"That's a Catholic translation"

[No_Nick]

To add one more point to your response, when No Nick said “These books already weren’t accepted as canonical in the Jewish community” I’m thinking he’s got his Jewish communities confused. The Jews who didn’t accept Jesus didn’t accept those books. However, the line of Jews who did accept Jesus, DID accept those books.

Paul said:

Is there any benefit, then, in being a Jew? Is there any advantage in being circumcised? A great deal, in every way. First of all, it was to the Jews that the message of God was entrusted. (Rom 3:1,2 NJB)

Generaly, Jewish nation didn’t accepted Jesus as Savior, but - most of the first christians were Jewish, not pagans. Second, they (Jews) received the Bible - even if they (actually, many of them, not all) later rejected Jesus.

No Nick forgets, Jesus is a Jew by birth and lineage, and the Church Jesus started was 100% Jewish in the beginning. Our Lord’s Church, the Catholic Church, accepted the LXX. That means those 7 books are there, from the 3rd century BC they aren’t some later addition as Protestants have been told by their leaders.

Maybe you forget few, from the catholic view, clearly apocryphal books which were in the LXX. Protestants rejects only apocryphal books - not true canonical books. Sorry because of that.

 

[No_Nick]

The English word catholic is a transliteration of the Greek katholikos which is a compound word from kata, which means according to, and holos, which means whole.

%between%

True. It originally designated a financial or civil office in the Roman Empire, before Ignatius (who probably first uses this word).

Luther, considered the father of Protestantism, divided from the Church of Rome. BTW, Paul’s warnings don’t have an expiration date. They applied to Luther, Calvin, Henry VIII, etc etc etc in their day as they do today, and tomorrow, till the end of time.

Good. If Paul’s warnings don’t have an expiration date, probably this his words don’t have too:

"Be on guard for yourselves and for all athe flock, among which the Holy Spirit has made you 1overseers, to shepherd bthe church of God which cHe 2purchased 3with His own blood. “I know that after my departure asavage wolves will come in among you, not sparing bthe flock;” (Act 20:28-29 NAU)

Paul said this long, long before Luther, Calvin, and so on. Why you do not applied this “non-expiration” words to the church fathers, for example?

Note: the word you see διχοστασία dichostasia (dissension / division / sedition) in Rom 16:17 is the same Greek word used in Gal 5:20

Not only “the same Greek word,” but the only 2 places were this word appear in the NT.

Also Paul isn’t talking to pagans with that warning. He’s talking to baptised members in the Church.

Which were mixed, with pagans and Jewish roots.

Private (interpretation / opinions) of scripture with no valid & ultimate authority over one’s understanding, is a blueprint for chaos.

What was opinions of many church fathers than blueprint for chaos - according to your claims. But, you still accept fathers as “the voice of the church,” and so on. And you dare complain something about protestants? Funny.

 

[No_Nick]

Sorry bro, but everytime you keep reiterating this bunk, you compel me–and others–to correct you.

One more time–YES, the original OT books were written in Hebrew–however, the originals were lost, after the Romans sacked Jerusalem in 70 AD, and scattered the Jews (Diaspora of the Jews).

The Septuagint was the official Greek translation, sanctioned by the jewish Authorities–representing all 12 tribes of Israel–more than 100 years before Christ was born. This is the version of the OT used by Jesus and the Apostles–which is evidenced by 135 references to it, in the NT.

This version of the OT contained those 6 books.

Those 6 books were contained in the earliest listing of cannon, dating back to the late 4th century–even being included in the LATIN VULGATE, prepared by St. Jerome, at the commissioning of Pope Damasus, in 382 AD.

Your claim is so easily debunked, that it is frankly embarrasing that you would reiterate it–now for the 3rd time.

Tell this to Melito from Sard. He doesn’t list apocrypha in his OT canon list, for example.

Do you deny that the Latin Vulgate Bible existed??? It had those 6 books.

Luther added apocryphal books in his translation. Does this mean that he thought that apocryphal books are inspired, or equal as canonical? Sure - NOT. It is the same as Jeronim.

What you keep calling the ‘original hebrew’ OT, did not exist until circa 200 AD. At least 300 years after the Septuagint (when the Jewsish authorities couldn’t abide their scriptures ratifying Jesus Christ, as the messiah).

