Protestant Bibles

  • Thread starter Thread starter starrs0
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Luther did not even list 3 Maccabees in his apocrapha so the tradition (yes the western catholic tradition) handed down to Luther suggest the absence of 3 Maccabees due to its exclusion in the western canon. Luther did just like the earlier councils include the 1 and 2 Maccabees in his Bible. (albeit in the unilateral decision of seperate placement). Webster conveniently leaves this out in his full of holes thesis.
Click to expand...
The editors of Luther’s works explain,

'“In keeping with early Christian tradition, Luther also included the Apocrypha of the Old Testament. Sorting them out of the canonical books, he appended them at the end of the Old Testament with the caption, “These books are not held equal to the Scriptures, but are useful and good to read.” Because they were not in the Septuagint, Luther omitted III and IV Maccabees as well as III and IV Esdras.”

By the way, where did I mention any quote or fact about Luther from William Webster? what are you talking about?

James Swan
 
40.png
TertiumQuid:
The editors of Luther’s works explain,

'“In keeping with early Christian tradition, Luther also included the Apocrypha of the Old Testament. Sorting them out of the canonical books, he appended them at the end of the Old Testament with the caption, “These books are not held equal to the Scriptures, but are useful and good to read.” Because they were not in the Septuagint, Luther omitted III and IV Maccabees as well as III and IV Esdras.”

By the way, where did I mention any quote or fact about Luther from William Webster? what are you talking about?

James Swan
Click to expand...
The fact I was pointing to was part of a bigger picture that Webster avoided in giving you or else it would make you think. He wouldn’t want that to happen. I agree with the quote absolutely as it backs up what I am saying Luther was part of the western catholic tradition that from the african councils accepted 1 and 2 Maccabees in the dueteros. I am referencing Webster not to reference Luther in a good or bad light but to point his assertion that 3 Maccabees was part of the western canon is totally foreign to the western catholic church even men as Luther who would include this book in the apocrapha if he had it. But in his bible he didn’t as no other western catholic would have. As your quote signifies the septugient that Luther had received form the catholic church never had 3 Maccabees which was found in the list of eastern greek councils which he misleadingly refers to contradicting local western councils they wouldn’t. HE attempts to creat a false contradiction. All the western councils were united on 1 and 2 Maccabees his assertion that 3 Maccabees was part of any western council is a lie. Read my above post that explain everything in more detail. Each tradition had seperate canons the difference being 3 Maccabees and that continues to this day. 1 book differnce would not have been enoeugh controversy to call a ecunemical council for since neither tradition had adhered to sola scriptura at any time.
 
What is more than a little hypocritical is that Martin Luther puts his opinion above Jerome when judging the canon. The fact that he found a convenience in Jerome’s opinion of the duetros as apocrapha is all that matters to Luther. When it comes down to it the praise given to Jerome is inconsistent Jerome was a ardent supporter of all the canonical books of the new testament including the books which Luther rejected as non-canonical. Luther called these books which were disputed by some (the Antilegomena). In this class of ‘disputed books’ are the Epistle to the Hebrews, James, Jude, 2 Peter, 2 and 3 John, and the Revelation of John.

Jerome praises these books and puts them in his canon. Yet Luther critisizes these books in a polemical manner as not canonical. Again where is the consistency if you appeal to a church father as having more authority than all of the church and above the opinion of most of the other fathers who included the dueteros in the canon why not go with Jerome’s opinion on the new testament canon as well?
Becuase Luther in the end is the authority not Jerome.
This flies in the face of sola scriptura.
Revelation 22
19 And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.

Last I checked Luther was a man. Only the church had the power to bind and loose yet his actions were of unilaterlal dissent not theological opinion but publishing the bible as in never appeared before. WIth the dueteros outside of the old testament and the four books diputed in Luterh’s opinion in a seperate new testament apocrapah section no longer listed under the new testament canon.

In the book of Revelation this short preface appeared in the September Testament of 1522 and in other editions up to 1527.
Many of the fathers also rejected this book a long time ago; 9 although St. Jerome, to be sure, refers to it in exalted terms and says that it is above all praise and that there are as many mysteries in it as words. Still, Jerome cannot prove this at all, and his praise at numerous places is too generous.

Finally, let everyone think of it as his own spirit leads him. My spirit cannot accommodate itself to this book. For me this is reason enough not to think highly of it: Christ is neither taught nor known in it. But to teach Christ, this is the thing which an apostle is bound above all else to do; as Christ says in Acts 1, “You shall be my witnesses.” Therefore I stick to the books which present Christ to me clearly and purely.

What if funny is that now Luther is now agreeing with other church fathers such as Dionysius of Alexandria who deemed the dueterocanonicals as canonical and yet rejected the book of Revelation. Yet the very authority he calls out for the apocrapha he rejects as just another opinion when Jerome supports Revelation.
 
