Why Protestant Bibles Are Smaller

[po18guy]

I mention the KJV inasmuch as virtually every “Made in USA” denomination used it. The European rebellion simply opened the door for personal opinion to override revealed truth.

 

[ZMystiCat]

I looked up the Greek word for “have” from Luke 16:29 where Jesus said “They ‘have’ Moses & the Prophets.” And it does mean “to have possession” of something.

Just to collect some of the various reasons I’ve mentioned why I find this a bit of stretch:

The reference, as far as I can tell, seems to come from Jesus’ parable of the rich man and Lazarus, specifically Luke 16:29-31 (verses 27 & 28 is included for context):

He said, ‘Then I beg you, father, send him to my father’s house, for I have five brothers, so that he may warn them, lest they too come to this place of torment.’ But Abraham replied, ‘They have Moses and the prophets. Let them listen to them.’ He said, ‘Oh no, father Abraham, but if someone from the dead goes to them, they will repent.’ Then Abraham said, ‘If they will not listen to Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded if someone should rise from the dead.’

So first of all, as a parable, it isn’t directly indicating that the Pharisees are those who have “possession”. Yes, the rich man could represent the Pharisees (based on verse 14), but there is nothing in the parable to indicate that those who “have Moses and the prophets” are Pharisees specifically.

But even if we say that they are, “possession” doesn’t necessarily indicate authority. We all possess the Scripture, but does that mean each of us can declare a canon? No. We possess it so that we may be made perfect (2 Timothy 3:16-17). Contextually, this is how Christ used it in His parable, so it seems like an massive stretch to assume “possession” here is anything more than how we might possess a Bible.

Even the concept of “echo” doesn’t really indicate much. The Pharisees were Jews, and the Old Testament is fundamentally a collection of Jewish Scriptures. It is their laws, history, and prophecies. But the Apostles were also Jewish, so it was as much an “echo” of their culture as it was of the Pharisees. In that case, why not use their canon in the apostolic Church? I mean, I guess one could assume that the Apostles had the same canon as the Pharisees, but history doesn’t really back up that assumption.

So really, I think it is just a massive leap in logic.

Then to play devil’s advocate, how do you know the church is the pillar & support of the truth - without using the NT & without saying “because the church says it is”? IOW, don’t use the church as a defense for the church, which would be circular.

Personally, I tend to look more at apostolic succession, and that seems to be what the early Church Fathers saw as the main proof of authority. Citing Scripture passages about Church authority might work for Protestants, since it both appeals to a Sola Scriptura approach, and Sola Scriptura is already circular.

 

[RaisedCatholic]

Do you really not believe the church was established before a single word of the bible was written? You are asking me to have faith without using faith. That’s not how it works in a faith based religion.

Peace!!!

Yes, because the Bible says so. But that does not answer my question, which was how do YOU know the church is the pillar and shield of the church without using the Bible? And shouldn’t the church Jesus built have the correct canon of Scripture, both Old and New Testaments? I’m afraid your reply which wa formed in a question did not answer mine.

 

[RaisedCatholic]

I mention the KJV inasmuch as virtually every “Made in USA” denomination used it. The European rebellion simply opened the door for personal opinion to override revealed truth.

What does this have anything to do with the OP?

 

[steve-b]

steve-b:

All I can say, it all boils down to authority. Jesus gave His authority to His Church. The pillar and foundation of truth. People do well who follow that authority.

But again, don’t we get to the church being the pillar & foundation of the truth from the NT? IOW, don’t we need to first know “what” the NT is before we get to defining the church? Doing otherwise, seems to be using A to prove B, and use B to prove A, which a bit subjective & circular in reasoning. Besides, it still doesn’t address some of the points in the free section on Amazon in the book, like that Jesus acknowledged the OT canon of the Pharisees, and Jimmy Akin acknowledging that the Pharisees had the same books in their OT as Protestants do today. Just out of curiosity, did you read the free online portion of the book on Amazon. It did. It’s an interesting take.

This is a good place to give a reference properly referenced, Because I don’t see where Jimmy said that.

Instead he said

. DEFENDING THE DEUTEROCANONICALS – Jimmy Akin Jimmy said that Protestants appeal to the same councils to validate the NT. NOT the OT

No mention of Pharisees or canon of the Pharisees etc in the context you present.

 

[RaisedCatholic]

So first of all, as a parable, it isn’t directly indicating that the Pharisees are those who have “possession”. Yes, the rich man could represent the Pharisees (based on verse 14), but there is nothing in the parable to indicate that those who “have Moses and the prophets” are Pharisees specifically.