I don’t understand what you trying to tell me, sorry.

 

[rfournier103]

HUM. It’s very interesting that many Catholics think that Catholics wrote the Bible. It is also called the word of God. The word of God may have been penned by early Christians but the word used in the original text is also used to describe a boat being carried along by the wind. SO… the writers were borne along by the Holy Spirit (God) and using their own writing styles and personalities penned the Bible from God.

So… in essence… the Bible was not actually written by “Catholics” as many Catholics argue, but was actually written by God.

As a Protestant who had a Catholic education (secondary and tertiary) and have a great respect for the dialogue between faiths… there is great debate about why the extra books were later added to the original books of the Bible. The history is very interesting upon examination and although I do not dismiss those books out of hand… it is an interesting debate as to if they belong there to begin with!

So, maybe you can tell me who decided on the Canon of Scripture? Who decided what books are inspired, and which ones are not? This is all very confusing…

 

[rfournier103]

No Nick, maybe you can explain who decided the Canon of Scripture to me also. I am interested in the Protestant take on where the Canon came from. There are a thousand Catholics here who will tell me how we got 73; but nobody can tell me how we got 66, and who gave them authority to make that decision.

R.C. Sproul has called the Bible a “fallible collection of infallible books.” Is that true? So, how do we know??? Thanks!

 

[jmcrae]

Tell this to Melito from Sard. He doesn’t list apocrypha in his OT canon list, for example.

Keep in mind that Melito of Sard didn’t have “a book” of the Old Testament. (The printing press was more than a thousand years away from being invented, yet.) His list is a list of the hand-writen scrolls he had available to him (one copy of each to be shared among the parish churches in his Diocese) - he was not intending to define the canon of the Old Testament once and for all time - he didn’t have that authority. He was telling the priests of his own Diocese what they had available to them from his library that they could use to read from at Mass. Remember, each Diocese had only one copy of each book, and most of them did not have all of the books, at that time - not hundreds or thousands as we do today.

Luther added apocryphal books in his translation. Does this mean that he thought that apocryphal books are inspired, or equal as canonical? Sure - NOT. It is the same as Jeronim.

We have no idea whether he did or not. The Deuterocanon of the Old Testament was not removed until some time in the 1600s, and it had to do with saving ink and time - theology was not the consideration.

I don’t understand what you trying to tell me, sorry.

The Jews did not establish a set Canon of Scripture until at least 90 AD (according to legend, at Jamnia, which was a Rabbinical school) and probably in reality not until centuries later. They certainly didn’t have one at the time of Christ, and if they had one at the time of St. Jerome, it was nothing like what Jesus would have used - and that would have been on purpose - they wanted nothing to do with Jesus.

 

[No_Nick]

Keep in mind that Melito of Sard didn’t have “a book” of the Old Testament. (The printing press was more than a thousand years away from being invented, yet.) His list is a list of the hand-writen scrolls he had available to him (one copy of each to be shared among the parish churches in his Diocese) - he was not intending to define the canon of the Old Testament once and for all time - he didn’t have that authority. He was telling the priests of his own Diocese what they had available to them from his library that they could use to read from at Mass. Remember, each Diocese had only one copy of each book, and most of them did not have all of the books, at that time - not hundreds or thousands as we do today.

I understand, but it is interesting that he didn’t include apocrypha. OK, he excluded book of Esther, I think so, but - where is the apocrypha? Not only Melito. What about Athanasius’ list? He excluded apocrypha when he listed OT books (except letter of Baruch, I think - correct me, pls., if I mistake).

We have no idea whether he did or not.

I think we can know. Jerome didn’t hold apocrypha the same as other OT books. Apocrypha were not equal as the other OT books. This situation wasn’t only with Luther and Jerome, but also with KJV Bible from 1611, or with Essenes, or with some other groups or individual(s) through the history of christianity.

The Deuterocanon of the Old Testament was not removed until some time in the 1600s, and it had to do with saving ink and time - theology was not the consideration.

Acctualy, apocryphal books was finaly accepted at Trent, 1546. Even at that time, and after Trent, some catholics doubted about apocrypha. This question was not (and is not) so simply, as many catholics say.

]The Jews did not establish a set Canon of Scripture until at least 90 AD (according to legend, at Jamnia, which was a Rabbinical school) and probably in reality not until centuries later.

