Why did Roman Catholics remove books from the Old Testament: Septuagint?

[tm30]

The only public criticisms I know of Jerome came from those who had turned the Septuagint into an object of worship and they were displeased with him that he did not do similarly.

In that same vein, some would claim that by virtue of Sola Scriptura, Protestants have made the Bible itself an object of worship, and are equally upset that Catholics don’t do the same.

 

[PerryJ]

Correct, he wasn’t punished because he wasn’t in conflict. The Catholic Church would not have continued to copy his prefaces for hundreds of years if they thought it was spreading pernicious lies about scripture. There would, at the least have been glosses to correct him. Oh, but the standard gloss did not correct Jerome, it agreed with him.

The only public criticisms I know of Jerome came from those who had turned the Septuagint into an object of worship and they were displeased with him that he did not do similarly.

JJ

Jerome lived from 340 - 420. I will now site sources that refute this last comment. Augustine of Hippo, Council of Hippo, Council of Carthage, Codex Claromantanus (from 5th century), Pope Innocent I, John Cassian, and Theodoret of Cyrus all believed in the DCs. I believe all of these people refuted Jerome prior to the year 450.

 

[PerryJ]

Jolly Joe,

Let us say that everyone thought Jerome was correct. Doesn’t the fact that the reason for him not accepting the DCs has been proven wrong give you reason to pause. It doesn’t bother your faith that your Bible has less books because of textual error that Jerome misunderstood. You would prefer to debate who said what instead of looking at facts and accepting the correct books of the Bible?

It doesn’t bother you that you use a Catholic as the source of your Bible and that man stood against everything you believe.

You can accept all of this?

 

[itsjustdave1988]

…BUT WHY, I WONDER, DID THE ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH REMOVE: 1st Ezra (the Ezra in the NAB version of the Bible which is the official English version of the Catholic Bible as seen on the Vatican’s website: www.vatican.va is actually 2nd Ezra in the Septuagint. 2nd Ezra in the NAB version of the Bible is actually Nehemiah in the Septuagint), **3rd Macc and Psalm 151? **

Your mistake is that you presume all ancient Greek manuscripts were alike. They weren’t.

Moreover, these books were never un-canonized from the Catholic canon of Scripture, because they were never canonized to begin with.

For example, Catholic canon of Rome (AD 382) described “Esdras, two books.” If you look at the content of these two books in ancient manuscripts, they are:

**1 Esdras = Ezra
2 Esdras = Nehemiah
**
The Greek Bible scholar Origen (AD ca. 184-254) confirmed that these “two books” of Esdras which were contained in the Christian Scripture were what the Hebrews also included in there Scripture, namely the books of Ezra-Nehemiah combined into one book which they called “Esdras.”

Origen contrasted the Hebrew and Christian reckoning of Scripture. For instance, he described the Christian usage of “first and second Kings” to among “them” (ie. the Hebrews) as “among them one, Samoel.” Likewise, our “third and fourth Kings” among the Hebrews “one, Wammelch David.” Of our first and second Chronicles, among the Hebrews, “one, Dabreiamein.”

What does Origen say regarding “our” two books of Esdras in contrast to their “one” book? Origen: Of our first and second Esdras, among the Hebrews “one, Ezra.” (Origen quoted by Eusebius in his Ecclesiastical History, VI. 25). So, even among the Greeks, according to Origen, the two books of Esdra are the SAME as the ONE book called by the Hebrews Ezra (which contains Ezra and Nehemiah in ONE BOOK).

This is admitted to by non-Catholic sources. For example, from… “In the Septuagint, Ezra-Nehemiah is called Esdras B, while an apocryphal Book of Ezra is called Esdras A. In the catalogues of the Old Testament writings handed down to us by the Fathers (Origen, Cyril, Melito, Jerome and the Council of Laodicea) our Ezra is called 1 Ezra; Nehemiah, 2 Ezra; the apocryphal Greek Ezra, 3 Ezra;” (The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, “Ezra-Nehemiah”).

Moreover, St. Cyril of Jerusalem described 1 Esdra and 2 Esdra correctly, saying, “the first and second of Esdras are counted one.” (Catechetical Lectures, iv, 33). Thus, Ezra and Nehemiah, which are equivalent to “first and second of Esdras” are counted as one by the Hebrews.

