Why Protestant Bibles Are Smaller

[RaisedCatholic]

“You can say it all you want but there is nothing circular with the Church declaring which books no longer are included in the liturgy. If the church hadn’t done this you would be quoting from the Didache, the Gospel of Peter, Epistle of Barnabas and others today. And then by doing so the bible as you know it is formed. Sorry, i know you don’t like it and may never agree with it, but you cannot argue with actual history.”

Those are nice assumptions. The problem is there is no evidence to base those assumptions on, especially if you knew the godly criteria Protestants used to discern the OT canon, which were the same with the NT canon. Therefore, based on these criteria, Protestants did not include the Didache team al in their NT canon. In fact, the book in the OP has a chapter on why we should trust the NT canon, and has subsections on the Didache and the other books you mentioned, which probably explain “why” these books didn’t make the NT. Plus, the fact that Catholics, Protestants, EO, etc believe in the same NT canon is really moot. So instead, wouldn’t it make sense to see what this agreed upon NT canon supports about the OT canon? And it supports the Protestant OT canon, based on the words of Jesus.

 

[RaisedCatholic]

Then if Jesus was merely talking about teaching and not canon to the Pharisees, then “how” could Jesus hold them accountable for knowing what it was (“Have you not READ?” / “As it is WRITTEN.”), which He did?

 

[RaisedCatholic]

“Baruch was part of the OT canon in the 1st 3 centuries of the Church http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03267a.htm AND https://www.catholic.com/qa/baruch-is-there-just-sometimes-as-part-of-jeremiah

Either way, Baruch is part of the OT canon.”

I addressed this in my last post! Again, look at the Council of Rome. It lists Lamentations SEPARATE from Jeremiah, even though they were originally ONE book. It also lists ALL of other Deuteros BY NAME but not Baruch and the epistle. It also lists the twelve minor prophets BY NAME! And ECFs, even in the fourth century, listed Baruch and the epistle SEPARATELY. If they were included at Rome, they would have been listed separately like Lamentations and the others were. But they weren’t. And as far as the article about the canon in the first few centuries, the only time it mentions Baruch and the epistle is MUCH LATER in church history. Sorry but they weren’t in Rome or the other councils, or Jerome’s Vulgate. They weren’t added until four hundred years later. BTW, next time could you post the subsection in the article? People don’t want to read through a WHOLE LONG article!

 

[RaisedCatholic]

Jesus never said anything about what made a complete canon (listing by book). What He did was, He quoted stories from OT literature, stories which also came from the 7 books you don’t have now, and they didn’t have then, that is (those who didn’t read from the Septuagint translation).

He also quoted from “stories” from OTHER books NOT found in the Deuteros too. No offense, but you are beginning to repeat yourself. Besides, merely “quoting” isn’t the reason Protestants give for the NT acknowledging what is and is not OT Scripture, which I explained several times to you, which you don’t seem to be getting. BTW, did you even take the time to READ the free section on Amazon from the book I mentioned. I did, and I truly believe if you take the time to read it, it will make sense better than a back and forth dialogue which has limited space.

 

[RaisedCatholic]

Irenaeus is a Bishop in succession to the apostles. THEY (the ECF’s et al) are in the One True Church, the pillar and foundation of truth, the Catholic Church.

And his OT list omitted most of the Deuteros and was closer to Protestants. I don’t think you want to use Irenaeus as an argument.

And their miracles validated not only what they said, but also what they wrote down (or what others wrote down, like St. Paul validating St. Luke’s writings by calling them “Scripture” which St. Paul states Scripture is inspired, or God-breathed).

St. Paul quoted Luke 10:7 and called it Scripture.

You have created your own reality.

No, I was able to answer your question that you cannot respond to, so you reply with this non-answer. At least I don’t use circular reasoning to try to support my subjective belief in what belongs in the canon. Besides, this is about what belongs in the OLD Testament canon, not the NEW, which we agree on, which is irrelevant to the OP. And the NT supports the Protestant OT canon, not the Deuteros too.

 

[RaisedCatholic]

The answer is the same no matter how many times you use the word circular. The answer is just like God himself, it does not change.

That’s not even an answer!

 

[JohnR77]

Yet, Baruch & the epistle of Jeremiah as missing …
Baruch would not be “added” to the Catholic OT for another 400 years after Jerome’s Vulgate

WOW.
Isn’t that something.

But I got a question for you.
Why in this fourth century Bible is the book of Baruch listed in the table of contents ?

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

Just asking.

PS. and The Letter of Jeremiah, or usually the sixth chapter of Baruch, is also listed. ( two spaces lower)

I guess you’ll have to have a talk with that publisher.

I am hoping you can read Greek.
Is that a problem ?
I’ll be glad to help.

John

 

[RaisedCatholic]

Never said Baruch and the epistle weren’t in Bibles in the fourth century. They just didn’t make Jerome’s Vulgate, nor the fourth and fifth century church councils. There were Bibles with different books in them, including books Catholics would call Apocrypha too. So just because you found (I assume).a Bible from the fourth century only demonstrates even back then, different Bibles had different books, until the Vulgate which omitted Baruch and the epistle, which wouldn’t get added to later versions of the Vulgate until sometime in the ninth century.

What you should ask yourself is why Catholic Answers supports this by demonstrating a faithful rendition of Jerome’s Bible from around AD 700 that omitted Baruch?

Codex Amiatinus

NewAdvent.org also mentions it:

NewAdvent - Amiatinus

 

[RaisedCatholic]

You need to give me time to answer before claiming victory. No need to contact the publisher just yet.

 

[RaisedCatholic]

Plus, there were versions of the Septuagint and the Vulgate that had non-Deuteros in them too.