Did you ever heard about so called “Javneh myth?” Find out article from JSTOR, On the origins of the council of Javneh myth. At Jamnia (or Javneh), rabbis **never **debated about canon, they only debated **why **some of the OT books already were in their canon. In other words saying, they do not decided which book will be in OT canon and which will not. Contemporary sholars denied this Javneh myth.

They certainly didn’t have one at the time of Christ, and if they had one at the time of St. Jerome, it was nothing like what Jesus would have used - and that would have been on purpose - they wanted nothing to do with Jesus.

And christians wanted nothing to do with Jewish, too? It is the same. But, this topic is, in my opinion, very deep and complex. Unfortunately, I can’t express in English as in my native language, and it is better to stop here.

 

[Grace2013]

Hello. Sometimes when I’m in a discussion with a Protestant, and I share a particular verse with them, they’ll say “Oh but that’s the Catholic translation. It’s worded in favor of your doctrines.” what do I say to that?

Also, I’ve heard that the NIV translation is heavily biased in favor of n-C Christian beliefs. The funny thing is, is that sounds like the exact same thing I get told. Is there any truth to this? Thanks

The simplest way that works for me: Have handy a 1611 KJV Bible (though a little pricey depending on where you get it) with all 73 books still intact for witnessing purposes, especially to “KJV only” Protestants. They are currently using 1900’s version KJV with the edited books. Stops them right in their tracks everytime with that argument in my experience and opens the door to a little history lesson whereas they wouldn’t have believed it before seeing it.

 

[No_Nick]

No Nick, maybe you can explain who decided the Canon of Scripture to me also. I am interested in the Protestant take on where the Canon came from. There are a thousand Catholics here who will tell me how we got 73; but nobody can tell me how we got 66, and who gave them authority to make that decision.

R.C. Sproul has called the Bible a “fallible collection of infallible books.” Is that true? So, how do we know??? Thanks!

You can’t decided wheter Jesus is or not God. Only by revelation you may know wheter He is or He is not truly God. Bible is inspired Word of God. You may resolve this question only through the revelation from God.

Epistle of Hebrew is inspired or not. If you decided that this epistle is not inspired - does this mean that this episle is really not inspired? I don’t think so. Tradition only **recognized **whose (or which - sorry…) books are **already **inspired. They couldn’t decided wheter this or that book is inspired or not. This is my opinion - in few words.

By the way, this topic is one of the my favorit topic, not because I debate with catholics and so on, but because many NON christians attack Bible, christianity, and so on. And I just wanted to know as much as possible about this issue. More than 10 years I read about this topics.

 

[jmcrae]

You can’t decided wheter Jesus is or not God. Only by revelation you may know wheter He is or He is not truly God. Bible is inspired Word of God. You may resolve this question only through the revelation from God.

Epistle of Hebrew is inspired or not. If you decided that this epistle is not inspired - does this mean that this episle is really not inspired? I don’t think so. Tradition only **recognized **whose (or which - sorry…) books are **already **inspired. They couldn’t decided wheter this or that book is inspired or not. This is my opinion - in few words.

Right. The Catholic Church discerned it because the Holy Spirit was with the Catholic Church. Just as Jesus promised.

The same Catholic Church discerned in the power of the same Holy Spirit the 46 books of the Old Testament.

 

[jmcrae]

I understand, but it is interesting that he didn’t include apocrypha. OK, he excluded book of Esther, I think so, but - where is the apocrypha? Not only Melito. What about Athanasius’ list? He excluded apocrypha when he listed OT books (except letter of Baruch, I think - correct me, pls., if I mistake).

Both lists are different from each other, and different from anything that exists today. Again, it had to do with which books they had available to them. Shipping was expensive, books were expensive - nobody had the complete set until after St. Jerome went to the whole world and gathered them all together into his cave.

I think we can know. Jerome didn’t hold apocrypha the same as other OT books. Apocrypha were not equal as the other OT books.

In the end, he created the 73 book Catholic Bible. But he thought that the Palestinian canon was a lot older than it really was - he thought Jesus used the Palestinian canon. (Not possible. It didn’t exist until at least 90 AD, but probably not until much, much later.)