In St. Jerome’s words, Ezra-Nehemiah was already “divided amongst Greeks and Latins into two books”. Observe…

“To the third class belong the Hagiographa, of which the first book begins with Job…the eighth, Ezra [note: one book by Hebrew reckoning], which itself is likewise divided amongst Greeks and Latins into two books; the ninth is Esther.” (St. Jerome, Preface to Samuel & Kings, NPNF, Series 2, Volume 6).

The Catholic Bible that we have today is the same canon of Scripture that was first canonized in the 4th century. This is admitted by even Protestant scholars, such as:

The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church (2nd ed., edited by F.L. Cross & E.A. Livingstone, Oxford Univ. Press, 1983, p.232):

"A council probably held at Rome in 382 under St. Damasus gave a complete list of the canonical books of both the Old Testament and the New Testament (also known as the ‘Gelasian Decree’ because it was reproduced by Gelasius in 495), which is identical with the list given at Trent**

."

 

[itsjustdave1988]

The Septuagint was already complied prior to Christ. Man have you missed it HUGE on this one!

Yes, but even according to Greek scholars, the LXX manuscripts used in one region differed from the LXX manuscriptus used in another region. Origen was a Greek Father, right? He held that the two of Esdras of “our Scripture” were that which the Hebrew Scriptures contained in one book. By Hebrew reckoning, Ezra-Nehemiah was combined in one book, called Ezra.

The most ancient Greek manuscripts of Sacred Scripture in other than fragmentary condition don’t agree with regard to their contents. For instance,

The Codex Vaticanus, a fourth century Greek manuscript, the portion extant includes **all of the Catholic Canon except 1 & 2 Maccabees
**
The Codex Sinaiticus, another fourth century Greek manuscript, the portions extant are: several verses from Gen., xxiii and xxiv, and from Num., v, vi, vii; I Par., ix, 27-xix, 17; Esdras, ix,9 to end; Nehemias, Esther, Tobias, Judith, Joel, Abdias, Jonas, Nahum, Habacuc, Sophonias, Aggeus, Zacharias, Malachias, Isaias, Jeremias, Lamentations, i, 1-ii, 20; I Machabees, IV Machabees (the canonical II Machabees and the apocryphal III Machabees were never contained in this codex). The New Testament portion included the Epistle of Barnabas and the Shepard of Hermas.

The Codex Alexandrinus, a 5th century manuscript the portions extant contain the Bible of the Catholic Canon. It also includes III and IV Machabees, and to the New Testament are added the Epistle of St. Clement of Rome and the homily which passed under the title of II Epistle of Clement.

According to a Greek Orthodox author, Fr. R. Stergiou, the variant ancient Greek manuscripts are why the Eastern Orthodox do not have a standard canon of Scripture to this day.
According to Fr. Stergiou:

Not only are there inconsistencies between the use of the two different Canons, but there are also inconsistencies in the different Traditions of Orthodoxy on which books are to be included in the greater Canon. For example, the ***Russian Orthodox Tradition or the Slavonic Bible includes 2 Edras, whereas the Greek Orthodox Tradition of the Septuagint does not. ***This lack of uniform use led P. Bratsiotes to make the following observation (quoted by S. Agourides in his article The Bible in the Greek Orthodox Church, p. 240): “It is for this reason that the fixing of the Canon of the Old Testament is proposed as one of the subjects of a future Great Synod of the Eastern Orthodox Church”. So even today, the issue of the Old Testament Canon remains open for discussion.
[Fr. R. Stergiou, “The Old Testament in the Orthodox Church,” from *Voice in the Wilderness,

v.5(4-6), 1997, Greek Orthodox Church of St. George, South Brisbane].

 

[itsjustdave1988]

Does anyone know the date(s) of the synods or councils in which the Orthodox churches established or reconfirmed their canon?

I know the Catholic church accepts the council of Rome in 382, the council of Hippo in 393, and the Council of Carthage III in 397

According the Greek Orthodox author, Fr. R. Stergiou:

***In the history of the Orthodox Church there have been inconsistencies ***not only by the Church Fathers, but also by many local and even Ecumenical Synods as to which Canon is to be used. For example, Cyril of Jerusalem and Athanasius support the use of the Hebrew Canon, where as John Chrysostom and Basil the Great support the use of the Alexandrian Canon. ***Although ****the local Synod of Jerusalem in 1672 stipulated that the Alexandrian Canon was to be used, the second Canon of the Council of Trullo (691) sanctioned the use of the Hebrew Canon. (*ibid.)

