Protestants: Why do you have less books in your bibles?

[rtconstant]

One of the questions I have is if the LXX is the correct text to use, why exclude part of it as the Catholic Church does?
I believe the Orthodox are consistent in accepting the entire LXX and Protestants are consistent in accepting the entire Jamina canon. Why does the Catholic say the LXX is authoritative but reject part of it?

That’s a good question. I’m not an expert on this but if I understand this it isn’t so much that we reject the other books as much as the list of books as was passed down to us just didn’t include them. Remember that the Apostolic Churches that exist today are extensions of original churches started in various cities in ancient days. Rome, Antioch etc.

I think that difference in books springs more from those geographical locations and the books that were most commonly in use in those areas than in any overt condemnation of any particular books.

Like the Orientals who use Enoch in their Bibles. They have an ancient history with that book in their region. They’ve always used it and they continue to do so. I don’t think it is any more complicated than that.

I could be wrong though. If anyone is more knowledge of this by all means speak up.

 

[Publisher]

One of the questions I have is if the LXX is the correct text to use, why exclude part of it as the Catholic Church does?
I believe the Orthodox are consistent in accepting the entire LXX and Protestants are consistent in accepting the entire Jamina canon. Why does the Catholic say the LXX is authoritative but reject part of it?

I don’t know the answer to your question…I’m not Catholic…I use the Oxford Annotated Bible RSV with all the “extra” books. The Oxford Study Bible was once published as the “Common Bible” in the '70’s as a bridge to ecumenism…many fundamentalists and evangelicals railed against it as a “tool of Satan”.

I have enjoyed the “second canon” as it has shed light on Christianity’s development in the first centuries.

 

[Publisher]

They were not included. If they were accepted as God’s Word, they would still be with the Jews now. Fact is, they are the custodians of God’s Word as far as the OT is concerned. Gentile doctrine has no authority in their faith.

Did you even bother reading what Truthinlight posted?

And who told you they are the “custodians” of the OT? Christians deemed the Tanach to be OT…not the Jews…so even your terminology is a bit skewed.

I have no problem with your beliefs…if they offer you any comfort…hang on to them…your theology colors your beliefs including how you view the scriptures…just like it does with all of us.

 

[Publisher]

jfallaw;2429954:

None of the NT books are written in Hebrew, either. Also, the Jews don’t accept the NT as scripture, either. What’s your point? Do we need the Jews to tell us what scripture is?

All the Apocrypha books are in the OT not the NT

Reasons to Reject the Apocrypha:

Oldest versions of the LXX date to 4th century. We don’t know if the earlier copies, the version that Jesus and the apostles used, included it. Jesus and the Apostles never quote from it, though they quote hundreds of times from all parts of the OT. The apostles only allude to it in two places (2 Peter?, Jude), but not as authoritative canon.
The Apocrypha itself never claims to be the Word of God.
Some books promote unbiblical concepts, e.g. prayer for the dead (2 Macc. 12:45-46).
Some books have serious historical inaccuracies, e.g Tobit, Judith. – end STR quote –

So how many books in the Jamina canon claim they are the “word of God” specifically? Do you exclude all the OT books that don’t specifically claim to be the “word of God”? You’d have a reduced OT if you do!

 

[Subrosa]

I don’t know the answer to your question…I’m not Catholic…I use the Oxford Annotated Bible RSV with all the “extra” books. The Oxford Study Bible was once published as the “Common Bible” in the '70’s as a bridge to ecumenism…many fundamentalists and evangelicals railed against it as a “tool of Satan”.

I have enjoyed the “second canon” as it has shed light on Christianity’s development in the first centuries.

Well, Publisher, I must say that yours is very interesting point of view.

I, myself have been a Catholic my whole life. I never knew that there were differences in bibles until I heard about it duing a Presidential swearing in ceremony. The narrator mentioned that John F. Kennedy used was the only President to use the Catholic version at his ceremony. At that point I had to have a look. I was surprised to say the least.

It is funny how some people chastise other’s legitimate practices. As a Catholic, I understand and accept that Protestants use a somewhat different bible than I. Why do you suppose it can’t be the same in return? You seem to have a grasp of it.

BTW, For those interested, I have pointed out that the Orthodox DO NOT use the complete septuagint. They, too, exclude some of the books from thier canon.

Subrosa

 

[Mannyfit75]

One of the questions I have is if the LXX is the correct text to use, why exclude part of it as the Catholic Church does? I believe the Orthodox are consistent in accepting the entire LXX and Protestants are consistent in accepting the entire Jamina canon. Why does the Catholic say the LXX is authoritative but reject part of it?

Subrosa already posted an answer to your question. I do believe (I could be wrong) the Byzantine Rite Catholic has a longer canon in their OT than the Latin Rite.

 

[lak611]

Hi SyCarl -

This isn’t quite right. For instance 4 Maccabees is in the septuagint but is not part of Orthodox scriptural canon.

