The Holy Bible (origin\compilation)

  • Thread starter Thread starter scylla
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
How do you know that the Apostles included them with scripture, and not just alternate reading?
Because when they were writing the NT and referenced an OT passage, they quoted the Septuagint, (ever notice that Isaiah and Noah are spelled differently in the NT?) which contained the same books as the Catholic OT. If it was good enough for Jesus, it’s good enough for me! 👍

We don’t know exactly who the author of Hebrews was, do you doubt that Hebrews is inspired Scripture as well?
 
How do you know that the Apostles included them with scripture, and not just alternate reading?
“Alternate reading?” :confused:

The Bible is the set of books that are permitted to be read out in the Liturgy. There are no non-Biblical books permitted to be read out in the Liturgy, since to be permitted to be read out in the Liturgy is to be part of the Bible.

Therefore, it is not physically possible for a book to be permitted to be read out at the Liturgy, even as an optional or alternate reading, without thereby placing it into the canon of the Scriptures.
 
Because when they were writing the NT and referenced an OT passage, they quoted the Septuagint, (ever notice that Isaiah and Noah are spelled differently in the NT?) which contained the same books as the Catholic OT. If it was good enough for Jesus, it’s good enough for me! 👍
This is my question. Did the Apostles consider the Septuagint to be a part of scripture, or just supporting literature?
Why did Jerome choose the Hebrew translation over the Septuagint?
We don’t know exactly who the author of Hebrews was, do you doubt that Hebrews is inspired Scripture as well?
I do not question what I already have. The reason I question the additions, is because of the severe consequences that come with adding or taking away from scripture.
 
“Alternate reading?” :confused:

The Bible is the set of books that are permitted to be read out in the Liturgy. There are no non-Biblical books permitted to be read out in the Liturgy, since to be permitted to be read out in the Liturgy is to be part of the Bible.

Therefore, it is not physically possible for a book to be permitted to be read out at the Liturgy, even as an optional or alternate reading, without thereby placing it into the canon of the Scriptures.
How did it go from just the reading of the Penteteuch to the whole scripture? When did this change? Who made the guidelines for what was permissible reading material?
 
I want to know the advers of that question. How is the Word incomplete without them?
It’s missing 7 books, and a few sentences here and there. 🙂

In the synagogues, Jesus read from the Septuagint (Greek) version of the Jewish scriptures (which include these books), which were in common use all over the eastern Mediterranean region. Because at one point Alexander the Great conquered the whole area, and all the educated people spoke Greek for hundreds of years afterward.

And I assume someone already mentioned that the Jews removed the books (or for some reason failed to canonize their scriptures) until after the Christians started making headway, and they needed to slow down the attrition.

If it’s good enough for Jesus, and good enough for the whole Church for 1800 years or so, it’s good enough for me. I don’t think the gates of Hell prevailed for 1800 years and then finally got closed.

Sorry if this has been mentioned already. There are a lot of books on this subject, and even a lot of articles about where the Bible came from right here in the CAF library.

If your intent is to actually find the answers, that would be a more effective way than arguing with all of us. But in any case, God bless your search!
 
This is my question. Did the Apostles consider the Septuagint to be a part of scripture, or just supporting literature?
The Septuagint was the entire OT. Certain Jewish sects only accepted the Pentateuch. The Jews didn’t have an officially set canon until about 60 years after Christ’s death and resurrection.
Why did Jerome choose the Hebrew translation over the Septuagint?
Ultimately he did not.
I do not question what I already have. The reason I question the additions, is because of the severe consequences that come with adding or taking away from scripture.
They aren’t additions to the Bible. They were in the Bible from the time it was canonized. *Your *Bible has them taken away.

Where We Got the Bible
 
Maybe I can help, a bit; there is a LOT of misinformation on this thread. When I began studying Bible at the University level, roughly 40 years ago, we were taught that the Jewish cannon was set shortly after 130 AD and given a lot of stories about the criteria. Recently, people are talking about Jamina circa 90 AD. All this appears to be “old scholars tales”. I can find no record of a council that set the Jewish canon, only that Christians in dialog with Jews noticed, around the middle of the second century AD, that some books were no longer accepted by Jews, that had formerly been accepted by them. Where, when and why; is just speculation.