 

[RaisedCatholic]

Also, if this is supposed to be Vaticanus, you do know it omitted 1 and 2 Maccabees, as well as some books from the NT, right? And it included 3 Esdras too, right? Are you sure you still want to use this “fourth century Bible” as an example?

 

[JohnR77]

I will get you some quotes from early church fathers when I get some time

 

[JohnR77]

AD 700 that omitted Baruch?

Codex Amiatinus

NewAdvent.org also mentions

That mistake is easily explained It will just take me a little time

 

[adf417]

So instead, wouldn’t it make sense to see what this agreed upon NT canon supports about the OT canon? And it supports the Protestant OT canon, based on the words of Jesus.

Just because you don’t like the answer doesn’t mean it hasn’t been done. And you are the only one getting dizzy on the so called “circular” argument. Open your heart RC, and get off the metaphorical merry-go-round. The church Jesus established did not, has not, will not err.

Peace!!!

 

[adf417]

adf417:

The answer is the same no matter how many times you use the word circular. The answer is just like God himself, it does not change.

That’s not even an answer!

It is if you stop assuming Jesus church failed. Everything else fits quite well.
Peace!!!

 

[steve-b]

[cont]

As for Jews of the day, Pharisee or not,

Jesus gave the following order

Matt 10:5 These twelve Jesus sent out, charging them, “Go nowhere among the Gentiles, and enter no town of the Samaritans, 6 but go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel. 7 And preach as you go, saying, ‘The kingdom of heaven is at hand.’ 8 Heal the sick, raise the dead, cleanse lepers, cast out demons…

Seems Jesus thought those Pharisees et al, YOU want to hang onto sooooo tightly for your defense , were lost THEN, …and one has to ask, what has changed, down to today?

RaisedCatholic:

In context, Jesus was talking about Israel (including the Pharisees) being “lost” in their false beliefs based on their extra-biblical “traditions,” which He corrected them WITH Scripture (“Have you not read?” / “It is written” / “the Scriptures say” etc). He was not saying anything about their OT canon being incomplete being part of the being “lost,” just their misapplication & additional traditions to it. Contrast this with St. Philip who recognized Jesus by “Moses in the Law & the Prophets” (St. John 1:45). Notice, nothing about the “traditions” of the Pharisees, but SCRIPTURE ALONE. This is the same phrase Jesus used when He affirmed the OT canon of the Pharisees (Luke 16:14-16, 29).

If they are lost, as Jesus said they are, why then are you following THEM in their choice of books for the OT?

 

[steve-b]

The question is not whether the New Testament contains things that are also mentioned in the Apocrypha. Rather it should be where the original reference is found. If a reference is in the Old Testament then whether it is also mentioned in the Apocrypha is irrelevant since the Old Testament precedes the Apocrypha. The passage in the Apocrypha itself would be referencing the Old Testament one. Repeating the Old Testament expression does not make the repetition Scripture or inspired.

The Deutero Canon is scripture.

 

[ZMystiCat]

Then if Jesus was merely talking about teaching and not canon to the Pharisees, then “how” could Jesus hold them accountable for knowing what it was (“Have you not READ?” / “As it is WRITTEN.”), which He did?

When speaking to the Sadducees, he spoke to them on the terms of their canon (Matt. 22:23-32). I see no reason to believe he’s not simply speaking to the Pharisees on their own terms, where they include the prophets.

 

[steve-b]

Irenaeus is a Bishop in succession to the apostles. THEY (the ECF’s et al) are in the One True Church, the pillar and foundation of truth, the Catholic Church.

RaisedCatholic:

And his OT list omitted most of the Deuteros and was closer to Protestants. I don’t think you want to use Irenaeus as an argument.

Irenaeus uses Wisdom, the History of Susannah, Bel and the Dragon [i.e., the deuterocanonical portions of Daniel], and Baruch.

RaisedCatholic:

And their miracles validated not only what they said, but also what they wrote down (or what others wrote down, like St. Paul validating St. Luke’s writings by calling them “Scripture” which St. Paul states Scripture is inspired, or God-breathed).

Do you have a specific quote you’re thinking of?

RaisedCatholic:

St. Paul quoted Luke 10:7 and called it Scripture.

I asked for the reference of Paul quoting Luke, and calling it scripture.

You have created your own reality.

RisedCatholic:

the NT supports the Protestant OT canon, not the Deuteros too.

As has been shown, the “lost sheep of Israel”, and Protestants, is no support.

 

[steve-b]

steve-b:

Both Traditions , oral and written , are already known to be authoritative.

14 times, the word “tradition” is used NEGATIVELY in the Bible. The three times it’s used positively, is when it’s referring to “tradition” that had already been written down, like in St. Paul’s epistles to the churches of Corinth & Thessalonica. What St. Paul is saying is that the “traditions” that he was writing about to be spread “either by word OR by letter,” weren’t separate traditions, but the same one communicated either way. The NT never mentions extra-biblical “traditions” as being equal with Scripture that were not also written down.

On the contrary

2 Thes 2 says
5 So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, *either by word of mouth or by letter.

How can you distort such a simple statement?

1. tradition is plural. NOT SINGULAR, Do you see that? TRADITIONS plural

Do you ALSO see

1. either by word of mouth or by letter. IOW, 2 traditions, oral tradition(word of mouth) , & written tradition, (by letter)

AND

How did Paul say these 2 traditions are to be treated?

“stand firm and hold to”​

Just one of them or to BOTH? It’s BOTH

RaisedCatholic:

But none of this is really relevant to the OP, which is about the which OT canon Jesus affirmed, which is the OT canon of the Pharisees, which is the same as that of later Protestants.

Jesus affirms what He gives His authority to, (HIS Church) , and also what He teaches HIS Church . And He insists on perfect unity. Neither one of your sources, you mention, is in His Church. Ergo your sources have no authority in this matter