Why Protestant Bibles Are Smaller

[RaisedCatholic]

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!!!

How is that circular? The Bible is self-authoritative. It can defend itself internally, because it has the attributes of God. That is how we can know the church is the pillar & shield of the truth. You say you believe because of faith. I’m not sure you know what that means. If you mean you have faith because the Catholic Church “says so,” that is circular reasoning. Because if you say the New Testament says the church is that pillar & shield, and the Catholic Church says it’s that church, then you are using “A” (the Bible) to prove “B” (the church) to prove what the Bible says about the church (“A”). That’s not faith, because faith is based on evidence (Hebrews 11:1). That’s simply believing something someone is telling you, without verifying it with objective external evidence.

Not so with the Bible which is self-authoritative & self-authenticating, which tells us what JESUS revealed about the OT canon, which it was the canon of the Pharisees, which was the same books found in Protestant OTs today, according to Jimmy Akin.

 

[RaisedCatholic]

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.

That’s a common assumption, but not entirely true. Luther discovered the Targums (which I believe is a subsection in the book I mentioned in the OP). They were written prior to & contemporary to the time of Christ. From what I’ve read, they excluded the Deuterocanons (which were written earlier), but included virtually all of the books from the Hebrew Bible. The Masoretic text really didn’t have much to do with Luther rejecting the Deuteros, except for the fact it included the exact same books that the Pharisees accepted prior to and contemporary with the time of Jesus, which is the canon Jesus affirmed. This seems to have been Luther’s historical motivation, not the later Masoretic text that mirrored it.

 

[RaisedCatholic]

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

BTW, did you notice in the Muratorian Fragment that when it names the epistles of St. Paul, the epistle to the Hebrews is not mentioned? I know none of us know for certain who wrote it, and many have speculated it was St. Paul (like at least one of two of the fourth century church councils), while others haven’t. But it’s curious such an early list omitted St. Paul as a possible author. Some have speculated Luke or even Barnabas or others. But that is one mystery I would love to know who the human writer was, and why he chose to remain anonymous. I know the gospels don’t mention their authors either, but we know from the writings of ECF’s, like Polycarp with St. John’s gospel, who they were. No one seems to be certain who wrote Hebrews.

 

[ZMystiCat]

The point is not every group of Jews nor Christians “possess” the complete Scriptures (Moses and the Prophets).

I think we do, and I don’t see much of a reason to believe we don’t.

The entire reason for thinking there’s some exclusive possession seems to come down from a very particular understanding of how a single word “have” is to be understood. However, it seems to be getting understood in total isolation of the context, which as I already said is more in line with how we “have” the Scripture to guide. Even in English, this how we would read the passage.

But beyond the immediate passage, it isn’t even consistent with the whole of Scripture. For instance, the same root word is used in Romans 5:1, but does that mean we “possess” the peace with God to dictate its terms? No, and that would be blasphemy! The same could be said of Hebrews 10:34. Even in English, the word “have” has the connotation of “possession” in certain cases. For instance, I “have an apartment”, but does that mean I dictate the floorplan and lease? No. There’s just no sense in which this word has the authority he is attempting to assign to it, and it would even lead him to absolute blasphemy if used consistently across Scripture.

Even the use doesn’t indicate exclusive possession. Going back to Romans and Hebrews, do the Roman Christians have sole possession of peace with God, or do the Jewish Christians have sole possession of a greater reward in heaven? No, despite the fact that it was used in context when referring to them, they obviously aren’t the sole owners of either. It would even be contradictory, especially given Paul’s discussion that was going on at the time in Romans.

Heck, we could even go deeper into the “echo” definition. Why even use the word? The Pharisees didn’t write the Scripture. It isn’t an actual “echo” of their words but of their ancestors’. The same applies to the Sadducees and Apostles, though, so why don’t they have this “echo”? Basically, either the author’s understanding is flawed, or Luke’s Greek is rusty, because it doesn’t make sense in understanding it as a literal “echo” of the Pharisees’ words.

