Which Old Testament?

[fbl9]

if you read it as Jesus did then your deuterocannon wouldnt exist…

could you please explain your above response? Do you mean then that the books in question wouldn’t be in question because they would have been included and thus there would been no need to call them deutrocannon.

 

[fbl9]

I don’t think there is any way to prove or demonstrate that any of the NT authors thought the detuero’s were inspired or contained within the canon of scripture used by the Jews in the 1st century.

.

And on the other side there is no way to prove that that they didn’t think that the duetro books were not scripture.

 

[fbl9]

Fish if the deuteros were part of scripture then why does Jerome advise against using them for developing articles/doctrines of faith?? Clearly several early popes also held this same opinion in stating that the deuteros are good for edification but not considered sufficient for developing doctrines of faith. Please also demonstrate that Christ read from these works.

Can you (NDfan) also provide us with those words written by St.Jerome,The fact does remain that St.Jerome did indeed translate the books in question and included them in the vulgate.

 

[JonNC]

Yes and maybe for once i might actually get an answer

You know, though I’m no expert, I think a case can and has been made by both sides of the d-c question. The debate has gone on for a thousand years before Trent, and both camps provided reasonable evidence in their favor. For Catholics, Trent put an end to the debate, and I respect that. And while I stand with the Lutheran view, I think we have been negligent in not using them in ways that many, from Jerome to Luther, recommended - to study and read and honor them, but avoid making doctrine by them on their own.

Obviously, we should consider the scholarship of the Jews when we talk about and consider the OT scriptures.

Jon

 

[SemperReformada]

And on the other side there is no way to prove that that they didn’t think that the duetro books were not scripture.

Conclusively? No, I don’t think there is so iagree w/ you. We can only examine the evidence we have and make inferences from that.

 

[fbl9]

You know, though I’m no expert, I think a case can and has been made by both sides of the d-c question. The debate has gone on for a thousand years before Trent, and both camps provided reasonable evidence in their favor. For Catholics, Trent put an end to the debate, and I respect that. And while I stand with the Lutheran view, I think we have been negligent in not using them in ways that many, from Jerome to Luther, recommended - to study and read and honor them, but avoid making doctrine by them on their own.

Obviously, we should consider the scholarship of the Jews when we talk about and consider the OT scriptures.

Jon

Neither am i an expert on anything.
The piont does remain that the bulk of protestants rely on those not of christianity, to define the very base of their faith.

 

[Wesley7]

Which Old Testament?

Oldest and most accurate Old Testament in which the divinely inspired authors had written those OT books.

Or a Prophet may have dictated to a scribe,calligrapher,or pensman what to write down.
. . .

 

[JonNC]

Neither am i an expert on anything.
The piont does remain that the bulk of protestants rely on those not of christianity, to define the very base of their faith.

Then you must also make that claim of many a Catholic, including St. Jerome, and I think you would agree that Catholics would be offended were I to claim the Jerome's very base of faith relied on those not of Christianity.  Excuse us, then, if we take umbrage to the charge you make.
That said, I think the most of us would respond by saying that the very base of our faith is in Christ Jesus, the Gospel of the NT, and that we view the OT, specifically the prophesies, through that lens.  So, to say that the very base of our faith is dependent on, say, 1st or 2nd century Jewish scholars is at best, an oversimplification, and at worst just plane inaccurate.

Jon

 

[SemperReformada]

Oldest and most accurate Old Testament in which the divinely inspired authors had written those OT books.

Or a Prophet may have dictated to a scribe,calligrapher,or pensman what to write down.
. . .

Which OT is that? Which books did it contain? How do we know which books it contained? How do we know Jesus or the apostles used that particular version?

 

[SemperReformada]

Can you (NDfan) also provide us with those words written by St.Jerome,The fact does remain that St.Jerome did indeed translate the books in question and included them in the vulgate.

Jerome also included his prologues in the vulgate which were very negative toward the canonocity of the deutero’s.

You can go to newadvent.org and read the section under the canon of the OT for more information.

 

[kikkichan]

if you read it as Jesus did then your deuterocannon wouldnt exist…

Oh, but they *did *exist, and Jesus, Peter, Paul, James, and Moses sited passages from them! see the URL from the thread "Did Jesus quote from the deuterocanonical books?"

scripturecatholic.com/deuterocanon.html

Try this website:

www.scripturecatholic.com/deuterocanon.html

They are:
* Tobit
* Judith
* Additions to Esther (Vulgate Esther 10:4-16:24[5])
* Wisdom
* Sirach, also called Ben Sira or Ecclesiasticus
* Baruch, including the Letter of Jeremiah (Additions to Jeremiah in the Septuagint[6])
* Additions to Daniel:
o Song of the Three Children (Vulgate Daniel 3:24-90)
o Story of Susanna (Vulgate Daniel 13, Septuagint prologue)
o The Idol Bel and the Dragon (Vulgate Daniel 14, Septuagint epilogue)
* 1 Maccabees
* 2 Maccabees