The Catholic canon is basically the Greek Septuagint. Josephus tells us that the Septuagint was the scripture of Palestine of about a generation after Jesus. Until the Dead Sea Scrolls, roughly contemporary with Jesus, the oldest Hebrew manuscripts of the Old Testament were centuries newer than the oldest manuscripts of the Septuagint; they do not read the same. Looking at the quotes, scholars quickly deduced that the New Testament quotes the Septuagint, rather than the Hebrew. Now that we are, finally, getting some of the Dead Sea Old Testament published, it appears to also agree with the Septuagint, rather than the nearly medieval Hebrew texts. So we can no longer be sure which was quoted.

When Latin replaced Greek as the common language of the Western Church, it was decided to translate scripture into Latin. The East had no problem as they still spoke Greek and had all their books in Greek. The Vulgate was the commonly accepted books in the common language. Saint Jerome consulted the Hebrew in making his translation, but translated from the Greek into Latin (otherwise, there would be no mention of a virgin in Isaiah 7:14, etc., etc.). This is when the Catholic canon was set, both Old and New Testaments. Several local councils were held, over decades. Not enough difference was found to hold a major council; the Pope declared the canon set; no one argued. Saint Jerome did give the reasons the 4th century Jews had explained to him for excluding the deuterocanonical books, but did not endorse them; this has been a source of misunderstanding; Saint Jerome endorsed the same canon as everyone else.

The Jews continued to pass the deuterocanonical books down, with their scripture; the early church passed books down that were not scripture (also occasionally quoted and alluded to them); early Protestants passed the deuterocanonical books down in their Bibles, but separate from their canonical books. If you acquire a copy of the Saint Joseph’s Edition of the New American Bible, you will find two sets of footnotes; commentary and cross reference. The latter will aid you in determining how much reference the New Testament makes to the deuterocanonical books. Ideas and wording repeat throughout the Old Testament. On the Cross, Jesus said "Father, into Your hands I commend My spirit.” Could refer to Psalm 31:6 and/or Wisdom 1:16-3:9; judge for yourself. READ THE BOOKS; we’re quite fond of them.

Why any Christian would lend credence to a Jewish canon set over 100 years after the Crucifixion is beyond me.
 
Maybe I can help, a bit; there is a LOT of misinformation on this thread.
Your contribution was VERY helpful - thank you! I didn’t mention the “Council of Jamnia” for the very reason you expressed.
Why any Christian would lend credence to a Jewish canon set over 100 years after the Crucifixion is beyond me.
My thoughts exactly.
 
As we have covered the topic that I do not believe in the infallibility of the Pope, then whether or not the church was actually guided by the HS or not is still without evidence. I am not just gonna take your word for it. This is why I am asking for specific criteria.
Scripture is clear and unambigous about Christ giving Peter and the Apostles (the first Catholics) and their successors the Authority to bind or loose. The Holy Spirity was sent to ensure they did not make mistakes in respect of faith and morals and no mistakes have ever been made in this respect (infallibility).
 
How did it go from just the reading of the Penteteuch to the whole scripture? When did this change? Who made the guidelines for what was permissible reading material?
When the Jews were under Greek (Seleucid/Ptolemaic) persecution (2nd/3rd centuries BC) the public reading of the Torah was banned so they replaced it with readings from the Prophets that said something similar. The books of the Prophets were as follows:

Joshua
Judges
Samuel (1&2)
Kings (1&2)
Isaiah
Jeremiah
Ezekiel
The Twelve Minor Prophets

When Torah reading was allowed they then had the reading as well as the Prophets reading. Also a Responsorial Psalm was added some time as well, not sure the exact time though. However, the Sadducees split off and only considered the Torah Scripture. Thus the Pharisees had a much smaller canon than the Tanakh/Protestant OT, hence why Jesus told them to read the Law, the Prophets and the Psalms. Most Jews used the Septuagint, which had the Catholic OT (maybe a couple of other books in some versions). Though what the Jews that used the Septuagint read in Liturgy is unknown, because to this day in Synagogues you’ll only ever hear read from the Law, the Prophets and the Psalms, the other 10 (or 12 in Christian terms) books are never read
 
This is my question. Did the Apostles consider the Septuagint to be a part of scripture, or just supporting literature?
Why did Jerome choose the Hebrew translation over the Septuagint?

I do not question what I already have. The reason I question the additions, is because of the severe consequences that come with adding or taking away from scripture.
So, you question anything the Catholic Church added to the bible? Based on your posts, I have to guess you answer yes to this. If that is the case, then you better not accept the entire NT because it was written and accepted as scriptural by guess who…yes, THE CATHOLIC CHURCH.