So again, this is just coming across as grasping at a very particular definition that makes little sense either in context of the passage or the Scripture in general.

 

[steve-b]

steve-b:

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.

I think , looking at the verbal and written works by Jimmy Akin, It appears you took Jimmy Akin out of context.

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

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

RaisedCatholic:

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?

RaisedCatholic:

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.

The Septuagint was completed ~200 B.C. Even to this day, Jews who rejected Jesus, also reject the fuller canon of the Septuagint. As do Protestants.

 

[steve-b]

steve-b:

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

BTW, did you notice in the Muratorian Fragment that when it names the epistles of St. Paul, the epistle to the Hebrews is not mentioned? I know none of us know for certain who wrote it, and many have speculated it was St. Paul (like at least one of two of the fourth century church councils), while others haven’t. But it’s curious such an early list omitted St. Paul as a possible author. Some have speculated Luke or even Barnabas or others. But that is one mystery I would love to know who the human writer was, and why he chose to remain anonymous. I know the gospels don’t mention their authors either, but we know from the writings of ECF’s, like Polycarp with St. John’s gospel, who they were. No one seems to be certain who wrote Hebrews.

Point being it’s declared scripture. Who has that authority? Even the Muratorian canon says, it’s The Catholic Church.

 

[RaisedCatholic]

The entire reason for thinking there’s some exclusive possession seems to come down from a very particular understanding of how a single word “have” is to be understood. However, it seems to be getting understood in total isolation of the context, which as I already said is more in line with how we “have” the Scripture to guide. Even in English , this how we would read the passage.

But the NT wasn’t written in English but in Koine Greek. So, we have to be careful about imputing the rules of English grammar & even English meaning of words into another language & time. And when you look up the specific Greek word for “have” (echō) it literally translates: to have i.e. own, possess external things such as pertain to property or riches or furniture or utensils or goods or food etc. So, when Jesus said the Pharisees “have” Moses & the Prophets, He means they have possession of the OT canon, which He refers to as “Moses & the Prophets.”

But beyond the immediate passage, it isn’t even consistent with the whole of Scripture. For instance, the same root word is used in Romans 5:1, but does that mean we “possess” the peace with God to dictate its terms? No, and that would be blasphemy! The same could be said of Hebrews 10:34. Even in English, the word “have” has the connotation of “possession” in certain cases. For instance, I “have an apartment”, but does that mean I dictate the floorplan and lease? No. There’s just no sense in which this word has the authority he is attempting to assign to it, and it would even lead him to absolute blasphemy if used consistently across Scripture.

The Greek word used in Romans 5:1 is dikaioō which means to declare, pronounce, one to be just, righteous, or such as he ought to be. Not sure where you are getting that it’s the same root word used in Luke 16:29 for “have.” With Hebrews 10:34 the “better possession” that the Hebrews “have” is eternal happiness because of their faith in Christ, which everyone “has” who accepts Christ as Savior & Lord. In the context of Luke 16:29, Jesus is saying the Pharisees “have” the OT canon, which is something He ONLY says about the Pharisees. So, this is the context of the meaning of “have” in Luke 16:29. Coupled with Jimmy Akin admitting that the Pharisees & later Protestants “have” the same OT canon, Jesus is saying those who “have” those books (like the Pharisees) “have” the OT canon. That is the context.

 

[RaisedCatholic]

I think , looking at the verbal and written works by Jimmy Akin, It appears you took Jimmy Akin out of context.

Listen to the YouTube video again. He was pretty explicit that Pharisees & Protestants share the exact same books. And it was the Pharisees’ canon is what Jesus affirmed.

The Septuagint was completed ~200 B.C. Even to this day, Jews who rejected Jesus, also reject the fuller canon of the Septuagint. As do Protestants.

Just because they rejected, and continue to reject, Christ doesn’t mean they didn’t have the complete OT Scriptures. Again, Jesus said otherwise. I’m afraid this is a false correlation, ie: they rejected Christ, which means they didn’t have the complete Scriptures. That is just an assumption that cannot be verified, and seems to go against the very words of Jesus Who said they did in Luke 16.