But even if we say that they are, “possession” doesn’t necessarily indicate authority. We all possess the Scripture, but does that mean each of us can declare a canon? No. We possess it so that we may be made perfect (2 Timothy 3:16-17). Contextually, this is how Christ used it in His parable, so it seems like an massive stretch to assume “possession” here is anything more than how we might possess a Bible.

Parables generally identifies details and identities to the reader in the Scripture. Luke 16:14 states that the Pharisees were lovers of money and were listening to everything Jesus was saying. Jesus then goes on to tell a parable of a rich man and Lazarus. The rich man clearly refers back to the Pharisee “money lovers” several verses back. So “they” in v.29 is clearly talking about the Pharisees represented by the rich man and his brothers.

The point is not every group of Jews nor Christians “possess” the complete Scriptures (Moses and the Prophets). The Sadducees lacked “the Prophets.” Protestants claim to possess the entire canon, while Catholics claim they are missing books, and Eastern Orthodox claim Catholics are missing others. They can’t all “possess” the complete canon (Moses and the Prophets). Again, the term “echo” is transliterated. When you yell into a well or a cave, ALL of your words “echo” back. IOW, your “echo” has “possession” of your entire words, not just some or most of them. Jesus is saying the same thing about the Pharisees - “They (the Pharisees) have (“echo” possession of) Moses and the Prophets (the complete OT canon).” And the OT canon of the Pharisees according to Jimmy Akin was the exact same as later Protestants. It’s not a stretch, when it’s clear Jesus was addressing the Pharisees when He immediately told the story of the rich man and his brothers, and when He said “they” have possession of the OT canon.

 

[RaisedCatholic]

This is a good place to give a reference properly referenced, Because I don’t see where Jimmy said that.

Instead he said

. http://jimmyakin.com/defending-the-deuterocanonicals Jimmy said that Protestants appeal to the same councils to validate the NT. NOT the OT

Could you narrow down specifically in the article? No offense, but it’s a rather long article. Although that is an assumption Jimmy Akin made about Protestants, I don’t know If he can really back that up beyond his assumption. Also, the book does have a chapter on the fourth century church councils as well as a chapter on the New Testament canon, which I assume he doesn’t just rely on those councils for the validity of the NT canon, based on his TOC.

No mention of Pharisees or canon of the Pharisees etc in the context you present.

Here is the exact quote from Jimmy Akin. It begins around the 50 second mark where he says the Pharisees and Protestants possessed the same OT canon:

How did the Old Testament canon develop?

 

[steve-b]

No mention of Pharisees or canon of the Pharisees etc in the context you present.

Economist:

Here is the exact quote f on Jimmy Akin. It begins around the 50 second mark where he says the Pharisees and Protestants possessed the same OT canon:

How did the Old Testament canon develop?

Why did you stop there? Jimmy qualified it, ~ 1 minute into the answer, with the reference to the Septuigint, which is NOT what Protestants accept. Therefore not supporting your statement in context about Jimmy’s point…

 

[RaisedCatholic]

Why did you stop there? Jimmy qualified it, ~ 1 minute into the answer, with the reference to the Septuigint, which is NOT what Protestants accept. Therefore not supporting your statement in context about Jimmy’s point…

Because in his book in the chronology section he mentions the Septuagint was originally limited to “the Law” not the rest of the OT. Now the free section doesn’t cover “when” the rest of the OT was added to the Septuagint and translated into Greek. That part “might” be in chapter 2 which is not free. But I think I remember Trent Horn saying in a video or podcast that the first canon to be translated was the Hebrew Bible. If so, that would exclude the Deuterocanon. So, it sounds like Jimmy Akin is assuming the version of the Septuagint in Jesus’ day included the Deuterocanon too. But if Trent Horn is correct, it didn’t, just the Hebrew Bible. It would almost be worth it to get the book to read the chapter on the Septuagint just to see if it is covered there. But it doesn’t change the fact that Jimmy Akin DID say Pharisees and Protestants possessed the same books, which excluded the Deuteros, which Jesus said the Pharisees possessed the OT canon. So, Jimmy Akins assumption is most likely just an assumption.