Sub

4 Maccabees is included in an appendix in Greek Orthodox Bibles. The introductory notes to 4 Maccabees in my ecumenical RSV say:

The book known as 4 Maccabees is included in important manuscripts of the Greek Bible, and was early translated into Syriac. Although never canonized, it has deeply influenced the preaching and piety of the Eastern Churches.

May, Herbert G., and Metzger, Bruce M., eds. The New Oxford Annotated Bible with the Apocrypha. New York: Oxford University Press, 1977.

 

[mozart-250]

Honest question here. What version did Jesus use?

 

[Publisher]

Well, Publisher, I must say that yours is very interesting point of view.

I, myself have been a Catholic my whole life. I never knew that there were differences in bibles until I heard about it duing a Presidential swearing in ceremony. The narrator mentioned that John F. Kennedy used was the only President to use the Catholic version at his ceremony. At that point I had to have a look. I was surprised to say the least.

**It is funny how some people chastise other’s legitimate practices. As a Catholic, I understand and accept that Protestants use a somewhat different bible than I. Why do you suppose it can’t be ****the same in return? **You seem to have a grasp of it.

BTW, For those interested, I have pointed out that the Orthodox DO NOT use the complete septuagint. They, too, exclude some of the books from thier canon.

Subrosa

I’ve wondered “why” myself. I really don’t have a grasp of it… If the Light Within guides some to hear the “word of God” in other sacred writings, I have no issue with that…I won’t stand in the Presence and be required to answer “why” someone else heard the “word of God” in Baruch or 2 Macabees or Psalm 151…only why I could not…and I’m not even sure an answer would be required even then…especially when I sought to listen to the Light and follow Him as He guided…I’m not interested in “working out” my own salvation to the exclusion of everyone else…We are called to go together on this Journey…and I want to understand how others “walk in the Light” and why they find comfort, who knows, perhaps they may offer an insight into this Path we walk that will prevent me from stumbling along the way.

I don’t have to accept what others have come to believe as “truth”…but I must be honest with my own beliefs…the “word of God” can be heard in the most unexpected places at times…the wind through the trees…the cry of a hawk…a Gregorian chant…the pages of scripture…the experiences of others who are trying to make this Journey with me.

We who call ourselves “Christians” are very strange…we have a message of love and reconcilliation…we have a Balm in Gilead…but we want to keep it for our own little group…we are so blind that others have “washed in the Pool of Siloam” to receive their sight…but we sit around at it’s edges grumbling…and wholeness is just a step away all along.

 

[Semper_Fi_1]

They were not included. If they were accepted as God’s Word, they would still be with the Jews now. Fact is, they are the custodians of God’s Word as far as the OT is concerned. Gentile doctrine has no authority in their faith.

Did you even bother reading what Truthinlight posted?

So in your eyes they were the custodians of God’s word even after they had rejected the Word itself? Great rationalization there…

 

[mozart-250]

Honest question here. What version did Jesus use?

No answers to my question? come on now.

After having gotten confused by all of the arguments on this issue, I have boiled it (in my mind) down to this one metric.

Since there is no account anywhere that Jesus bellyached about His Bible/Torah being short/long “X” number of books, the logical conclusion would be that He accepted what He had.

Therefore, if it is good enough for Jesus, it is good enough for me.

 

[Mannyfit75]

Honest question here. What version did Jesus use?

Both the Septuagint and the Mesoretic (Tanakh text).

Here are Scriptura Parallels that Jesus that is found only in the 7 Books from the Septuagint.

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. 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.

scripturecatholic.com/deuterocanon.html

 

[Mannyfit75]

Both the Septuagint and the Mesoretic (Tanakh text).

Here are Scriptura Parallels that Jesus that is found only in the 7 Books from the Septuagint.

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. 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.

scripturecatholic.com/deuterocanon.html

In addition (source from the same site)

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.

 

[mozart-250]

Both the Septuagint and the Mesoretic (Tanakh text).

Here are Scriptura Parallels that Jesus that is found only in the 7 Books from the Septuagint.

Manny:
I am quite ignorant on this point, but what is the difference between these two texts.

Which would have been considered “canonical” at Jesus time.

The references are nice, but

• Some of them seem weak (meaning it is quite unclear he was thinking of the “apocrypha” when making that quote). If there is an online Bible that has the “apocrypha” in it, I might spend some time comparing these two to see how convincing this relationship is.
• Maybe Jesus quoted from sources that He considered accurate historically but not necessarily the “Word of God”.
• I do read someplaces in the gospel where the OT law and prophets are specifically referenced.in the NT. It would be nice (but not necessary) if the “apocrypha” were similarly referenced.

It would be really nice (but probably unrealistic) to read a Protestant source concede that Jesus used the Catholic Bible or vice-versa. That is because to me proof one way or another that Jesus considered one version or another to be the “Word of God” would be huge.

 

[believers]

So in your eyes they were the custodians of God’s word even after they had rejected the Word itself? Great rationalization there…

Rom 3:1
What advantage then hath the Jew? or what profit [is there] of circumcision?

