"That's a Catholic translation"

[Goya]

To further the point–hypothetically speaking–had Melito of Sardis followed the Septuagint and included those books–and had St. Jereme done the same–and Pope Damasus over ruled him and insturcted St. Jerome to exclued those 6 books–you’d have a point. Then YOU could say, the Catholic Church removed 6 books that were included in what Jesus and the Apostles knew as scripture. (And surely, protestants would have championed that cause, as if those books were the most significant in the OT)…

Alas, history simply does not back you here. 'twas the reformers who deleted books which were originally included–not the Catholic Church which ‘added them to the Bible’.

Pax Domini sit semper vobiscum.

 

[jkc313]

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).

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.

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.

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.

JMCRAE said the Jewish Canon was probably much after the Council Of Javneh. I’m not sure why you keep bringing up this “myth”. I went to the link you provided (thank you) and read the 3 page paper which goes back to when Spinoza first wrote about the Jews making their canon official and Javneh is never mentioned. Spinoza put forth the idea of a Pharisaic Council but did not date it. Graetz in 1871 decided that it was at Javneh with no references. He believed there were only 3 time periods that made any sense that there would be an interest in canonizing Jewish scripture: 1. The time of Nehemiahca 400 BC, 2.The time of the great Revolt of the schools of Shammai and Hillel ca 65 CE, and 3. The time of dismissal from office of R Gamaliel II ca 90 CE. Graetz proposed a two stage process of canonizing the Writings: 90 CE and then at Javneh in 65 CE because Ecclesiastes was not included in 65 CE. Graetz apparently invented the Javneh myth and wasn’t called on it.The current paper from Loyola says the same thing JMCRAE did, that it was much later that the Jewish texts became “official”. The author goes on to state that the myth of Javneh is a Jewish myth not a Christian one.
While all this is very interesting, I am still at a loss as to why you continue to bring it up.

 

[Goya]

JMCRAE …

While all this is very interesting, I am still at a loss as to why you continue to bring it up.

My guess–diversionery tactics. In rhetrospect, it seems that ‘No Nick’ was trolling from the begining. She starts out with some benign language (then under the handle of "nikicosier’–see page 2) about how she had catholic ed, (h/s and col.), then just kind of sneaks in there, why [the Catholic Church] later added those extra books to the 'original books of the Bible’, and gosh, how fun it is to debate this!

Sure–there’s such a great deal of room for debate here–if (and only if):

1. We pretend that the Septuagint didn’t exist;
2. We pretend that the Latin Vulgate didn’t exist.

There. Level playing field. Now, let’s debate!

 

[jcld]

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 only valid translation is The Septuagint, The Hebrew, Aramaic, & Greek texts, & The Latin Vulgate… And the Douay-Rheims… And of course, the books derived from these… What is that crazy Protestant talking about ?