But, why would Protestants use the Jewish bible which only has 39 books instead of the bible
God gave the Tanakh to the Jews, and this was and still is the Word of God. They actually had a tendency to divide it up into 24 books- has to do with 24 letters in the Hebrew alphabet. They make things in 24s whenever they can. You can get there if all the pairs of books are put together and all the minor prophets are put into one book called “The 12 Prophets.”
It was the Church who chose those 7 books. As a Catholic I believe that the Church has authority to choose which books should be or should not be in the bible.
What actually happened was this: All Christians reached a consensus on the 27 books of the NT and Christianity never did reach a consensus on the range of the Septuagint or on whether the Septuagint should even be used as the basis for the OT. Kind of makes you wonder why God would have guided those early councils to reach an infallible consensus on the NT but never got them there on the OT, yes?
Personally, I have a tendency to default to Greek tradition when I’m talking about “the real Septuagint.” It is the Greek Septuagint, after all. You got it from them. The Jews preserved and transmitted the Hebrew Tanakh, and then the Greeks preserved and transmitted the Greek Septuagint. What did the Italians do? Translate things to Latin and decide to pick and choose from the Septuagint table of contents with no apparent rationale?
Yeah, I get it, you have authority so “Because I said so” is supposed to suffice. Maybe that’s how it works for you, but not for me.
The “extra” books were taken out in 90 AD.
The Roman Catholic canon was formally established at the Council of Trent. Up until that time, people were free to (and did) have various things to say about the extent of the OT canon. There was no consensus in 90 AD, not even within the Western scope of things. And there’s never been consensus on this between East and West. Ever.
If God was infallibly guiding this process, He must have decided to infallibly guide things to a permanent lack of consensus with regard to the OT canon. And on top of that, the people who participated in these early councils didn’t know they enjoyed divine protection from error, they didn’t say so, and neither did any of their contemporaries. It wasn’t until the 8th century that anyone began to suggest that early councils may have been protected from error, and the idea didn’t get popular until the 9th century. Consequently, I’m inclined to say they did not enjoy divine protection from error and they reached consensus on what they could while not reaching consensus on other things. This did include certain aspects of the OT canon, and that continues to apply to this day.
There was also more then 4 gosples and I think there was more then one version of the book “acts of the Apostles” in the bible. But then the church decided to choose which books are inspired.
Yes! And happily, they reached a consensus on the New Testament! But- this is important- they did not, repeat, did not EVER reach a consensus on the Old Testament. So you tell me how that works with the whole divine protection from error thing. What’s the deal- the protection only worked for non-Greeks even when they were that many centuries away from any sort of Schism? I’ll remind you again, the Catholic OT canon wasn’t authoritatively (favorite word, right?) defined until Trent, and the Greek canon was finally set in stone less than a century earlier. Both sides made it through the Schism and centuries beyond without reaching
consensus on the OT canon among themselves and then
neber with each other, so you tell me how that plays out with your whole idea of “authority” and “infallible protection from error” in the early councils.
The Damasus creed is a list of books that should be in the bible. They include the “extra” books which are in the Catholic bible.
How about the books included in Greek tradition but deemed apocryphal by Latin tradition? Are those included? Would an average Greek Christian from any point in history agree that this is the full list of books that accurately represents the Greek Greek Greek Greek Greek Septuagint? (NOT LATIN).
The list is confirmed by several councils.
Not all councils from all places, and the simple fact remains, consensus among all Christians has never ever ever existed with regard to the OT canon. Not even among all Christians within the Roman empire. (The Byzantine Empire counts as the Roman Empire).
The Catholic bible is the original bible.
The Tanakh is the original codification of something called “the Word of God,” and the Tanakh was the first canon ever made. The Jews invented the idea “the canon,” and it was in established use at such an early date that written record of the precise time at which it was established has not survived. By way of contrast, the entirety of Rome’s canon wasn’t set until Trent. Granted, consensus on the NT was a joint effort of all Catholic/Orthodox Christians within the Roman Empire, but the Tanakh was the first canon ever created. The NT canon was the second one. Protestants use these two canons. Roman Catholics use the second one along with a truncated version of the Septuagint’s table of contents for which the Greeks are initially responsible.
