M
mskejj
Guest
Catholic Answers radio just had Dr. Michael Barber on and this was the topic they discussed. Here is the link if you want to listen to the show.
catholic.com/radio/shows/where-we-got-the-bible-6982
- Status
catholic.com/radio/shows/where-we-got-the-bible-6982
H
highrigger1
Guest
mike,
But does that mean every time somone challenges it one must have a council? Why not simply refer to the previous council that approved it. Surely something had been left out if they had to do it again. Peace, JohnR
H
highrigger1
Guest
I thought Jerome taught that it was valuable but should not be used to determine doctine. I think the Reformers thought the same and that is why they brought it up when it was being used to justify doctrines. I think Jerome trranslated the entire thing from Hebrew. Am I wrong? And the Jews rejected it because it was not of the Palestinian canon.
There are those on this forum that think it was more than universal teachings although my sources say no as you seem to affirm. I presume you mean universal teachings but not council approved teachings.
peace, JohnR
H
highrigger1
Guest
I am sure protestants do the same.
I
Of course the NT advises consulting with and working with ones church on all significant issues. But I do not see where it gives the church to give edicts or demand the christian to think only in one way whether a council demands it or not.
A council of course is not equal to the demands of scripture which is the Word of God.
So I am not subject to any council and the NT does not say otherwise.
peace, JohnR
F
Fr_of_Jazz
Guest
My book is the text of a primary source, the Decrees of the Council of Basil-Ferrara-Florence. What room is there for discussion? Read it for yourself here: scroll to “Session 11 – 4 February 1442 [Bull of union with the Copts].” It corresponds exactly to the 2 works I gave you containing this primary text.
Here is the text of the Council of Trent that corresponds exactly to that in the 2 works I gave you containing this primary text.
In all honesty your responses are the equivalent of denying that the First Ammendment of the Constitution reads in part: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;” because your book says it doesn’t read that way. My book is the text of the First Ammendment of the Constitution. That settles the question.
I repeat for a third time: early Councils habitually reaffirmed the decrees of prior Ecumenical Councils. Trent is no different. Is this registering?
J
JRKH
Guest
Some do try - but sadly the many flavors of protestant beliefs - some quite contradictory to one another - are ample evidence that they fail the Biblical test.
You don’t??? I think it would be advisable for you to read Mt 18:15-18 again - especially the part about telling it to the Church and then listening to the Church on pain of being expelled from shunned, expelled, excommunicated or whatever. And the apart immediately following about the Church having the Authority to “Bind and Loose” - “Whatever”.
Fine - Scripture is the Word of God - and the Word of God says - Tell it to the Church and Listen to the Church or be "treated as a heathen and a tax collector. It is Scripture that demonstrates this very principle by recording a council in which the Elders of the Church tell everyone to think the same way about matters of circumcision etc…
This is what Scripture says. Do you follow Scripture???
Now - I am open to correction on this point so I will ask again - I repeat my previous question:
If you feel strongly about the Protestant view of “church” structure and methods of interpretation etc. being biblical, I invite you demonstrate, from Scripture, clear and compelling evidence for the “Local independent” view and “invisible church” view and especially the the, “No church council tells me what to believe”, view…
So the ball is in your court now…Where in the NT is the clear and consistent support for these positions?
Peace
James
E
Erich
Guest
No, not “ones church” but “The Church.” There was only one Christian Church at the time the New Testament was being written; that Church was the Church that Christ founded (i.e. the Catholic Church).
From Disunity on Essentials (emphases mine):
The same concept applies here!
Please answer the following questions:
Can those who do not have God’s approval be saved? Yes or no?
Did the Apostles teach different doctrines to different people? Yes or no?
Did the Apostles and other leaders of the early Church believe it was okay to have false doctrines within the Church? Yes or no?
Did the Apostles break fellowship with those who were teaching different doctrines than they were teaching? Yes or no?
Did Jesus and the Apostles demand conformity to the doctrines they taught? Yes or no?
Were the Apostles infallible in their teaching on faith and morals? Yes or no?
Can you be “one” with someone who believes in false doctrines? Yes or no?
In your church, can two walk together if they are not in agreement? Yes or no?
Did not the early church call councils to resolve doctrinal disputes instead of consulting the Bible (Acts 15)? Does your church do that?