Rom 3:2
Much every way: chiefly, because that unto them were committed the oracles of God.

The Jews did rejected Jesus as the Messiah but God is not done with them. The Abrahamic Covenant will be fulfilled. God will turn His attention to the Jews after the times of the gentiles has been fulfilled.

 

[Harpazo]

Manny:
I am quite ignorant on this point, but what is the difference between these two texts.

Which would have been considered “canonical” at Jesus time.

The references are nice, but

• Some of them seem weak (meaning it is quite unclear he was thinking of the “apocrypha” when making that quote). If there is an online Bible that has the “apocrypha” in it, I might spend some time comparing these two to see how convincing this relationship is.
• Maybe Jesus quoted from sources that He considered accurate historically but not necessarily the “Word of God”.
• I do read someplaces in the gospel where the OT law and prophets are specifically referenced.in the NT. It would be nice (but not necessary) if the “apocrypha” were similarly referenced.

It would be really nice (but probably unrealistic) to read a Protestant source concede that Jesus used the Catholic Bible or vice-versa. That is because to me proof one way or another that Jesus considered one version or another to be the “Word of God” would be huge.

You can read on drbo.org/ and make comparisons.

There wasn’t a final Jewish canon until the Council of Jamnia, in which the Jews have the canon that is in Protestant Bibles today. The Jews rejected any Christian scriptures for their canon, so it is beyond me why Protestants would choose a canon that rejected Christ!

In Pax Christi
Andrew

 

[Pixie_Dust]

Manny:
I am quite ignorant on this point, but what is the difference between these two texts.

Which would have been considered “canonical” at Jesus time.

The references are nice, but

• Some of them seem weak (meaning it is quite unclear he was thinking of the “apocrypha” when making that quote). If there is an online Bible that has the “apocrypha” in it, I might spend some time comparing these two to see how convincing this relationship is.
• Maybe Jesus quoted from sources that He considered accurate historically but not necessarily the “Word of God”.
• I do read someplaces in the gospel where the OT law and prophets are specifically referenced.in the NT. It would be nice (but not necessary) if the “apocrypha” were similarly referenced.

It would be really nice (but probably unrealistic) to read a Protestant source concede that Jesus used the Catholic Bible or vice-versa. That is because to me proof one way or another that Jesus considered one version or another to be the “Word of God” would be huge.

I was told many times in my Baptist church that Jesus and the apostles used the Septuagint and that was why some of the names of OT prophets were spelled differently in the NT, (e.g. Osee/Isaiah) and why some of the OT verses quoted in the NT didn’t match verbatim. If you have a bible with references, just look for any instance where Jesus or another apostle said, “As it is written…” and compare what the NT says to what the verse in your OT says.

Jesus couldn’t have used the “Catholic Bible” because it wasn’t completed yet. The NT was still about 400 years from being canonized.

 

[mozart-250]

You can read on drbo.org/ and make comparisons.

There wasn’t a final Jewish canon until the Council of Jamnia, in which the Jews have the canon that is in Protestant Bibles today. The Jews rejected any Christian scriptures for their canon, so it is beyond me why Protestants would choose a canon that rejected Christ!

In Pax Christi
Andrew

Thanks for the link. In my spare time rotfl: ) I’ll try to look these up.

Sorry for the follow-on silly question, but was the Council of Jamnia before or after Christ. If it was after Christ, I would agree that it is not a relevant issue. If it was before Christ, I would assume that Jesus accepted it, and I would think it is relevant.

If it was after Christ, do you mean to tell me that there was no commonly accepted canon at the time of Christ. I would have to believe there was a common understanding of the “Written Word of God” which by all accounts Jesus accepted.

The whole issue in my mind hinges upon what Jesus accepted as the “Written Word of God”.

 

[mozart-250]

I was told many times in my Baptist church that Jesus and the apostles used the Septuagint and that was why some of the names of OT prophets were spelled differently in the NT, (e.g. Osee/Isaiah) and why some of the OT verses quoted in the NT didn’t match verbatim. If you have a bible with references, just look for any instance where Jesus or another apostle said, “As it is written…” and compare what the NT says to what the verse in your OT says.

Jesus couldn’t have used the “Catholic Bible” because it wasn’t completed yet. The NT was still about 400 years from being canonized.

Is the Septuagint the version that contains the apocrypha/deuterocanonicals?

What is the Mesoretic?

 

[Pixie_Dust]

Is the Septuagint the version that contains the apocrypha/deuterocanonicals?

What is the Mesoretic?

Yes, the Septuagint had the same books as the Catholic OT does today. I don’t know what the Mesoretic is.

Mozart-250:

Sorry for the follow-on silly question, but was the Council of Jamnia before or after Christ. If it was after Christ, I would agree that it is not a relevant issue. If it was before Christ, I would assume that Jesus accepted it, and I would think it is relevant.

The council of Jamnia was in AD 90. Approximately 60 years AFTER Christ ascended.

You might be interested in this timeline.