The Books of Tobias, Judith, Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, Baruch, 1 Machabees, 2 Machabees, are the 7 books taken out from the Bible by the reformers

  • Thread starter Thread starter ufamtobie
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
U

ufamtobie

Guest
Pope Damasus assembled the first list of books of the Bible at the Roman Council in 382 A.D. He commissioned St. Jerome to translate the original Greek and Hebrew texts into Latin, which became known as the Latin Vulgate Bible and was declared by the Church to be the only authentic and official version, in 1546.

The DR New Testament was first published by the English College at Rheims in 1582 A.D. The DR Old Testament was first published by the English College at Douay in 1609 A.D. The first King James Version was not published until 1611. This online DRV contains all 73 books, including the seven Deutero-Canonical books (erroneously called Apocrypha by Protestants). These seven books were included in the 1611 KJV, but not in later KJV Bibles.

St. Jerome considered the seven Deutero-Canonical books to be NOT inspired by God, but he was commissioned by Pope Damasus to translate all 73 books into Latin. Pope Damasus considered the 7 DC books to be inspired by God. Later in 1946, after the finding of the dead-sea scrolls, it was discovered that these 7 DC books were used by the Jews in Alexandria, even in their services. **This verifies that Pope Damasus was correct. **

It is interesting to note that the Palestinian Jews did not accept the 7 DC books for their version of Holy Scriptures and neither did they accept any of the New Testament. Unfortunately, the Protestants base their Bible on this version which comes from a people who did not accept Jesus Christ as the Messiah.
www.drbo.org

FYI
Ufamtobie
 
ufamtobie said:
Pope Damasus assembled the first list of books of the Bible at the Roman Council in 382 A.D. He commissioned St. Jerome to translate the original Greek and Hebrew texts into Latin, which became known as the Latin Vulgate Bible and was declared by the Church to be the only authentic and official version, in 1546.

The DR New Testament was first published by the English College at Rheims in 1582 A.D. The DR Old Testament was first published by the English College at Douay in 1609 A.D. The first King James Version was not published until 1611. This online DRV contains all 73 books, including the seven Deutero-Canonical books (erroneously called Apocrypha by Protestants). These seven books were included in the 1611 KJV, but not in later KJV Bibles.

St. Jerome considered the seven Deutero-Canonical books to be NOT inspired by God, but he was commissioned by Pope Damasus to translate all 73 books into Latin. Pope Damasus considered the 7 DC books to be inspired by God. Later in 1946, after the finding of the dead-sea scrolls, it was discovered that these 7 DC books were used by the Jews in Alexandria, even in their services. **This verifies that Pope Damasus was correct. **

It is interesting to note that the Palestinian Jews did not accept the 7 DC books for their version of Holy Scriptures and neither did they accept any of the New Testament. Unfortunately, the Protestants base their Bible on this version which comes from a people who did not accept Jesus Christ as the Messiah.
www.drbo.org

FYI
Ufamtobie
Click to expand...
“In surviving manuscripts the Decretal exists on its own and also appended to a list of books of Scripture titled as attested as canonical by a Council of Rome under Pope Damasus I, bishop of Rome 366–383. Since that list contains a quotation from Augustine, writing about 416, it is evident that the title Incipit Concilium Vrbis Romae sub Damaso Papa de Explanatione Fidei, the so-called Damasine List, is of no historical value”
 
Rightlydivide said:
“In surviving manuscripts the Decretal exists on its own and also appended to a list of books of Scripture titled as attested as canonical by a Council of Rome under Pope Damasus I, bishop of Rome 366–383. Since that list contains a quotation from Augustine, writing about 416, it is evident that the title Incipit Concilium Vrbis Romae sub Damaso Papa de Explanatione Fidei, the so-called Damasine List, is of no historical value”
Click to expand...
After doing a search I find no mentions of Augustine on the Damasine List, could you please provide a source giving that info. thank you
 
Rightlydivide said:
“In surviving manuscripts the Decretal exists on its own and also appended to a list of books of Scripture titled as attested as canonical by a Council of Rome under Pope Damasus I, bishop of Rome 366–383. Since that list contains a quotation from Augustine, writing about 416, it is evident that the title Incipit Concilium Vrbis Romae sub Damaso Papa de Explanatione Fidei, the so-called Damasine List, is of no historical value”
Click to expand...
How is this important?
 
Those books are not in the Jewish Bible. The Protestant Reformers chose to use the same Bible we have, which is the Masoretic text.

And so, those books were only “taken out” of the Catholic Bible. We never had them in ours.
 
Sepharad said:
Those books are not in the Jewish Bible. The Protestant Reformers chose to use the same Bible we have, which is the Masoretic text.

And so, those books were only “taken out” of the Catholic Bible. We never had them in ours.
Click to expand...
Didn’t Jews outside of Palestine include all of them, or at least some of them? To this day Jews in Ethiopia use them, if I’m not mistaken.

Alloho minokhoun,
Andrew
 
ufamtobie said:
Pope Damasus assembled the first list of books of the Bible at the Roman Council in 382 A.D. He commissioned St. Jerome to translate the original Greek and Hebrew texts into Latin, which became known as the Latin Vulgate Bible and was declared by the Church to be the only authentic and official version, in 1546.