Did not the early church have leaders who said that we could know the spirit of truth from the spirit of error by listening to what they said…not by reading the Bible on our own (John 4:6)? Does your church have such leaders?
Did not the early church believe in the Word of God in both written and oral form (1 Thes 2:13; 2 Thes 2:15)? Does your church do that?
Did the early church not build its doctrine and theology on both written and oral tradition? Does your church do that?
Did not the early church have leaders - Bishops, Presbyters, and Deacons - who were ordained by the Apostles or whose line of ordination could be traced back to the Apostles. Does your church have such leaders?
F
Filioque
Guest
If memory serves me, St. Jerome compaired the Greek (LXX) as well as the Hebrew. Some Jews, those who held to the Massorah, rejected the translation, but not all Jews. To clarify what I posted earlier, It is many Protestants who insist that the canon of the OT should omit those books they disagree with because in part some Jews did not accept the books as Canonical, (they usually omit that the decision was made after 600 AD, and only by one group of Jews). Even if that was the case, from a Christian perspective, the authority that once was given to the priests of the Temple, and then to the Rabbinic courts in Judaism, was by that time given to the Church, and by that it was understood at the time, until the eve of the Protestant Reformation to the Apostles and their Successors, in communion with the Pope the authority to decide such issues, not to the Rabbis who no longer held the authority that they had before Christ founded the Church.
Even though St. Jerome held a personal opinion which was contrary to the later determination of the Church in the quotes you have read, there are two important points we must recognize. St. Jerome, a priest, a great saint, was not in the position to unilaterally make the decision regarding doctrine. More importantly, after St. Jerome wrote his opinion, including in his correspondence with the Pope, when he was instructed on matters of faith by the Pope, and when Councils officially defined that the Church did not agree with his personal opinion, he as an obedient son of the Church, and believer in the Apostolic Authority of the Pope, and Councils in union with the Pope, submitted to those teachings and abandoned his own. He is one of thousands of Saints, and among Church Fathers who did the same once the matter had been settled by the Church.
What I did mean was that the Universal teachngs of the Church were defined by Councils of the Church in union with or later confirmed by the Pope, when questions or disputes arose. So too at several local and Ecumenical Councils was the Canon of Scripture confirmed, when individual writers or communities proposed books or teaching contrary to the established Apostolic teachings. An example was the error of the Arians, when Arius a Catholic priest in Egypt started teaching in error on the nature of Christ, and his errors spread to even the bishops and threatened the purity of Catholic teaching, a Council settled, after much debate the Catholic viewpoint of the dual nature of Christ, and the nature of Christ with regard to the Trinity. It was not a new or novel doctrine, but the response to the errors of a new doctrine teaching an error. So too when long before Trent, the councils which others have posted offered the decisions on the Canon, we see that the same canon of scripture that is contained in the Sacred Scriptures by the Catholic Church today, was upheld by the Council Fathers long before the Council of Trent reaffirmed the listing.
C
CuriousDave
Guest
Wow wow,
This has started what seems like a heated argument, and whilst I have no problems with that, it really is not answering my questions. I have learnt quite a bit from you all, though.
Can you please use the PM system to settle arguments between/correct each other
Thanks for all the answers so far!
**UPDATE ** on Question 3: Writers of Sirach (prologue) and 2 Mac (2:24-43; 15:38-40) indicate they were not inspired. (from biblequery.org/Bible/BibleCanon/WhatAboutTheApocrypha.htm)
The counter argument is that the writers may not have known they were inspired. But that would mean that the Holy Spirit guided them to write that they were not inspired by the said Holy Spirit, basically the Spirit telling a lie. Is there any explanation for this?
All that remains is Question 3 to be answered and also Question 5, which was sort of answered but I still want to know if there is another biblical example.
This has started what seems like a heated argument, and whilst I have no problems with that, it really is not answering my questions. I have learnt quite a bit from you all, though.
Can you please use the PM system to settle arguments between/correct each other
Thanks for all the answers so far!**UPDATE ** on Question 3: Writers of Sirach (prologue) and 2 Mac (2:24-43; 15:38-40) indicate they were not inspired. (from biblequery.org/Bible/BibleCanon/WhatAboutTheApocrypha.htm)
The counter argument is that the writers may not have known they were inspired. But that would mean that the Holy Spirit guided them to write that they were not inspired by the said Holy Spirit, basically the Spirit telling a lie. Is there any explanation for this?