 

[itsjustdave1988]

There was no need to establish a canon which had already existed! …

The Qumran findings show that the Hebrew Scriptures was NOT defined in 1st century among all Hebrews. Some “sects” of the Hebrews held to only the first 5 books, some more. Moreover, the Qumran discoveries show that there were even different versions of the same books.

Even the Hebrews themselves admit that there was not uniform agreement among themselves as to which books constitute the canonical and inspired Hebrew Scriptures. For instance, this was still in much dispute among Jewish Rabbis even after AD 200…

"According to the eminent rabbi Samuel (after 200) [d. AD 254], Esther “does not defile” . Simeon (150) states that only Ecclesiastes is doubtful; while Ruth, the Song of Solomon, and Esther “defile the hands.” It is evident from many sources (compare Sanh. 100a; Yer. Ber. xiv. 15; Meg. 19b) that the canonicity of [Esther] was not certain." (The Jewish Encyclopedia (1901-1906), article “Bible Canon”)
I think you assume the LXX was somehow standard and accepted everywhere among Hebrews, but the historical evidence indicates the opposite.

The only Scriptures that needed to be affirmed was which books belonged in the New Testament.

Then why is the content of the OT Scripture still in dispute among Eastern Orthodoxy even today?

 

[MarcoPolo]

Lot of good info, Dave.

 

[Jolly_Joe]

If it were a false decretal, it would have been exposed as such when it was published. With all of the fractures that occured among the heretics in the Church, would you care to explain why none of them leaped upon such a golden opportunity to prove the Church a liar, when the decretal was issued?

You say that the decretal quotes extensively from Augustine, but nowhere do you prove that it wasn’t Augustine quoting from the decretal.

Your position does not compute.

Well there appears to be no evidence of it at all until a couple of centuries after it was supposedly published.

It’s been thoroughly investigated, the best work which was so complete others haven’t bothered to repeat it was done by Ernst Von Dobschutz. His work was very thorough but unfortunately not generally available.

tertullian.org/articles/burkitt_gelasianum.htm

Gives you some information about it.

JJ

 

[Jolly_Joe]

Jolly Joe,

Let us say that everyone thought Jerome was correct. Doesn’t the fact that the reason for him not accepting the DCs has been proven wrong give you reason to pause. It doesn’t bother your faith that your Bible has less books because of textual error that Jerome misunderstood. You would prefer to debate who said what instead of looking at facts and accepting the correct books of the Bible?

It doesn’t bother you that you use a Catholic as the source of your Bible and that man stood against everything you believe.

You can accept all of this?

Well, you assume one reason. How about taking a look at the discussion between Jerome and Augustine concerning the books.

Augustine appealed to the Septuagint (which goes right back to the original question in this thread, if Augustine was correct, why doesn’t the Catholic Church canon agree with the Orthodox?) and what did Augustine appeal to as proof? He talked of the seventy translators and how they were put in different rooms and did translations and when they came out and compared all the translations perfectly agreed. Augustine seems completely unaware that the Seventy only translated the 5 books of Moses anyway, so there was no way their work could have approved additional books.

What did Jerome say? He said those things were fables.

Which man was corrrect? History shows Jerome.

If the canon had been set by Damasus and the Council of Rome, even Augustine seems oblivious to it. There’s a simple explanation for it, they hadn’t.

Clear proof of that again comes from the prefaces to the Vulgate. Jerome tells of the practice of the Church concerning some of the books in the preface to the Wisdom of Solomon and Ecclesiasticus:

"As, then, the Church reads Judith, Tobit, and the books of Maccabees,
but does not admit them among the canonical Scriptures, so let it read
these two volumes for the edification of the people, not to give authority
to doctrines of the Church. "

Jerome too is oblivious that the canon had been set. Makes sense if it hadn’t. How do you take this clear statement of the practice of the Church and turn it into they had been accepted as authoritative scripture? If there was a canon stating the books, it’s clear the understanding is not what people want to make it today. Instead it’s would have to be an approval for reading in the church, just as Cardinal Cajetan said.

JJ

 

[PerryJ]

Well, you assume one reason. How about taking a look at the discussion between Jerome and Augustine concerning the books.

Augustine appealed to the Septuagint (which goes right back to the original question in this thread, if Augustine was correct, why doesn’t the Catholic Church canon agree with the Orthodox?) and what did Augustine appeal to as proof? He talked of the seventy translators and how they were put in different rooms and did translations and when they came out and compared all the translations perfectly agreed. Augustine seems completely unaware that the Seventy only translated the 5 books of Moses anyway, so there was no way their work could have approved additional books.

What did Jerome say? He said those things were fables.