The DR New Testament was first published by the English College at Rheims in 1582 A.D. The DR Old Testament was first published by the English College at Douay in 1609 A.D. The first King James Version was not published until 1611. This online DRV contains all 73 books, including the seven Deutero-Canonical books (erroneously called Apocrypha by Protestants). These seven books were included in the 1611 KJV, but not in later KJV Bibles.

St. Jerome considered the seven Deutero-Canonical books to be NOT inspired by God, but he was commissioned by Pope Damasus to translate all 73 books into Latin. Pope Damasus considered the 7 DC books to be inspired by God. Later in 1946, after the finding of the dead-sea scrolls, it was discovered that these 7 DC books were used by the Jews in Alexandria, even in their services. **This verifies that Pope Damasus was correct. **

It is interesting to note that the Palestinian Jews did not accept the 7 DC books for their version of Holy Scriptures and neither did they accept any of the New Testament. Unfortunately, the Protestants base their Bible on this version which comes from a people who did not accept Jesus Christ as the Messiah.
www.drbo.org

FYI
Ufamtobie
Click to expand...
Uh, wait a minute. We Anglicans have the apocrypha in our Bibles.
 
The Septuagint was rejected eventually because it was developed for Hellenized Jews, that is, Jews who had assimilated. It was written in Greek, which is not a Jewish Scriptural language. The Jewish Scriptures were originally in Hebrew, and the Masoretic text returned them to that.
 
Sepharad said:
The Septuagint was rejected eventually because it was developed for Hellenized Jews, that is, Jews who had assimilated. It was written in Greek, which is not a Jewish Scriptural language. The Jewish Scriptures were originally in Hebrew, and the Masoretic text returned them to that.
Click to expand...
Yes, the Septuagint was rejected by the Jews. Most Jews spoke Greek, the lingua franca, in the eastern Empire, which was the purpose for translating the Jewish scriptures to Greek (Septuagint). Greek was also the language of the Christian Church. Around the 2nd century AD, the Jews started to abandon the Septuagint. The Christians continued to use because it was Greek. It was the Christian canon until the reformation.
 
ckempston said:
I’m glad someone pointed this out. Relying on the Masoretic Text is hardly a good argument for the Protestant canon.
Click to expand...
Can you elaborate?
I cannot tell if you are advocating for the superiority of the LXX to the MT or what exactly.
 
Sepharad said:
The Septuagint was rejected eventually because it was developed for Hellenized Jews, that is, Jews who had assimilated. It was written in Greek, which is not a Jewish Scriptural language. The Jewish Scriptures were originally in Hebrew, and the Masoretic text returned them to that.
Click to expand...
Council of Jabneh
**The so-called “Council of Jabneh” was a group of Jewish scholars who were granted permission by Rome around the year 90 to meet in Palestine near the Mediterranean Sea in Jabneh (or Jamnia). Here they established a non-authoritative, “reconstituted” Sanhedrin. **
Among the things they discussed was the status of several questionable writings in the Jewish Bible. They also rejected the Christian writings and made a new translation of the Greek Septuagint.

According to the Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church, the “council” in Jabneh in 90 was not even an “official” council with binding authority to make such a decision:

**“After the fall of Jerusalem (A.D. 70), an assembly of religious teachers was established at Jabneh; this body was regarded as to some extent replacing the Sanhedrin, though it did not possess the same representative character or national authority. It appears that one of the subjects discussed among the rabbis was the status of certain biblical books (e.g. Eccles. and Song of Solomon) whose canonicity was still open to question in the 1st century A.D. The suggestion that a particular synod of Jabneh, held c. 100 A.D., finally settling the limits of the Old Testament canon, was made by H. E. Ryle; though it has had a wide currency, there is no evidence to substantiate it” **
(ed. by F. L. Cross and E. A. Livingston [Oxford Univ. Press, 861]).
 
Sepharad said:
Those books are not in the Jewish Bible. The Protestant Reformers chose to use the same Bible we have, which is the Masoretic text.

And so, those books were only “taken out” of the Catholic Bible. We never had them in ours.
Click to expand...
Funny, the title of this thread uses “taken out”, but from the OP it’s not what I read!! Why those who wrote it in the title is way beyond me!
 
Rightlydivide said:
Can you elaborate?
I cannot tell if you are advocating for the superiority of the LXX to the MT or what exactly.
Click to expand...
I wasn’t making any claim about superiority of either translation, but of the difference in content and time frame. It makes no sense to support the Protestant canon by pointing to something the Jews did over a thousand years after the fact.
 
Estas palabras atraen mucho la atencion! (These words attract attention much!)😃
 
SIA said:
Uh, wait a minute. We Anglicans have the apocrypha in our Bibles.
Click to expand...
Why have the Deuterocanonical Books been called apocrypha by Protestant Churches (and apparently the Anglican Church too(the Low Church, not the High Church) )?
That word itself would be enough for many not to consider them legitimately part of Holy Scriptures, would it not?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top