All that remains is Question 3 to be answered and also Question 5, which was sort of answered but I still want to know if there is another biblical example.
I
in_servitude
Guest
When someone wants to assert that the Catholic Church as made a misstep and done something in error in regard to faith and morals, then it always boils down to a question of authority. The question becomes, “Which **human (institution)**are you going to listen to when looking for the Word of God?” The reason this is even a question is because God doesn’t seem to want to hand a book to us and say, “Here you go!” It comes through other people.
I think it is a critical part of creation - to have this mode of operation. To whom do you submit?
In this case, looking at your link, there is some information that makes inferences that I disagree with. For example, the link makes a statement that there are:
as if that helps to resolve the question in regards to their validity.
There are differing accounts of the Last Supper between Matthew 26 and Luke 22. There’s an extra cup in Luke 22. I suppose any difference should nullify these two books.
Then, there is this little gem:
I do find it funny that there is a typo in their statement making the argument in regards to 2Mac2 - there is no verse 43 (or verse 42, or verse 41…)
Should a person look at this link and decide that they have found the final word on something, then they are submitting to the creator of that document (the authorship is not stated, from what I could tell). So, those people are submitting to a some random person.
Now, you asked a different question about the people stating that they were not inspired. I read the references, and I really do not see anywhere the statement, “we are not inspired.” I think, really, it’s a stretch to make such a point. However, let us look at 1 Corinthians 7:25
Yup, this is St. Paul, author of a large portion of the NT saying that he is “not inspired.” Should we now toss all of the writings of St. Paul?
F
Fr_of_Jazz
Guest
A key contemporary researcher, the Protestant scholar Albert C. Sundberg, Jr., writes that “the church received ‘scriptures’ from Judaism but not a canon.” “The Bible and the Christian Doctrine of Inspiration.” Interpretation 29 (October 1975):356, 358.] He goes on, based on evidence amassed in this article and his works below, “we now know that the Jewish canon [post-90 AD] was not the scriptures of Jesus and the apostles.” (358) Further, he notes elsewhere, “Two different communities [the Jewish and Christian] were involved in defining canons out of the common material of pre-70 Judaism.” “The Old Testament of the Early Church,” CBQ 28 (April 1966):201] “In the days of Jesus and the apostles, the status of the Jewish canon (and this prevailed throughout Judaism) was that of a closed collection of Law, a closed collection of Prophets, and a large undifferentiated number of Jewish religious writings consisting of a later defined collection of ‘Writings,’ the books later called Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha, other books known to us only by name, and perhaps other books unknown and lost. And it was this canonical situation that passed from Judaism to Christianity as the Scriptures of the early Church.” (199)Wow wow,
This has started what seems like a heated argument, and whilst I have no problems with that, it really is not answering my questions. I have learnt quite a bit from you all, though.
Can you please use the PM system to settle arguments between/correct each other
**UPDATE ** on Question 3: Writers of Sirach (prologue) and 2 Mac (2:24-43; 15:38-40) indicate they were not inspired. (from biblequery.org/Bible/BibleCanon/WhatAboutTheApocrypha.htm)
The counter argument is that the writers may not have known they were inspired. But that would mean that the Holy Spirit guided them to write that they were not inspired by the said Holy Spirit, basically the Spirit telling a lie. Is there any explanation for this?
All that remains is Question 3 to be answered and also Question 5, which was sort of answered but I still want to know if there is another biblical example.
See also Sundberg’s The Old Testament of the Early Church. Harvard Theological Studies 20, Cambridge Mass., Harvard University, 1964.
**A good summary of his work is a short address he gave available on the web and this might be a good place to start.
The majority opinion with access to the primary sources for the past fifty years rejects the idea of a distinct Palestinian Hebrew canon and a distinct Alexandrian Greek canon at the time of Jesus. There were many Greek-speaking Jews living in Palestine at this time and they used the Septuagint as a collection of undifferentiated religious writings. There was even a Palestinian revision of the Septuagint. (Sundberg, 1975, p. 353, 355-6.)