Which man was corrrect? History shows Jerome.

If the canon had been set by Damasus and the Council of Rome, even Augustine seems oblivious to it. There’s a simple explanation for it, they hadn’t.

Clear proof of that again comes from the prefaces to the Vulgate. Jerome tells of the practice of the Church concerning some of the books in the preface to the Wisdom of Solomon and Ecclesiasticus:

"As, then, the Church reads Judith, Tobit, and the books of Maccabees,
but does not admit them among the canonical Scriptures, so let it read
these two volumes for the edification of the people, not to give authority
to doctrines of the Church. "

Jerome too is oblivious that the canon had been set. Makes sense if it hadn’t. How do you take this clear statement of the practice of the Church and turn it into they had been accepted as authoritative scripture? If there was a canon stating the books, it’s clear the understanding is not what people want to make it today. Instead it’s would have to be an approval for reading in the church, just as Cardinal Cajetan said.

JJ

What is your source for your misinformation? It is not a very good source as it is full of misinformation. I provided a list yesterday of Church Fathers that published the DCs. They used them in commentaries and stated that the DCs were scriptural. Did you ignore this post? The Church did not have to state which books were in the Bible because all were in agreement until Jerome.

Jerome had the text in Hebrew and Greek. He believed that the Greek text must have been copied incorrectly and that the Hebrew text was more accurate. As it turns out the Dead Sea Scrolls prove that Jerome’s thoughts were incorrect. The DCs were originally created in Hebrew. Did you ignore this post? Your Bible is based upon Jerome’s false assertion. My assertions are historical facts and can be proven by researching the Dead Sea Scrolls.

The matter of the two books has already been disproven on this thread.

I agree for the most part Jerome did not like the books. The key though is you are only quoting his thoughts that support your position. Why do you not discuss his writings that specifically say that some of the books are indeed scripture. I believe he makes this statment about four of them. Why do you not accept the books that he later stated were scriptural? If you are to truly follow Jerome you need to accept the books that he later stated were scriptural.

So again your Bible is based upon Jerome’s misunderstanding that has been proven wrong. One can say this person said this or that person said that the bottom line is Jerome has been proven wrong and yet you still accept this false premise. Look at the objective truth and facts. Jerome was wrong and your Bible is based upon it.

As stated in my previous posts Jerome which you place all your faith on specifically pledges himself to the papacy and refutes any attempt to “scatter” the church. Why do you accept his list of books, which he later contradicted, yet ignore his teachings about apostay?

Lastly, your faith is based upon Luther needing to use Jerome’s list as he was losing a debate. Nothing more. It was not great inspiration. If you do not believe this then read about Luther and what occurred. Secular books will confirm my statement.

Your Bible and your faith is based upon accidents. Jerome using the wrong text. Luther losing a debate and referring back to Jerome’s list as has been quoted by many secular writers as a “desperate act” to save face.

 

[Canto]

St Jerome said in 402, after the Pope had decreed the canon at the council of Rome in 382…

“What sin have I committed if I followed the judgment of the churches? But he who brings charges against me for relating the objections that the Hebrews are wont to raise against the story of Susanna, the Son of the Three Children, and the story of Bel and the Dragon, which are not found in the Hebrew volume, proves that he is just a foolish sycophant. For I wasn’t relating my own personal views, but rather the remarks that they are wont to make against us” (Against Rufinus 11:33 [A.D. 402]).

 

[Jolly_Joe]

Jerome was commenting in that passage how the church used the version of Daniel from a heretic. Not the Septuagint, nor the Massoretic version.

And certainly not all my faith is in Jerome.

It’s rather interesting isn’t it with all the weight given in this thread on the decretal of Gelasius and the Council of Rome that when Pope Benedict wrote “The Jewish People And Their Sacred Scriptures In The Christian Bible” that in his discussion on canon, he didn’t even mention them. I suppose if he posted here anonymously he would be told how wrong he is.

JJ

 

[peary1]

Over 30 minutes later no responses. Can’t say that wasn’t unexpected. I will look forward to looking at this tomorrow to see if anyone has come up with an actual answer to this problem which seems to just get swept under the rug.

The Catholic Apologists are probably hoping that no one will notice this discrepency as they jide Protestants for removing books of Sacred Scripture since the Catholic Church is guilty of exactly the same thing.

This could be interesting, if someone responds.