This situation wasn’t only with Luther and Jerome, but also with KJV Bible from 1611, or with Essenes, or with some other groups or individual(s) through the history of christianity.

Luther’s Bible and the KJV of 1611 both had 73 books. The Essenes used a 29-book Bible.

Acctualy, apocryphal books was finaly accepted at Trent, 1546. Even at that time, and after Trent, some catholics doubted about apocrypha. This question was not (and is not) so simply, as many catholics say.

It was defined and closed at that time. It was in use from at least the time of St. Jerome, and we also know that Jesus and the Apostles used a 46-book Old Testament.

Did you ever heard about so called “Javneh myth?” Find out article from JSTOR, On the origins of the council of Javneh myth. At Jamnia (or Javneh), rabbis **never **debated about canon, they only debated **why **some of the OT books already were in their canon. In other words saying, they do not decided which book will be in OT canon and which will not. Contemporary sholars denied this Javneh myth.

Which means that the 39-book canon did not exist until centuries later.

 

[steve_b]

Paul said:

Is there any benefit, then, in being a Jew? Is there any advantage in being circumcised? A great deal, in every way. First of all, it was to the Jews that the message of God was entrusted. (Rom 3:1,2 NJB)

Generaly, Jewish nation didn’t accepted Jesus as Savior, but - most of the first christians were Jewish, not pagans. Second, they (Jews) received the Bible - even if they (actually, many of them, not all) later rejected Jesus.

Maybe you forget few, from the catholic view, clearly apocryphal books which were in the LXX. Protestants rejects only apocryphal books - not true canonical books. Sorry because of that.

• There are no apocryphal books in the LXX.
• Protestant bibles are scripture light. They reject 7 canonical books.

 

[No_Nick]

Right. The Catholic Church discerned it because the Holy Spirit was with the Catholic Church. Just as Jesus promised.

The same Catholic Church discerned in the power of the same Holy Spirit the 46 books of the Old Testament.

If we talk about tradition, you are right. But, if we take the Bible, than your tradition must fall.

Remember this for ever - there is no evidence that the Jews (neither Hebrew nor Greek speaking) **ever **accepted a wider canon than the twenty-two books of the Hebrew OT.

The only who accepted apocrypha were **some **christians - not all. Many of the church authorities of the early church rejected apocrypha (Origen, Cyril of Jerusalem, Athanasius, Jerome). It wasn’t in early church when apocrypha was accepted as canonical. Not until 1546 AD in a polemical action at the counter-Reformation Council of Trent (1545-63), did the apocryphal books receive **full **canonical status by the Roman Catholic Church. Anyone who rejected decision of this council will be under, guess, anathema.

 

[jmcrae]

If we talk about tradition, you are right. But, if we take the Bible, than your tradition must fall.

Not at all. The Bible is part of our Tradition. Here is what Gilbert Chesterton has to say about it:

The original 16th-century revolutionaries had the mysterious conviction that you could attack a procession of Catholic worshippers, knock the miter off the priest’s head, dash the Eucharist to the ground, burn the vestments, smash the images, and overturn the altar – yet inexplicably seize their Holy Book and declare it an infallible oracle. - G. K. Chesterton

Remember this for ever - there is no evidence that the Jews (neither Hebrew nor Greek speaking) **ever **accepted a wider canon than the twenty-two books of the Hebrew OT.

In that case, where did the 39-book canon come from. I know where the 73 book canon came from.

The only who accepted apocrypha were **some **christians - not all. Many of the church authorities of the early church rejected apocrypha (Origen, Cyril of Jerusalem, Athanasius, Jerome). It wasn’t in early church when apocrypha was accepted as canonical. Not until 1546 AD in a polemical action at the counter-Reformation Council of Trent (1545-63), did the apocryphal books receive **full **canonical status by the Roman Catholic Church. Anyone who rejected decision of this council will be under, guess, anathema.

St. Jerome’s Bible has 73 books. From the time he first created it, it has always been the official Bible of the Church. It is the authoritative source from which all subsequent translations have been made.

 

[No_Nick]

Both lists are different from each other, and different from anything that exists today. Again, it had to do with which books they had available to them. Shipping was expensive, books were expensive - nobody had the complete set until after St. Jerome went to the whole world and gathered them all together into his cave.