Turning to Alexandria and the Septuagint, we do not find a clearly defined list here either. The manuscripts we have of the Septuagint mix the deuterocanonical books with the Prophets and the writings indicating no awareness of a hard and fast assignment of these writings to a category either way. Scholarship in recent decades has concluded that many of the deuterocanonicals in the Septuagint, rather than being composed in Greek at Alexandria, were actually composed in Hebrew (Ecclesiasticus, Judith, 1 Macc) or Aramaic (Tobit) in Palestine. A Hebrew text of Ecclesiasticus [Sirach] was found in Egypt.
Furthermore the great codices of the Septuagint (Vaticanus, Siniaticus, and Alexandrinus) are not in agreement on the books usually listed under “the Writings.”
On the Hebrew side the Qumran community (Dead Sea Scrolls) came from Palestine. Esther was not included among the scrolls which did include every other book in the remaining 38. I should also point out the Esther was not included in Christian lists of OT books up until Gregory of Ansus (380 AD). In addition, some deuterocanonical books in Hebrew are among Dead Sea scrolls with no distinction made between them and others later included in the Jewish canon. This shows that at least some of the deuterocanonical books were in circulation in Palestine and accepted by Jewish groups there. Albert C. Sundberg, Jr., again, is good on this.
Ecclesiasticus Sirach] is a good case in point–and to answer question 3. The 1st century BC Jewish community at Masada had a Hebrew copy of Sirach as did the Pre-Christian Qumran community. In both cases it was written out one verse per line in the same manner as the Law and Prophets. Likewise in Palestine from the early 1st century BC the book underwent a series of critical revisions in both Hebrew and Greek. There is no doubt that at the time of Christ Jews in Palestine considered Sirach to be one of their sacred writings. Nonetheless it was ultimately excluded from the Jewish canon.
C
CuriousDave
Guest
That’s pretty good. Thanks
po18guy
Well-known member
Take a look at this protestant bible time line. Scroll to the right and notice that there is a complete lack of scripture to cover the time leading directly up to the birth of Christ, when human history was forever changed. Would God leave His faithful with no scripture to cover a portion of human history, especially when the Mosaic law was still in effect? He never did it before, and has not done it since. This lack of scripture was not the case before before Luther rebelled. Since then, a term has been coined in an attempt to explain it: the “intertestamental period.” Those who hold to it offer no explanation for its existence. Nothing in prophecy points to it.
As a Catholic (or Orthodox), this causes me to wonder, especially since our Lord Jesus said clearly that “the law and the prophets prophesied until John” (Matthew 11:13, Luke 16:16). Yet, the doctrine of the “intertestamental period” maintains that neither the law, nor the prophets prophesised until John. I’m confused.
Not really. I go with what our Lord said.
Well, what about those deuterocanonical books then? Most were penned within that same “intertestamental period.” Well, you might ask, a lot of things were written in those 200 years. That is certainly true. However, we know that Jesus had to be born under, and had to live under the Mosaic law in order to fulfill the Mosaic law. OK, so?
You see, Israel had been dominated by the kings of the Selucid empire at the beginning of that 200 year period. So? Well, that empire had banned all Jewish religious practices, from circumcision onward. During that period, one Judas Maccabeus, who was of the Jewish priestly class, gathered forces and began a series of attacks intended to repel the Seleucid empire and restore Jewish rule, as well as the practice of the Mosaic law, to Israel. See where this leads?
The books of 1 and 2 Maccabees tell of this period, and of Israel’s triumphant return to self-rule, and just in time for the birth of our savior. See why this time is so important? But wait! There’s more. In 2 Maccabees 7, a Jewish mother and her seven sons were arrested and ordered by King Antiochus Epiphanes to eat pork, in violation of Mosaic law. After her first son was killed for refusing, her second son also chose to die (as did each), saying:
2 Maccabees 7:9
“Thou indeed, O most wicked man, destroyest us out of this present life: but the King of the world will raise us up, who die for his laws, in the resurrection of eternal life.”
I note, just out of curiosity, that 1 Maccabees mentions the name “Emmaus” three times (1 Maccabees 3:40, 3:57, 4:3), while 2 Maccabees mentions the “resurrection” three times (2 Maccabees 7:9, 7:14, 12:43). Where did Jesus make Himself known in the breaking of the bread on the day of His resurrection? (Luke 24:13-35)
For these, and many other reasons, the books have been held canonical in both the Catholic and Orthodox Churches since day 1. Trent simply set them in concrete. Why at that late date? Church councils are held to decide questions once and for all time (Acts 15:1-31 being the first). They mostly occur in response to heresy. Trent occurred just after Luther had rebelled against the Church, rejecting the deutrocanonical books. Trent corrected that. Clearly, there is much more to the deuterocanonical books, but this much has stuck with me.