**First of all, back in the time of Jesus, the Jews had the first five books of the OT called the Torah. Everything else was debatable. Some Jewish rabbis included Septuagint writings in their teachings; others did not. In fact, the official ‘canon’ of Scripture (both OT and NT) wasn’t clarified by the Church until the Council of Trent. The Church had always used the Septuagint version of the OT since it was the most common in the Mediterranean area among Jews at the time. Saint Jerome translated it into the Latin. The Church didn’t remove any books from the Septuagint. Some Christian scriptures (like those used by Ethiopian Jews) have a few more books included and some Christian Orthodox have included these too. The Church has never made a big deal about them. **

 

[Jolly_Joe]

You are sure right in that, the Church really has been very united in practice even when to our style of looking at thing like an on and off light switch makes it appear like there is much more disagreement than there is.

Let’s look for a bit at a different question that figures into this substantially.

Did Trent decide that the deterocanonicals were authoritative for doctrine?

The very question seems to shock people because they are trained in the on and off lightswitch version of canon.

Anyway, the answer is no. The Council of Trent left the authority of those books an open question. The canon they decided upon was simply a statement of which books to include, but did not bestow upon the deuterocanonicals the same authority as the protocanonicals.

So Trent, rather than being a great move away from the historic practices of the Church really wasn’t.

Thing is, it is appealed to all the time for saying something it didn’t say. That the entire canon of scripture included by Catholics in the Bible is authoritative for doctrine.

Apologies in advance for any resulting heart attacks.

JJ

 

[PerryJ]

You are sure right in that, the Church really has been very united in practice even when to our style of looking at thing like an on and off light switch makes it appear like there is much more disagreement than there is.

Let’s look for a bit at a different question that figures into this substantially.

Did Trent decide that the deterocanonicals were authoritative for doctrine?

The very question seems to shock people because they are trained in the on and off lightswitch version of canon.

Anyway, the answer is no. The Council of Trent left the authority of those books an open question. The canon they decided upon was simply a statement of which books to include, but did not bestow upon the deuterocanonicals the same authority as the protocanonicals.

So Trent, rather than being a great move away from the historic practices of the Church really wasn’t.

Thing is, it is appealed to all the time for saying something it didn’t say. That the entire canon of scripture included by Catholics in the Bible is authoritative for doctrine.

Apologies in advance for any resulting heart attacks.

JJ

No heart attacks. Everytime you are proved wrong you move to a different question. Much like Luther at Liepzig. Acts of desperation.

 

[Jolly_Joe]

I’m sorry that I wasn’t that familiar with the works of Hubert Jedin so I thought, maybe because I was told such so many times that the Council of Trent made a decree that the books were of equal authority. I really just learned that. Why did you not correct me in that that is so certain?

Obviously, I was mistaken in that, and I apologize. We all learn, don’t we?

I can’t figure out why Catholics don’t even come close to accepting the history of Trent as given by their best authority on it and run to people who wrote books who did not even have access to the pertinent materials. Not that it was all their fault, the material was locked up in the Vatican Secret Archives (their own name, not mine).

Why did the Vatican lock up the truth for hundreds of years?

Why now that it has been finally examined and published is it not more widely recognized and taught?

Is it helpful for many devout Catholics to think the matter of authority of the deterocanonicals was decided at Trent when it never was? Surely there must be great confusion when many of the things the Deuteros teach is basically ignored for doctrine, while letting people believe they are authoritative on the other hand.

But anyway, if you have access to either Jedin’s History of the Council of Trent or his Papal Legate at the Council of Trent, you should be able to find the truth of the matter, as written by the Pope’s own representatives to Trent and as written by the meticulous Secretary at Trent…

JJ

 

[PerryJ]

I’m sorry that I wasn’t that familiar with the works of Hubert Jedin so I thought, maybe because I was told such so many times that the Council of Trent made a decree that the books were of equal authority. I really just learned that. Why did you not correct me in that that is so certain?

Obviously, I was mistaken in that, and I apologize. We all learn, don’t we?

I can’t figure out why Catholics don’t even come close to accepting the history of Trent as given by their best authority on it and run to people who wrote books who did not even have access to the pertinent materials. Not that it was all their fault, the material was locked up in the Vatican Secret Archives (their own name, not mine).

Why did the Vatican lock up the truth for hundreds of years?

Why now that it has been finally examined and published is it not more widely recognized and taught?

Is it helpful for many devout Catholics to think the matter of authority of the deterocanonicals was decided at Trent when it never was? Surely there must be great confusion when many of the things the Deuteros teach is basically ignored for doctrine, while letting people believe they are authoritative on the other hand.