-kc

 

[SemperReformada]

Oh, but they *did *exist, and Jesus, Peter, Paul, James, and Moses sited passages from them! see the URL from the thread "Did Jesus quote from the deuterocanonical books?"

scripturecatholic.com/deuterocanon.html

They are:
* Tobit
* Judith
* Additions to Esther (Vulgate Esther 10:4-16:24[5])
* Wisdom
* Sirach, also called Ben Sira or Ecclesiasticus
* Baruch, including the Letter of Jeremiah (Additions to Jeremiah in the Septuagint[6])
* Additions to Daniel:
o Song of the Three Children (Vulgate Daniel 3:24-90)
o Story of Susanna (Vulgate Daniel 13, Septuagint prologue)
o The Idol Bel and the Dragon (Vulgate Daniel 14, Septuagint epilogue)
* 1 Maccabees
* 2 Maccabees

-kc

The list from scripturecatholic is not very convincing at all. If you take a few minutes to research this out I am sure you will agree. But, even if the deutero’s were quoted by a NT author what would that prove?

The fact is the dc’s are never (not once) quoted in such a way as to establish their authority.

 

[BrianH]

1. There is not enough proof either way to determine the contents of a canon at the time of Jesus. The earliest existing copies of the LXX contained different books, in others words the books were in flux. Look at the news recently, the oldest copy of the Bible, Sinaticus, has a different OT canon thatn Vaticanus, the other oldest Bible. Heck scholars have known this for years…it just has not caught up with the internet yet…
2. Scripture Catholics list has been refuted time and time and some very good honest Catholics on here will admit it is bunk(this particular section anyway). It takes random phrases found in the DC and says that the NT authors were quoting from them. What is funny, it is ignores the same phrasing from older OT books. If you think I am wrong, take any of the so called quotes, just one will do actually and lets look at it. Any of them.
   The fact of the matter, and we have posted this before, the NT contains 3 or 4 probable quotes from the DC. None of them use the specifically call the quotes used scripture. It is certainly possible that they are quotes. HOwever, quotes do not prove canonicity or scores of books would be canonical that neither Protestant or Catholic consider scripture.

 

[fishisgood]

In Christs parable of the beggar Lazarus and the rich man… Is that from the old testament (scripture)??? real question… and its this thread that makes me ask it

 

[BrianH]

I do not understand your last question fishisgood. I apologize. Could you elaborate a little more please.

 

[fishisgood]

I do not understand your last question fishisgood. I apologize. Could you elaborate a little more please.

The parable in Luke where the rich man who ignores the beggar Lazarus dies and he is in hades and sees Abraham and Moses in heaven he wants to go tell his brothers how bad it is but he cant… is that actually from a place in scripture (in the old Testament???) Or did he get that from the oral tradition or was it directly from the Father?

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

When this topic comes up in various threads, there is one question that seems to never get answered…Why do you (protestants in general) accept the opinion of the very same people, whom rejected the Son,and continue to do so, in regards to just what God’s revealed words consist of?

St. Paul did. So the Protestant position is not an unreasonable one. If he had reasoned from the Crucifixion, to some lack pf competence in the Jews to recognise the OT, the objection might be valid. He didn’t do so. He says they don’t recognise the Messiah, because a veil is over the Scriptures when they read them - not that they can’t recognise the Scriptures (whether because of the Crucifixion or any other cause).​

Besides, not only does he very strongly affirm God’s election of the Jews, & the gift to them of “the oracles of God” & of much more - he does not say that all are responsible for the death of Christ. And hardly any were. In no sense can the Jews be singled out as a race of “Christ-killers” - they aren’t. Any more than all people in the US are a race of Charles Mansons. Some people are - but only them. All Jews were in Jerusalem were not responsible then, still less are all responsible since the Passion, throughout the world & until now. Anti-Jewish feeling because of the Passion has no place in the Church at all.

 

[Wesley7]

Which OT is that? Which books did it contain? How do we know which books it contained? How do we know Jesus or the apostles used that particular version?

The OT approved by the Bishops of the Early Church.

 

[SemperReformada]

The OT approved by the Bishops of the Early Church.

I assume you are talking about Hippo and Carthage.

Do you have anyother way of knowing which OT is it that Jesus and the apostles used? Which books did it contain? How do we know which books it contained? How do we know Jesus or the apostles used that particular version?

 

[Wesley7]

I assume you are talking about Hippo and Carthage.

Do you have anyother way of knowing which OT is it that Jesus and the apostles used? Which books did it contain? How do we know which books it contained? How do we know Jesus or the apostles used that particular version?

I would say you’re asking too many questions.

Consider your questions to be a tigershark looking to devour information.