Maybe list differ in some way, but the point is that they weren’t accepted apocrypha, maybe only few of them. Jerome was the translator, in my opinion, he was beyond his time, but, even he translated apocrypha, he never equal them with hebrew OT canon.

In the end, he created the 73 book Catholic Bible. But he thought that the Palestinian canon was a lot older than it really was - he thought Jesus used the Palestinian canon. (Not possible. It didn’t exist until at least 90 AD, but probably not until much, much later.)

Myth. We know so little about this. If is this so simply, as you try to tell me (this is rather popular myth among catholics, but I understand you) - then debates regarding OT canon should never appear in the first 5 centuries of christianity. It is widely known that this issue was hot issue through the centuries. I told you, this question or issue is not so simply (even many catholics recognize this).

Luther’s Bible and the KJV of 1611 both had 73 books. The Essenes used a 29-book Bible.

Essenes had something like appendix to their Bible. They also **never **equal apocrypha with 22 OT books. They recognized their (apocrypha) values, as Luther, for example, or Jerome (in my country, we say “Jeronim,” not “Jerome”), or some other, but apocrypha never was equal with Scripture or Bible.

It was defined and closed at that time. It was in use from at least the time of St. Jerome, and we also know that Jesus and the Apostles used a 46-book Old Testament.

Jesus never quoted from apocrypha. Jesus never called “apocrypha” Scripture. Apostles too. Only what we can know from Jesus time is that apocrypha never was part of OT collection.

Which means that the 39-book canon did not exist until centuries later.

You say. I’m saying - just read about this so called Javneh myth.

 

[No_Nick]

Not at all. The Bible is part of our Tradition. Here is what Gilbert Chesterton has to say about it:

The original 16th-century revolutionaries had the mysterious conviction that you could attack a procession of Catholic worshippers, knock the miter off the priest’s head, dash the Eucharist to the ground, burn the vestments, smash the images, and overturn the altar – yet inexplicably seize their Holy Book and declare it an infallible oracle. - G. K. Chesterton

I do not understand this, but your tradition is pretty contradictory with jewish tradition, not jewish tradition after Jesus’ death, but before He came on the Earth.

In that case, where did the 39-book canon come from.

From God.

I know where the 73 book canon came from.

I know too.

St. Jerome’s Bible has 73 books. From the time he first created it, it has always been the official Bible of the Church. It is the authoritative source from which all subsequent translations have been made.

If is this true, as you say, then church must repeat and return to the beginning. If church accepted apocryphal books, then the problem is not in the apocryphal books, but in the church.

 

[rfournier103]

If we talk about tradition, you are right. But, if we take the Bible, than your tradition must fall.

Remember this for ever - there is no evidence that the Jews (neither Hebrew nor Greek speaking) **ever **accepted a wider canon than the twenty-two books of the Hebrew OT.

The only who accepted apocrypha were **some **christians - not all. Many of the church authorities of the early church rejected apocrypha (Origen, Cyril of Jerusalem, Athanasius, Jerome). It wasn’t in early church when apocrypha was accepted as canonical. Not until 1546 AD in a polemical action at the counter-Reformation Council of Trent (1545-63), did the apocryphal books receive **full **canonical status by the Roman Catholic Church. Anyone who rejected decision of this council will be under, guess, anathema.

Sorry, chief. You STILL haven’t explained how we have our Canon. In 1546 the Church just ‘re-affirmed’ the Canon, not create it. The re-affirmation was needed because certain people decided to REMOVE books from the Bible.

I’ve read in many Catholic books that the Hebrews EVENTUALLY rejected the Deuterocanon because it was originally written in Greek, but that it was part of the Hebrew Canon during the life of Christ. Do you have a source that states factually that they were always rejected?

Also, don’t degrade our Tradition. I find that rather insulting. If you want to discuss something, show some respect. You know this is a Catholic forum, so that’s an indication of what we believe. How about telling us what YOUR tradition is; so we may be on a level playing field?

Also, don’t forget to tell us who decided the Protestant Canon. We’re waiting…

 

[Fidelis]

Remember this for ever - there is no evidence that the Jews (neither Hebrew nor Greek speaking) **ever **accepted a wider canon than the twenty-two books of the Hebrew OT.