And, yes, the Septuagint was completed ~250 to 200 B.C. before most (if not all) of the Deuterocanon was written. This date is based on Philo of Alexandria (~A.D. 35) reading from the Letter of Aristeas, which stated the Septuagint was limited to THE LAW, not the rest of the OT. And Trent Horn stated the first canon to be translated into the Septuagint was the HEBREW BIBLE, not the Deuteros too. This is from the Chronology from the book, and either a video or podcast from Trent Horn. This is why when the NT uses phrases like “It is written” & “Have you not read?” they only reference books found in the boundaries of the Hebrew Bible - even when they are quoting from the Septuagint Greek translation - but none of them are from the Deuteros.

 

[steve-b]

[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

RaisedCatholic:

170 A.D.? That’s a bit late, don’t you think?

Late for what?

AND

( ~ ) in front of the date means approximately

RaisedCatholic:

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.

WRONG… Those 7 books (the deuterocanon) that are in the Septuagint (the Hebrew Greek translation) which are quoted from in the NT, aren’t in the bible Hebrews who reject Jesus, use
[/quote]

RaisedCatholic:

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.

It boils down to who has the authority to determine and close all of this. It’s probably too much of a simple idea to say to you, but the Catholic Church was 100% Jewish in the beginning.

So I could say back to you, stop trying to lecture me on what the “Jews” of Jesus day were thinking of. WE ALREADY KNOW what the only Church Jesus established, decided on in this matter.

 

[RaisedCatholic]

Point being it’s declared scripture. Who has that authority? Even the Muratorian canon says, it’s The Catholic Church.

The term “catholic” back them simply meant “universal,” not in the way it does now to refer to an hierarchical structure. Plus, the Muratorian Fragment dealt with most of the books from the NEW Testament, not the Old. While the NT was being written in the first century, and most of the books were recognized as inspired Scripture by the mid-first century, unlike the OT, the NT was still being written. The OT canon was completed & recognized by Jesus in the first century based on the NT gospels, which He affirmed was the canon of the Pharisees. As far as the NT canon goes, like the OT, it was inspired the moment is was penned. Just as God revealed to Israel (and later accepted by the Pharisees) what the OT was, God revealed to the church what the NT was. I noticed the book has a subsection titled “Why was the OT canon not preserved in the early church?” which sounds like he goes into more detail there.

 

[RaisedCatholic]

Late for what?

Late as a source. That’s late second century, and again, it only deals with the NEW Testament, not the Old.

WRONG… Those 7 books (the deuterocanon) that are in the Septuagint (the Hebrew Greek translation) which are quoted from in the NT, aren’t in the bible Hebrews who reject Jesus, use

Yes, today. But not before & contemporary with the time of Christ. Again, the Letter of Aristeas limited the Septuagint to THE LAW, not the Deuteros, and Trent Horn stated the first canon to be translated into the Septuagint was the HEBREW BIBLE, not the Deutero. I’m afraid you are assuming since the later church (meaning a few centuries after the time of Christ) had a version of the Septuagint that contained the Deuteros, that means it was in the the version of the Deuteros in the first century & before. But, again, Jimmy Akin & Trent Horn stated otherwise. Again, there were DIFFERENT VERSIONS of the Septuagint in the first century, based on the different Jewish sects. And the version the Pharisees possessed did NOT include the Deuteros. Neither did the Sadducees. The Pharisees only accepted the Greek translation of the HEBREW BIBLE, which is what Jesus affirmed in Luke 16.

It boils down to who has the authority to determine and close all of this. It’s probably too much of a simple idea to say to you, but the Catholic Church was 100% Jewish in the beginning.