 

[steve-b]

steve-b:

Why did you stop there? Jimmy qualified it, ~ 1 minute into the answer, with the reference to the Septuigint, which is NOT what Protestants accept. Therefore not supporting your statement in context about Jimmy’s point…

Because in his book in the chronology section he mentions the Septuagint was originally limited to “the Law” not the rest of the OT. Now the free section doesn’t cover “when” the rest of the OT was added to the Septuagint and translated into Greek. That part “might” be in chapter 2 which is not free. But I think I remember Trent Horn saying in a video or podcast that the first canon to be translated was the Hebrew Bible. If so, that would exclude the Deuterocanon. So, it sounds like Jimmy Akin is assuming the version of the Septuagint in Jesus’ day included the Deuterocanon too. But if Trent Horn is correct, it didn’t, just the Hebrew Bible. It would almost be worth it to get the book to read the chapter on the Septuagint just to see if it is cover d there. But it doesn’t change the fact that Jimmy Akin DID say Pharisees and Protestants possessed the same books, which excluded the Deuteros, which Jesus said the Pharisees possessed the OT canon. So, Jimmy Akins assumption is most likely just an assumption.

I think His explanation is clear. https://www.catholic.com/audio/cal/cal-6463 listen between 14 min —> 17.45 minutes.

 

[RaisedCatholic]

I think His explanation is clear. https://www.catholic.com/audio/cal/cal-6463 listen between 14 min —> 17.45 minutes

Bless you! I didn’t want to listen through the entire hour! Or even the first 14 minutes to get to the part about the Septuagint. If you listen around the 15 minute mark, Jimmy Akin even admits that the Septuagint, even in the first century, when the NT was being written had more than one version among the Jews, which the Pharisees had one such version. And according to Jimmy Akin in the YouTube video, the Pharisees canon was limited to the Greek translation of the Hebrew Bible, as Trent Horn admitted to. Plus, in the audio clip you posted, Jimmy Akin went on to say, we should just “assume” the version we have today was the version Jesus used. So, he is just assuming. Plus, didn’t Irenaeus who was an ECF in the west only include the additions of Daniel and Esther in his OT canon? If the Septuagint Jesus used included the entire Deuterocanon, why would this much later western church father exclude all but those additions? I still go back to Jesus affirming the OT canon of the Pharisees, which was that of later Protestants. That much we can know for sure without assuming, since it comes from the words of our Lord.

 

[steve-b]

steve-b:

I think His explanation is clear. https://www.catholic.com/audio/cal/cal-6463 listen between 14 min —> 17.45 minutes

Bless you! I didn’t want to listen through the entire hour! Or even the first 14 minutes to get to the part about the Septuagint. If you listen around the 15 minute mark, Jimmy Akin even admits that the Septuagint, even in the first century, when the NT was being written had more than one version among the Jews, which the Pharisees had one such version. And according to Jimmy Akin in the YouTube video, the Pharisees canon was limited to the Greek translation of the Hebrew Bible, as Trent Horn admitted to. Plus, in the audio clip you posted, Jimmy Akin went on to say, we should just “assume” the version we have today was the version Jesus used. So, he is just assuming. Plus, didn’t Irenaeus who was an ECF in the west only include the additions of Daniel and Esther in his OT canon? If the Septuagint Jesus used included the entire Deuterocanon, why would the much later western church father exclude all but those additions? I still back to Jesus affirming the OT canon of the Pharisees, which was that of later Protestants. That much we can know for sure without assuming, since it comes from the words of our Lord.

You’re missing a huge point.

There was no inspired index of canonical books. The Church made the decision on the canon.

AND

80% + of OT quotes in the NT, came from the Septuagint. The longer version as in what we see in the Catholic bible. You have the references HERE

 

[RaisedCatholic]

You’re missing a huge point.

There was no inspired index of canonical books. The Church made the decision on the canon.

AND

80% + of OT quotes in the NT, came from the Septuagint. The longer version as in what we see in the Catholic bible. You have the references HERE

So Jesus held the Jews, particularly the Pharisees, accountable for knowing what the OT canon was (”Have you not READ?” / “As it is WRITTEN” etc) but it wasn’t until the church was established until AFTER the death of Christ that the church made a “decision” what was included in the OT??? No offense, but that doesn’t make any sense.

Why only 80%? Why not 100% if the NT writers believed Jesus and His disciples used the Septuagint, which (allegedly) included the Deuterocanon, and considered it just as inspired as the Hebrew? Did you ever think they used the Septuagint because Greek was the language of commerce, not Hebrew, like Trent Hirn stated? And that still goes against what Jimmy Akin said:

1. There were different versions of the Septuagint in the first century among the various Jewish sects.
   2). The Pharisee sect only included the books in the Hebrew Bible, not the Deuterocanon.
   3). The NT did not quote Esther, Song of Songs, and some other books. So if the NT quoting OT books is criteria for inclusion in the OT canon, then why are these books in the OT and not 1 Enoch since St. Jude quotes it, and calls it “prophecy”…using your “quoting” argument?