As a Catholic (or Orthodox), this causes me to wonder, especially since our Lord Jesus said clearly that “the law and the prophets prophesied until John” (Matthew 11:13, Luke 16:16). Yet, the doctrine of the “intertestamental period” maintains that neither the law, nor the prophets prophesised until John. I’m confused.
Not really. I go with what our Lord said.Well, what about those deuterocanonical books then? Most were penned within that same “intertestamental period.” Well, you might ask, a lot of things were written in those 200 years. That is certainly true. However, we know that Jesus had to be born under, and had to live under the Mosaic law in order to fulfill the Mosaic law. OK, so?
You see, Israel had been dominated by the kings of the Selucid empire at the beginning of that 200 year period. So? Well, that empire had banned all Jewish religious practices, from circumcision onward. During that period, one Judas Maccabeus, who was of the Jewish priestly class, gathered forces and began a series of attacks intended to repel the Seleucid empire and restore Jewish rule, as well as the practice of the Mosaic law, to Israel. See where this leads?
The books of 1 and 2 Maccabees tell of this period, and of Israel’s triumphant return to self-rule, and just in time for the birth of our savior. See why this time is so important? But wait! There’s more. In 2 Maccabees 7, a Jewish mother and her seven sons were arrested and ordered by King Antiochus Epiphanes to eat pork, in violation of Mosaic law. After her first son was killed for refusing, her second son also chose to die (as did each), saying:
2 Maccabees 7:9
“Thou indeed, O most wicked man, destroyest us out of this present life: but the King of the world will raise us up, who die for his laws, in the resurrection of eternal life.”
I note, just out of curiosity, that 1 Maccabees mentions the name “Emmaus” three times (1 Maccabees 3:40, 3:57, 4:3), while 2 Maccabees mentions the “resurrection” three times (2 Maccabees 7:9, 7:14, 12:43). Where did Jesus make Himself known in the breaking of the bread on the day of His resurrection? (Luke 24:13-35)
For these, and many other reasons, the books have been held canonical in both the Catholic and Orthodox Churches since day 1. Trent simply set them in concrete. Why at that late date? Church councils are held to decide questions once and for all time (Acts 15:1-31 being the first). They mostly occur in response to heresy. Trent occurred just after Luther had rebelled against the Church, rejecting the deutrocanonical books. Trent corrected that. Clearly, there is much more to the deuterocanonical books, but this much has stuck with me.
po18guy
Well-known member
Forgot to mention that the books of Maccabees are the earliest mentions in scripture of either the resurrection, or of eternal life. That these references occurred immediately prior to the birth of our Savior is significant. Remember that our Lord told the Sadducees, who did not believe in the resurrection (or in angels), that they were “greatly mislead” (Mark 12:27). That these books were written as documentation of the return of Jewish religious and political control of Jerusalem (in preparation for the birth of Christ) is certainly noteworthy.
po18guy
Well-known member
Correction: they have been used since day 1. They were canonized at a much later date.
P
PPC
Guest
Good stuff.
I think of it this way:
There was a doctrinal rebellion against the Catholic Church’s teachings during the 15th Century so the Council of Trent re-confirmed once again for all time the canonical decisions of previous church councils for its faithful members.
C
CuriousDave
Guest
Well actually, in Biblical history the majority is almost always wrong and one man is right. Noah was one righteous man among the multitude of the wicked. The Israelites took the word of Moses, one man, over the millions of non-believers. Jesus is probably the best example, I reckon. A lot of the people believed in the words of one man, Jesus Christ, over the many Pharisees, Sadducees, Essenes, etc. who thought they were all right, but Jesus spoke against them all. The Jewish sects would have had multiple “councils” (in a way) over long periods of time to determine their doctrines (not sure if that’s the right word to use). But I guess Marcion was one man too, and he is deemed a heretic by all, except Marcions of course.
However, this is a different case indeed. Luther was no miracle worker, he was just a man. It **is **more sensible to trust in multiple councils of good-willing and prayerful Christians.
Indeed, just like the heresy from Marcion prompted the Church to begin defining a canon.