No one is arguing that the Christian Church was nearly 100% Jewish (Luke was a Gentile, as were many other believers in the first century). But, again, the Christian Church did NOT dictate what the OT canon was - JESUS did! This is the part I’m afraid you aren’t getting. Jesus could not have held the Pharisees accountable for what was in the OT canon (“Have you not READ?”) if they, and He, didn’t know what it was. But He DID hold them accountable. So, even though Jews - as a whole - did not possess the same OT canon until the late 1st to early 2nd century, that is irrelevant to the fact the PHARISEES DID possess a unified OT canon, which Jesus affirmed in Luke 16. The unified Pharisee’s canon - not the dis-unified canon of the Jews as a whole - is the main argument. And it was THIS canon that Jesus affirmed & held them accountable for knowing.

 

[steve-b]

steve-b:

Point being it’s declared scripture. Who has that authority? Even the Muratorian canon says, it’s The Catholic Church.

The term “catholic” back them simply meant “universal,” not in the way it does now to refer to an hierarchical structure. Plus, the Muratorian Fragment dealt with most of the books from the NEW Testament, not the Old. While the NT was being written in the first century, and most of the books were recognized as inspired Scripture by the mid-first century, unlike the OT, the NT was still being written. The OT canon was completed & recognized by Jesus in the first century based on the NT gospels, which He affirmed was the canon of the Pharisees. As far as the NT canon goes, like the OT, it was inspired the moment is was penned. Just as God revealed to Israel (and later accepted by the Pharisees) what the OT was, God revealed to the church what the NT was. I noticed the book has a subsection titled “Why was the OT canon not preserved in the early church?” which sounds like he goes into more detail there.

Thanks for making that comment which everyone has heard a bazillion times.

The Gnostics ( just one of the many heresies to plague the Church) probably were making that same argument in their day. IRENAEUS, saint, bishop, (who knew Polycarp, a direct disciple of St John the apostle) wrote his work “Against Heresies”

From His work, Irenaeus was a Catholic bishop in the Catholic Church Bk1 ch 10 para 3 Don’t just go to the money quote, read the entire page. It’s a good read

AND

Just so no one is confused on the Church he’s specifically talking about he makes a forceful explanation for the benefit of the heretics he;s writing against, exactly where this Church, the Catholic Church, authority rests. Bk 3 Ch3 para 1-3 and that ALL must agree with this Church and he gives the reason why.

Bottom line, you try and read back onto history your own imaginations. That’s not how it works

 

[RaisedCatholic]

The Gnostics ( just one of the many heresies to plague the Church) probably were making that same argument in their day. IRENAEUS, saint, bishop, (who knew Polycarp, a direct disciple of St John the apostle) wrote his work “Against Heresies”

The gnostics were spreading a false gospel. It had nothing to do with the canon. And, again, Irenaeus canon excluded most of the Deuteros (he only accepted the additions of Esther & Daniel, but rejected the rest) in his OT canon. That is why using late second century ECFs doesn’t help in determining what the OT canon was (since they accepted some books, while rejecting others - this is true even with Doctors of the Church), which is why you have to go to authority of JESUS, not much later uninspired writings which often contradict each other. Again, Jesus held the Pharisees accountable for what it was, which He couldn’t have done if they didn’t know what it was.

 

[adf417]

The Bible is self-authoritative. It can defend itself internally, because it has the attributes of God.

If this were true ALL protestant denominations would agree on all salvific issues, such as who is Christian and who is not?, is baptism regenerative or not?, is the Lord’s supper symbolic or not? Sense they are not on the same page “the bible is self-authoritive” argument fails completely.

Peace!!!

 

[RaisedCatholic]

If this were true ALL protestant denominations would agree on all salvific issues, such as who is Christian and who is not?, is baptism regenerative or not?, is the Lord’s supper symbolic or not? Sense they are not on the same page “the bible is self-authoritive” argument fails completely.

Peace!!!

Just because a denomination has the correct canon, doesn’t equate with them having correct theology. The Pharisees had the correct canon, but added so many man-made “traditions” not found in their canon, they created a “Messiah” that “added” to the Messiah in their OT canon, which is why they rejected Jesus. Same with their man-made “traditions” about not picking grain & healing on the Sabbath, which is not in their OT either.