You also previously stated you don’t accept the infallibility of the Pope…fine, but why do you accept the infallibility of luther??? He is the one who called the Deuterocanon non-scriptural and hence, non-biblical. Why do you take his word without question?
 
How did it go from just the reading of the Penteteuch to the whole scripture? When did this change? Who made the guidelines for what was permissible reading material?
The Jewish lectionary developed over time; others would know the history of this way better than I do. I am under the impression that the Scribes were in charge of the Lectionary, at that time. During the time of Jesus, they were using the 46-book Old Testament as the source for their daily readings.

The Christian lectionary was actually taken from the Jewish Lectionary, and in fact, the original form of the Mass was to attend the Liturgy of the Word at the Synagogue on Saturday, and then attend the Liturgy of the Eucharist in the community of Christians on Sundays. The Christian lectionary as we know it today was developed in its first completed form (including the entire New Testament, rather than just parts of it) by Pope Innocent I in about 405 AD, when he promulgated the canon of the New Testament to the whole Church (which had been proposed to him by three Councils of Bishops - Rome, Hippo, and Carthage) and commissioned St. Jerome to finalize the translation of them into Latin, and add them to the codex of the Scriptures. Once the translation into Latin was completed, it became possible to create a complete Christian Lectionary that gave readings for each day of the year from each of 73 books of Holy Scripture, over the span of one year.

There have been variants of it since then - there were some changes made to it at the Council of Trent (this one is still being used by members of the Fraternal Society of St. Peter, which has permission from the Vatican to retain the Tridentine forms), and then it was modified again at the Council of Vatican II.

At this time it was changed from a one-year Lectionary to a three-year Lectionary, and this is the one that the majority of members of the Latin Rite of the Catholic Church are using at present. Other Rites, such as the Byzantine, are still using the original Lectionary that was created during the 5th century.
 
So, you question anything the Catholic Church added to the bible? Based on your posts, I have to guess you answer yes to this. If that is the case, then you better not accept the entire NT because it was written and accepted as scriptural by guess who…yes, THE CATHOLIC CHURCH.

You also previously stated you don’t accept the infallibility of the Pope…fine, but why do you accept the infallibility of luther??? He is the one who called the Deuterocanon non-scriptural and hence, non-biblical. Why do you take his word without question?
See what violence was done to the Body of Christ by the reformers who had the best of intentions? Meanwhile, the body of satan remains unified in evil. Any wonder why the world looks as it does?

Christ’s peace be with all.
 
So, you question anything the Catholic Church added to the bible? Based on your posts, I have to guess you answer yes to this. If that is the case, then you better not accept the entire NT because it was written and accepted as scriptural by guess who…yes, THE CATHOLIC CHURCH.

You also previously stated you don’t accept the infallibility of the Pope…fine, but why do you accept the infallibility of luther??? He is the one who called the Deuterocanon non-scriptural and hence, non-biblical. Why do you take his word without question?
You couldn’t be more wrong. I am here looking for specifics about the 7 other books. Im not so much as arguing, as just getting acurate information.

As for infallibility, I do not believe that Luther was infallible either. I happen to come from a church that has given much support to the Catholic church that is near us. We have a standing friendship with them, and plaques from the Bishop of Wilmington. So I neither believe what you think I do, nor do I have resentment or hatred for the Catholic Church.
 
You couldn’t be more wrong. I am here looking for specifics about the 7 other books. Im not so much as arguing, as just getting acurate information.

As for infallibility, I do not believe that Luther was infallible either. I happen to come from a church that has given much support to the Catholic church that is near us. We have a standing friendship with them, and plaques from the Bishop of Wilmington. So I neither believe what you think I do, nor do I have resentment or hatred for the Catholic Church.
But the question still remains why you take Luther’s authority alone on the canon of the Bible. Really, you are asking us about additions, but you should be asking YOURSELF why you believe in a truncated version of scripture. Your question is backwards.
 
I took him as trying to determine whether we added or they subtracted. Not accepting anyone’s authority, trying to find out for himself.
 
I took him as trying to determine whether we added or they subtracted. Not accepting anyone’s authority, trying to find out for himself.
No, he completely accepts the prot version of the bible with 7 fewer books based on the perceived authority of luther, yet rejects the complete bible compiled and accepted by the Catholic Church prior to the year 400 and not questioned until the 1500’s. He has been given numerous valid answers to his questions and he simply takes the answer and either rejects it outright, or comes up with another angle to argue against it.
 
I will read them myself before I would say either way. Like I said, I have not even seen these books.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top