Wrong AGAIN. In first century Jerusalem there were at least four OT Canons in use by different Jewish Groups. There was the Canon of the Pharisees, the Sadducees, the Ethiopian Jews and the Diaspora/Essene Jews. Jesus and the disciples used the Septuagint which was the Canon of the Diaspora/Essenes. One way we know this because when the Old Testament is quoted in the New Testament, 85% of the time it is clearly identifiable as being from the Greek Septuagint version.

This Canon continued to be the Canon of Christians until after the Reformation and, in fact until about 200 years ago when the Protestants adopted a condensed version of the Canon eliminating the Deuterocanonicals from their Bibles. Even the KJV originally contained the complete Christian Canon. It has been said by critics of Christ’s Church that the Deuterocanonicals were never believed to be inspired and just the opposite is true. The decision by Christians as to which books are inspired and useful for teaching was decided at the African Synods in the late fourth and early fifth century. There was never a question about their inspiration.

The OT Canon chosen by the Protestants is actually a Jewish Canon not chosen by the Jews until after the establishment of Christianity as a result of the spread of Christianity to slow the growth of the new group in Jerusalem after the fall of the Temple in AD 70. Until then as I said previously there were many Canons in use. The adoption of the Canon missing the Deuterocanonicals united the Jews against the Christians and was decided upon, ultimately, because the Deuterocanonicals referred too strongly to the Messiah fulfilled in Christ.

Some Protestants will claim that only the Jews have the authority to choose the Canon but the fact is that Protestants choose to adopt the Canon that was approved by the same Jews that rejected the New Testament and the Deuterocanonicals because they pointed to Jesus as Messiah. Ironic, no?

 

[steve_b]

True. It originally designated a financial or civil office in the Roman Empire, before Ignatius (who probably first uses this word).

Nooooooo, it was refering to the Church. And since Ignatius was bishop of Antioch from ~69.a.d. to ~107 a.d., ordained by apostles, and a disciple of St John, he no doubt was using the name Catholic Church all that time he was bishop.

Polycarp, Bp of Smyrna, also a disciple of St John also calls the Church the Catholic Church

As did Irenaeus Bp of Lyions ~180 a.d.

As did Cyprian Bp of Carthage ~ 250 a.d.

in 325 a.d., the council of Nicea made belief in One Holy Catholic Apostolic Church an article of faith

.
NN:

Good. If Paul’s warnings don’t have an expiration date, probably this his words don’t have too:

"Be on guard for yourselves and for all athe flock, among which the Holy Spirit has made you 1overseers, to shepherd bthe church of God which cHe 2purchased 3with His own blood. “I know that after my departure asavage wolves will come in among you, not sparing bthe flock;” (Act 20:28-29 NAU)

You know who those wolves are…right? Heretics the Church had to fight, which she did successfully, and still does
ignatiusinsight.com/features2005/kwhthd_ancntheresies_july05.asp

and during the 16th century, add to that bunch, Luther, Calvin, etc etc etc
NN:

Paul said this long, long before Luther, Calvin, and so on.

And Pauls warning has no expiration date. Luther and Calvin were guilty of division, which means Paul’s condemnations apply to Luther and Calvin as well.
NN:

Why you do not applied this “non-expiration” words to the church fathers, for example?

The ECF’s were guided by the Church, and didn’t leave the Church.
NN:

Not only “the same Greek word,” but the only 2 places were this word appear in the NT.

And it is an activity that is condemned till the end of time.
NN:

What was opinions of many church fathers than blueprint for chaos - according to your claims. But, you still accept fathers as “the voice of the church,” and so on. And you dare complain something about protestants? Funny.

Chaos I was refering to, came from every man his own interpreter of scripture not being guided and corrected by valid authority. Protestantism brought that about.

The ECF’s many of whom were 1 or 2 men away from an apostle, were guided by the Church and remained in the Church. They didn’t create chaos.

 

[Goya]

Tell this to Melito from Sard. He doesn’t list apocrypha in his OT canon list, for example.

…

I don’t understand what you trying to tell me, sorry.

I’d be happy to–but it seems Pope Damasus beat me to it.

b/t/w: Melito of Sardis, wasn’t a Pope. Neither was St. Jerome–which is why I pointed out in my first 2 posts, that St. Jerome also sought to exclude those 6 books–but was over ruled by Pope Damasus.

Pax Domini sit semper vobiscum.