but actually contained cross-referencing notes pointing out the (supposedly non-existent) connections between the two! The original 1611 edition of the Protestant King James Bible, for instance, boasts eleven of such cross-references (and 102 between the Deuteros and the Old Testament!). The notes were removed from future editions.

To refute then this fallacious argument, let us begin here using the venerable King James Bible as our starting point. Let us examine the eleven points of contact recognized by the fathers of this greatest of all English bibles and see what they tell us about the relationship between the New Testament and that portion of the Old known as the Deuterocanon. (Michuta, Gary, Why Catholic Bibles Are Bigger, 26-27)

Matthew 6:14-15
14 For if you forgive men when they sin against you, your heavenly Father will also forgive you. 15 But if you do not forgive men their sins, your Father will not forgive your sins.

Sirach 28:2
Forgive your neighbor’s injustice; then when you pray, your own sins will be forgiven.

+++

Luke 6:31
31 Do to others as you would have them do to you.

Tobit 4:15
Do to no one what you yourself dislike. Do not drink wine till you become drunk, nor let drunkenness accompany you on your way.

+++

Matthew 27:41-43
41In the same way the chief priests, the teachers of the law and the elders mocked him. 42 “He saved others,” they said, "but he can’t save himself! He’s the King of Israel! Let him come down now from the cross, and we will believe in him. 43 He trusts in God. Let God rescue him now if he wants him, for he said, ‘I am the Son of God.’ "

Wisdom 2:15-18
15 Because his life is not like other men’s, and different are his ways. 16 He judges us debased; he holds aloof from our paths as from things impure. He calls blest the destiny of the just and boasts that God is his Father. 17 Let us see whether his words be true; let us find out what will happen to him. 18 For if the just one be the son of God, he will defend him and deliver him from the hand of his foes. 19 With revilement and torture let us put him to the test that we may have proof of his gentleness and try his patience. 20 Let us condemn him to a shameful death; for according to his own words, God will take care of him." 21 These were their thoughts, but they erred; for their wickedness blinded them, 22 And they knew not the hidden counsels of God; neither did they count on a recompense of holiness nor discern the innocent souls’ reward.

+++

Luke 14:13
13 But when you give a banquet, invite the poor, the crippled, the lame, the blind,

Tobit 4:7
"Give alms from your possessions. Do not turn your face away from any of the poor, and God’s face will not be turned away from you.

+++

John 10:22
22 Then came the Feast of Dedication at Jerusalem. It was winter,

1 Maccabees 4:59
Then Judas and his brothers and the entire congregation of Israel decreed that the days of the dedication of the altar should be observed with joy and gladness on the anniversary every year for eight days, from the twenty-fifth day of the month Chislev.

+++

Romans 9:20
20 But who are you, O man, to talk back to God? "Shall what is formed say to him who formed it, ‘Why did you make me like this?’ "

Wisdom 12:12
12 For who can say to you, “What have you done?” or who can oppose your decree? Or when peoples perish, who can challenge you, their maker; or who can come into your presence as vindicator of unjust men?
by faith alone.

 

[Randy_Carson]

+++

Romans 9:21
21 Does not the potter have the right to make out of the same lump of clay some pottery for noble purposes and some for common use?

Wisdom 15:7
For truly the potter, laboriously working the soft earth, molds for our service each several article: Both the vessels that serve for clean purposes and their opposites, all alike; As to what shall be the use of each vessel of either class the worker in clay is the judge.

+++

Romans 9:22
22 What if God, choosing to show his wrath and make his power known, bore with great patience the objects of his wrath—prepared for destruction?

Wisdom 12:20
20 For these were enemies of your servants, doomed to death; yet, while you punished them with such solicitude and pleading, granting time and opportunity to abandon wickedness,

+++

Romans 11:34
34 “Who has known the mind of the Lord? Or who has been his counselor?”

Wisdom 9:13
For what man knows God’s counsel, or who can conceive what our LORD intends?

+++

2 Corinthians 9:7
7 Each man should give what he has decided in his heart to give, not reluctantly or under compulsion, for God loves a cheerful giver.

Sirach 35:9
Give to the Most High as he has given to you, generously, according to your means.

+++

Hebrews 1:3
3 The Son is the radiance of God’s glory and the exact representation of his being, sustaining all things by his powerful word. After he had provided purification for sins, he sat down at the right hand of the Majesty in heaven.

Wisdom 7:26
For she is the refulgence of eternal light, the spotless mirror of the power of God, the image of his goodness.

+++

Hebrews 11:35
35 Women received back their dead, raised to life again. Others were tortured and refused to be released, so that they might gain a better resurrection.

2 Maccabees 7:7
Do not be afraid of this executioner, but be worthy of your brothers and accept death, so that in the time of mercy I may receive you again with them."

+++

1 Maccabees 2:52
Was not Abraham found faithful when tested, and it was reckoned to him as righteousness?

James 2: 21
Was not Abraham our father justified by works, when he offered his son Isaac upon the altar? 22 You see that faith was active along with his works, and faith was completed by works, 23 and the scripture was fulfilled which says, “Abraham believed God, and it was reckoned to him as righteousness”; and he was called the friend of God. 24 You see that a man is justified by works and not