 

[Thomasbradley312]

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

Not really. The Orthodox use the entire Septuagint, we don’t. 3 and 4 Maccabees, Prayer of Manasseh, Psalm 151, and Esdras A, (better known as 1 Esdras) are in Septuagint but they aren’t in our Bibles.
It seems the Catholic Church cherry picked.

 

[adf417]

Just because a denomination has the correct canon, doesn’t equate with them having correct theology.

When you work this out with your protestant brothers and sisters, let us know and we can continue this discussion. Until then your “authoritative” paradigm is flawed. Im pretty sure those non-Catholics you refer to, who disagree with your theology, say the same about you. Then what?

Peace!!!

 

[RaisedCatholic]

When you work this out with your protestant brothers and sisters, let us know and we can continue this discussion. Until then your “authoritative” paradigm is flawed. Im pretty sure those non-Catholics you refer to, who disagree with your theology, say the same about you. Then what?

Peace!!!

Who said I was Protestant? I was raised Catholic, but that doesn’t mean I am automatically Protestant either. The canon of Scripture is one of the main essential issues that divides us, which is why I am passionate about this. The fact that other non-Catholics May disagree with my theology isn’t the point. The point is just because a Jew, like a Pharisee, rejects Jesus as their Messiah does not equate with them having the incorrect canon. That is a false correlation and false assumption that can’t be backed up with Scripture.

 

[steve-b]

RaisedCatholic:

Again, the Letter of Aristeas limited the Septuagint to THE LAW, not the Deuteros, and Trent Horn stated the first canon to be translated into the Septuagint was the HEBREW BIBLE, not the Deutero. I’m afraid you are assuming since the later church (meaning a few centuries after the time of Christ) had a version of the Septuagint that contained the Deuteros, that means it was in the the version of the Deuteros in the first century & before. But, again, Jimmy Akin & Trent Horn stated otherwise. Again, there were DIFFERENT VERSIONS of the Septuagint in the first century, based on the different Jewish sects. And the version the Pharisees possessed did NOT include the Deuteros. Neither did the Sadducees. The Pharisees only accepted the Greek translation of the HEBREW BIBLE, which is what Jesus affirmed in Luke 16.

if Jews didn’t have those 7 books to reference , they couldn’t connect Jesus stories.
Raised Catholic:

The Christian Church…

It’s the Catholic Church from the beginning.

Acts 9:31 the church throughout all , universal ἐκκλησία καθ’ ὅλης τῆς
ἐκκλησία,= ekklésia = church ,
καθ’, = kata = according to ,
ὅλης, = holos = whole / all / universal ,
τῆς, = ho = the ,
= the Kataholos Church = the Catholic Church.

Acts was written ~ 70 a.d.

The name Catholic Church is used by

Ignatius, Saint, Bishop of Antioch from ~69 a.d. to ~107 a.d. ordained by the apostles, and direct disciple of St John. It was in Antioch where the disciples were first called Christian Acts 11:26 Acts 11:26 RSVCE - and when he had found him, he brought - Bible Gateway Ignatius in his writings uses both “Christian” and “Catholic Church”, (Christian) in (ch 2) and Catholic Church in (ch 8). From his Epistle to the Smyrnæans, Christians ch 2, Catholic Church ch 8. He also writes schismatics won’t be going to heaven, from his Epistle to the Philadelphians (ch 3).

And I showed you quotes from Irenaeus

RaisedCatholic:

But, again, the Christian Church did NOT dictate what the OT canon was - JESUS did! This is the part I’m afraid you aren’t getting. Jesus could not have held the Pharisees accountable for what was in the OT canon (“Have you not READ?”)

What you aren’t getting, Jesus quoted from books you don’t have in YOUR Protestant bibles, but are in Catholic bibles, which is HIS Church.

 

[steve-b]

steve-b:

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

Not really. The Orthodox use the entire Septuagint, we don’t. 3 and 4 Maccabees, Prayer of Manasseh, Psalm 151, and Esdras A, (better known as 1 Esdras) are in Septuagint but they aren’t in our Bibles.
It seems the Catholic Church cherry picked.

Do you really think the Church “cherry picked”?