Mr. Webster insists that the decision of the Council of Hippo was unimportant and ignored by the Church as a whole. This position is rejected by virtually every major scholar – Protestant or Catholic – who has reviewed the evidence. This has confused you and others who trust him to no end throw in the fact he throws in eastern synods without mentioning they are eastern so he can say the church contradicted herself and his scholarship becomes spin or to be honest he’s lying to you.

Even anti-catholic protestant Dr Phillip Schaff says:

History of the Church
Vol. II
138. The Holy Scriptures and the Canon
The first express definition of the New Testament canon, in the form in which it has since been universally retained, comes from two African synods, held in 393 at Hippo, and 397 at Carthage, in the presence of Augustin, who exerted a commanding influence on all the theological questions of his age. By that time, at least, the whole church must have already become nearly unanimous as to the number of the canonical books; so that there seemed to be no need even of the sanction of a general council…

Soon after the middle of the fourth century, when the church became firmly settled in the Empire, all doubts as to the Apocrypha of the Old Testament and the Antilegomena of the New ceased, and the acceptance of the Canon in its Catholic shape, which includes both, became an article of faith.

Vol. III
118. Sources of Theology. Scripture and Tradition.
In the Western church the canon of both Testaments was closed at the end of the fourth century through the authority of Jerome (who wavered, however, between critical doubts and the principle of tradition), and more especially of Augustine, who firmly followed the Alexandrian canon of the Septuagint, and the preponderant tradition in reference to the disputed Catholic Epistles and the Revelation; though he himself, in some places, inclines to consider the Old Testament Apocrypha as deutero-canonical books, bearing a subordinate authority. The council of Hippo in 393, and the third (according to another reckoning the sixth) council of Carthage in 397, under the influence of Augustine, who attended both, fixed the catholic canon of the Holy Scriptures, including the Apocrypha of the Old Testament… This canon remained undisturbed till the sixteenth century, and was sanctioned by the council of Trent at its fourth session.
 
to maccabees: iam doing a bible study of scott hahn at these moment. iam using a jerusalem bible . i also have a king james in a box. will the footnotes be different? thank you. bless you
 
I believe the Jerusalem Bible and the KJV use different codixes so they have differnt greek text they are dealing with supposedly the Jerusalem BIble has an older codix and could be a better source of translation. That being said while the Jerusalme Bible is a fine translation the New Jurusalem Bible has inclusive language and modernist study notes. The original Jerusalem doesn’t suffer from inclusive language and its study notes are a little more Orthodox however the Jerusalem Bible sold today as new is a readers text version with very little footnotes or study notes. If you have an older version with the study notes keep it. They are hard to come by.
The King James Version come in many different forms just what version did you buy? Usually its a particular type of study Bible. While it can be protestant biased in places Its a pretty good transaltion sans the archaic language which many people don’t want to put up with anymore. Many King James Bible have very biased study notes with deny the sacramental view of scriptures not to mention apostolic succesion and Peter as head of the church. So I would stay away from King james Study Bibles footnotes. Although the translation itself is ok for the most part.
I beleive Scott Hahn uses the Revised Standard Version Catholic Edition Bible as his translation of choice for his Bible studies.
 
to maccabees: the kjb is in a box i haven’t even open it yet. it was given to my by a fundamentalist as a gift. i was attending a baptist bible study:eek: an at the time i was using my catholic bible in spanish. she thought it will be easy for me cause the kjb was in english. i accept the gift not to be disrespectful but i never use it. any way the bible study was a problem an i got out. so now iam doing a bible study on my own by scott hahn,which i think is very good but hard for someone new as me. the other thing iam doing is reading i few books of apologetics. just to know more about fundamentalist. god bless:)
 
Well glad you got out of that fundie Bible study. But I would keep the KJV Bible as a reference in how some protestants are reading the same verses you are but may not come to the same conslusion. If you are reading the catholic revised standard version and in Luke you argue it says Mary is “full of grace” and your protestant friend look at his KJV Bible and she says it says “favored one”. You will know where they are coming from its a differnce in translation. Both are legitamate translations but the more literal meaning is the catholc one. But unless you know koine greek you may not want to go there and hit other issues which both translations agree on. For example both says she is “blessed are you among women”. Plus the KJV is a pretty good translation for the most part but in some instances like the one I mentioned it reflects a protestant bias. Just stay away form the likely fundamentalist study notes!
I don’t have Scott Hahn’s study Bibles but I do have the text he refers to the Revised standard Version Catholic Edition it has no study notes but the text is very literal but easier to understand the KJV. I do have Scott Hahn’s CD and study guide on the Book of Revelation and that is excellent if his other study Bibles are that good you are in good hands. Hahn is pretty heady. Reread the study Bible a second time and your likely to understad it more the second time around.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top