Also the list you gave would have to exclude these books in the Hebrew Bible since the NT doesn’t even allude to them, let alone quote them, nor does it prove they were in the Septuagint back then. That is why the quoting argument doesn’t work, because the NT also quotes other books found in the Septuagint that are NOT in Catholic OTs.

So we don’t need a TOC to know what books were in the OT, because Jesus gave us a shorthand term for it, and identified the group of Jews who possessed it, which we find in the NT.

 

[steve-b]

You’re missing a huge point.

There was no inspired index of canonical books. The Church made the decision on the canon.

AND

80% + of OT quotes in the NT, came from the Septuagint. The longer version as in what we see in the Catholic bible. You have the references HERE

RaisedCatholic:

So Jesus held the Jews, particularly the Pharisees, accountable for knowing what the OT canon was (”Have you not READ?” / “As it is WRITTEN” etc) but it wasn’t until the church was established until AFTER the death of Christ that the church made a “decision” what was included in the OT??? No offense, but that doesn’t make any sense.

The point is, The Jews had no closed canon in the 1st century… When phrases like “it is written”, are used, many of those quotes could only come from the Septuagint.

RaisedCatholic:

Why only 80%? Why not 100% if the NT writers believed Jesus and His disciples used the Septuagint, which (allegedly) included the Deuterocanon, and considered it just as inspired as the Hebrew?

You have the OT references that point to the Septuagint. HERE

You won’t find those OT references without the Septuagint.

RaisedCatholic:

1. There were different versions of the Septuagint in the first century among the various Jewish sects.
   2). The Pharisee sect only included the books in the Hebrew Bible, not the Deuterocanon.
   3). The NT did not quote Esther, Song of Songs, and some other books. So if the NT quoting OT books is criteria for inclusion in the OT canon, then why are these books in the OT and not 1 Enoch since St. Jude quotes it, and calls it “prophecy”…using your “quoting” argument?

Also the list you gave would have to exclude these books in the Hebrew Bible since the NT doesn’t even allude to them, let alone quote them, nor does it prove they were in the Septuagint back then. That is why the quoting argument doesn’t work, because the NT also quotes other books found in the Septuagint that are NOT in Catholic OTs.

The NT canon wasn’t official till 382 when the canon of 27 books was decreed by Pope Damasus I, at the council of Rome. Both OT and NT books (73 books total) were listed by name.

Point being, NO BODY knows for sure, any of those 73 books in the canon, are scripture if it wasn’t for the authority of the Catholic Church. Neither Jesus nor the apostles gave any list of books as the official canon of scripture and only those books . What is YOUR assurance any letter or Gospel we have in the NT is really scripture.? Who told you those 27 books are scripture?

Back in ~170 A.D. the Muratorian canon was written. Have a look. It’s a short read. See how it refers to the Catholic Church back THEN. HERE

 

[adf417]

adf417:

No! We really don’t. You continue to have it backwards!

Peace!!!

Then to play devil’s advocate, how do you know the church is the pillar & support of the truth - without using the NT & without saying “because the church says it is”? IOW, don’t use the church as a defense for the church, which would be circular.

The devil’s advocate is really is not a good game to play especially when it comes to the inspired word of God. Im beginning to question the validity of this statement and your definition of the word “faith”.

Peace!!!

 

[adf417]

adf417:

Do you really not believe the church was established before a single word of the bible was written? You are asking me to have faith without using faith. That’s not how it works in a faith based religion.

Peace!!!

Yes, because the Bible says so. But that does not answer my question, which was how do YOU know the church is the pillar and shield of the church without using the Bible? And shouldn’t the church Jesus built have the correct canon of Scripture, both Old and New Testaments? I’m afraid your reply which wa formed in a question did not answer mine.

Wow, talk about circular. i believe it because of faith.

It doesn’t answer your question because you don’t like the answer. Im sorry but is is my answer.

Peace!!!

 

[jimXroberts]

The Essene and Pharisee sects of the Hebrew religion had different canons of scripture. The Pharisees’ Bible was much shorter. Many Essenes spoke Greek and did not understand liturgical Hebrew and their scripture was translated to give us what we know as the Septuagint. Most Essenes accepted Christ and were the “Jews” of the early Church. The Septuagint was adopted into the sacred literature of the Church and was later codified as the Old Testament.

The Pharisees rejected Jesus. They were mostly wiped out by the fall of Jerusalem and survived in isolated synagogues before regrouping some 200 years later to give the religion we know as modern Judaism.

When Luther rejected the Magisterium of Church, he needed another authority and came up with the idea of Biblical Justification. He sought what he thought would be the most authoritative version of the Old Testament and used the Masoretic texts used by the Jewish religion believing that they were the successors of the religion of Jesus. He inadvertently gave all subsequent Protestant denominations the Old Testament of the Pharisees. The Masoretic texts are a few hundred years more recent than the Septuagint.