But anyway, if you have access to either Jedin’s History of the Council of Trent or his Papal Legate at the Council of Trent, you should be able to find the truth of the matter, as written by the Pope’s own representatives to Trent and as written by the meticulous Secretary at Trent…

JJ

Hubert Jedin published volumes of work. If you have found something in his work you believe contradicts the Faith can you give the volume and page number?

Here is statment from the council of Trent.

They are the following:

Of the Old Testament, the five books of Moses, namely, Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy; Josue, Judges, Ruth, the four books of Kings, two of Paralipomenon, the first and second of Esdras, the latter of which is called Nehemias, Tobias, Judith, Esther, Job, the Davidic Psalter of 150 Psalms, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, the Canticle of Canticles, Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, Isaias, Jeremias, with Baruch, Ezechiel, Daniel, the twelve minor Prophets, namely, Osee, Joel, Amos, Abdias, Jonas, Micheas, Nahum, Habacuc, Sophonias, Aggeus, Zacharias, Malachias; two books of Machabees, the first and second.

Of the New Testament, the four Gospels, according to Matthew, Mark, Luke and John; the Acts of the Apostles written by Luke the Evangelist; fourteen Epistles of Paul the Apostle, to the Romans, two to the Corinthians, to the Galatians, to the Ephesians, to the Philippians, to the Colossians, two to the Thessalonians, two to Timothy, to Titus, to Philemon, to the Hebrews; two of Peter the Apostle, three of John the Apostle, one of James the Apostle, one of Jude the Apostle, and the Apocalypse of John the Apostle.

If anyone does not accept as sacred and canonical the aforesaid books in their entirety and with all their parts, as they have been accustomed to be read in the Catholic Church and as they are contained in the old Latin Vulgate Edition, and knowingly and deliberately rejects the aforesaid traditions, let him be anathema.

 

[Jolly_Joe]

See, there you do it again. You assume that statement is a statement of the authority of the books. It’s not surprising, that’s kind of been the Catholic apologist party line for quite awhile now.

But in any case, I really haven’t found anything in Jedin that in your words contradicts the faith. But I did find some things that contradicted what a lot of Catholics seem to think the faith is.

I felt better because it was rather explanatory of some of the things seen from Rome, but let’s not go there.

Now here’s the problem. I’m off here in the boonies. I don’t have copies of him available. It’s going to take a bit of effort on my part to get those citations. A fair amount actually. Now, here’s my experience. I get them, my experience is that you are just going to blow me and Jedin off, say it can’t possibly mean that and so on all because it conflicts with what you already “know.”

So what promise do you make, do you promise if I get references to at the least look them up and read them? Maybe you have access to him directly?

JJ

 

[PerryJ]

See, there you do it again. You assume that statement is a statement of the authority of the books. It’s not surprising, that’s kind of been the Catholic apologist party line for quite awhile now.

But in any case, I really haven’t found anything in Jedin that in your words contradicts the faith. But I did find some things that contradicted what a lot of Catholics seem to think the faith is.

I felt better because it was rather explanatory of some of the things seen from Rome, but let’s not go there.

Now here’s the problem. I’m off here in the boonies. I don’t have copies of him available. It’s going to take a bit of effort on my part to get those citations. A fair amount actually. Now, here’s my experience. I get them, my experience is that you are just going to blow me and Jedin off, say it can’t possibly mean that and so on all because it conflicts with what you already “know.”

So what promise do you make, do you promise if I get references to at the least look them up and read them? Maybe you have access to him directly?

JJ

???

I see actusation against the Church; however, I have not seen any proof.

In all of my posts I shown proofs. I have given you Church fathers that approved the DC, secular historian belief about the DC and why Luther acted the way he did, references to Dead Sea Scrolls to prove Jerome’s thought wrong. Another posted rightly explained to you the supposed lost books. I can provide you sources for all of my claims and I believe I have said so. So far I have seen only inuendo against the Church.

I am not going to state a historian can decide the Canon of the Church. As I do with all historians; which, I read many I will read his or her information. Investigate the facts and determine who is correct. If you give sources I will read them. I am not going to promise that what he says is true or not. Just as people read the Bible and get different interpretations the same can be done with historical records. I will read them. I would prefer specifics as it is my understanding that he published many volumes of work and I have to admit I will not read volume of one historian that most of his work is probably not consequential. I will read the section on the books of the Bible.

Do you have any facts that support that the Council of Trent did not define the Bible? You keep saying this. Do you refute all of the other times?