My original view of the deuterocanonical/apocryphal books was pretty similar to that of (Saint) Jeromes’; that they were written by godly men, but should not be held as high as the sacred scriptures (I was surprised to learn that I shared the same view as such an early and well known Christian). Because even today we have godly men writing books that are well and truly biblical, but we do not consider them sacred in any way. But now I’m starting to lean towards the view that they should be part of the canon as I learn more about the topic.
po18guy
Well-known member
Dave, the major difference being that Christ gave all authority on earth to His Church, plus the guidance of the Holy Spirit. That is the game-changer for all time. I understand your protestant raising, but you could not have had your viewpoint in beginning Christianity, if you see what I mean. Jerome, for all of his wisdom and spirituality, was not the Church. He deferred to the Church.
Arius was an individual who was opposed by the Church. Was he right? Nestorius was an individual. Was he right? We agree that they were not correct.
Another point: The eastern Orthodox Church - all of them, separately and together - have held the deuterocanonical books as well since day 1. Not one of those books has been rejected by any council, ever. All of the books have been in constant use since the founding of the
Church.
Jerome was not greater than Paul, right? Yet, in Acts 15, we see Paul go to the Church to settle a question. Paul trusted the Church, which is not a “majority”, but the unity of the living God. At Paul’s conversion, Christ told him “I am Jesus, whom you persecute” Think about that - (S)aul was persecuting individuals, but much more so was he persecuting the Church - Christ’s Body on earth.
And, without that Church, there would be either no bible, or it would have several hundred books, with additions on-going. Christ issued not a single warning to us about His “majority”, the Church, but about false prophets and false teachers - individuals.
The Church structure guarantees that an individual does not lead Christians into error. The Pope, for example, does not rule in a vacuum, but presides over, and in concert with - in accord with - the college of Cardinals.
The “intertestamental period” is nowhere in scripture. God did not remain silent, particularly leading up to the Incarnation of His only begotten Son.
Arius was an individual who was opposed by the Church. Was he right? Nestorius was an individual. Was he right? We agree that they were not correct.
Another point: The eastern Orthodox Church - all of them, separately and together - have held the deuterocanonical books as well since day 1. Not one of those books has been rejected by any council, ever. All of the books have been in constant use since the founding of the
Church.
Jerome was not greater than Paul, right? Yet, in Acts 15, we see Paul go to the Church to settle a question. Paul trusted the Church, which is not a “majority”, but the unity of the living God. At Paul’s conversion, Christ told him “I am Jesus, whom you persecute” Think about that - (S)aul was persecuting individuals, but much more so was he persecuting the Church - Christ’s Body on earth.
And, without that Church, there would be either no bible, or it would have several hundred books, with additions on-going. Christ issued not a single warning to us about His “majority”, the Church, but about false prophets and false teachers - individuals.
The Church structure guarantees that an individual does not lead Christians into error. The Pope, for example, does not rule in a vacuum, but presides over, and in concert with - in accord with - the college of Cardinals.
The “intertestamental period” is nowhere in scripture. God did not remain silent, particularly leading up to the Incarnation of His only begotten Son.
J
JRKH
Guest
Some good points here…And even in the history of the Church we see where God will raise up some individual or other to call His Church back to a more Holy expression of Truth. People like Sts Francis of Assisi, Teresa of Avila, Padre Pio.
As to the matter of the Jewish leadership having councils… We can see Jesus upholding these even as he speaks against the sins of individual leaders. Consider this:
[BIBLEDRB]Mt 23:1-3[/BIBLEDRB]
In this passage, Jesus upholds{/u] the authority of the Jewish leadership while simultaneously condemning their sinful actions.
Of course after the passion, and even more after Pentecost, we Christians hold that authority transferred from the Jewish leadership to the leadership of Christ’s Church. Christ - through the Apostles.
more sensible to trust in multiple councils of good-willing and prayerful Christians.
Yes. In the past I have asked protestant “bible only” Christians for biblical support for the reformation. As you point out, great leaders in the past - Moses in particular, came with signs and works of authority. Luther displayed none.
Amen
Peace
James
S
SWR11
Guest
“The Old Testament Canon of the New Testament Church: And Its Background in Early Judaism” by Roger T. Beckwith, is considered to be the benchmark study in Deutorcannonical studies. It can be reviewed at Amazon as well. Blessings
- Status