 

[RaisedCatholic]

The point is, The Jews had no closed canon in the 1st century… When phrases like “it is written”, are used, many of those quotes could only come from the Septuagint.

When did I ever say that the JEWS had a closed canon? I have consistently been saying they didn’t. My argument made from his book, and from Jimmy Akin, is that the PHARISEES had a closed canon, which is what Jesus affirmed. Even if it was the Septuagint, the version they used - that Jesus affirmed - was limited to the Hebrew Bible, but excluded the Deuterocanon. I don’t think you are understanding the argument. Otherwise, you would not have responded with “The JEWS had no closed canon in the 1st century.” We all know this.

You have the OT references that point to the Septuagint. HERE

You won’t find those OT references without the Septuagint.

Again, you didn’t get what I was asking. Why only 80%? Why not 100%? Jimmy Akin is implying that the NT does quote from the OT at least 20% of the time, but not from the Septuagint. Based on that explanation, do you understand they didn’t consider the Septuagint to be as inspired as the original Hebrew? If they did, they would have quoted from it 100% of the time.

Point being, NO BODY knows for sure, any of those 73 books in the canon, are scripture if it wasn’t for the authority of the Catholic Church. Neither Jesus nor the apostles gave any list of books as the official canon of scripture and only those books . What is YOUR assurance any letter or Gospel we have in the NT is really scripture.? Who told you those 27 books are scripture?

Since this topic is about the OLD Testament canon, not the New, it’s a moot point, since virtually all Christian groups (Catholic, EO, Protestant, etc) agree on the same 27 book canon. So, since they agree on the same canon, what does it reveal about the OT canon? And, again, Jesus et al didn’t need to give us a “list.” Again, the term “the Law & the Prophets” refers to the OT canon as a whole. And when Jesus was talking to the Pharisees about their OT canon, He stated “They have (have possession of) Moses & the Prophets (the OT canon).” He didn’t say this about any other Jewish sect, including the Sadducees - ONLY the Pharisees.

I noticed he has a chapter in his book titled “Why should we trust the New Testament?” So, it appears he does address it there, and in the subsections in the TOC he lists some books that didn’t make the NT canon, like 1 Clement. So, apparently he does address your question. But again, it’s not in the free section online.

[cont.]

 

[RaisedCatholic]

[cont.]

Back in ~170 A.D. the Muratorian canon was written. Have a look. It’s a short read. See how it refers to the Catholic Church back THEN. HERE

170 A.D.? That’s a bit late, don’t you think? Plus, it’s not part of the NT. And this isn’t about the Catholic Church. It’s about what books the NT, and specifically Jesus, supports belong in the OT canon, which were the books in the Hebrew Bible. Even when the NT quotes from the Septuagint & uses phrases like “It is written,” they only reference books from the OT with those phrases from those books originally from the Hebrew Bible, not the Deuterocanon. In fact, I noticed in the TOC of his book, once of his appendixes has a list of these terms. On Amazon.com, the back cover states there are over 300 of these terms, and ALL of them are found in the Hebrew Bible.

BTW, you keep posting that list of quotes of the Deuterocanon in the NT. No one is denying that the NT quotes or at least alludes to some or most of these books. But you paint yourself into a corner, because - again:

1. If the NT quoting from the Septuagint is the criteria for including a book in the OT, then we would have to throw out Esther, Song of Songs, & others, because they are neither quoted nor even alluded to in the NT.
2. If the NT quoting from the Septuagint is the criteria for including a book in the OT, then we would have to add other books that are in the Septuagint that are not in the Catholic or Protestant OT, like 3 Esdras, the Prayer of Manasseh, etc since they were in the Septuagint as well.

The two questions that really needs to be asked are:

1. What was included “in” the Septuagint in Jesus’ day?
2. If there was more than one version of the Septuagint back then, what version did Jesus “actually” affirm.

And it appears from the Greek in the NT in Luke’s gospel that Jesus affirmed the Septuagint version of the Pharisees, which was limited to the books found in the limitations of the Hebrew Bible. In fact, in a subsection of the book in chapter 2 on the Septuagint, there is a section in the TOC that talks about the Pharisees and the Septuagint.

 

[RaisedCatholic]

The devil’s advocate is really is not a good game to play especially when it comes to the inspired word of God. Im beginning to question the validity of this statement and your definition of the word “faith”.

Peace!!!

It’s a figure of speech. Everyone uses, even devout Catholics. And you still didn’t answer my question.