marywarfield;11970460:
Because the term deuterocanon does not have to do with it being written in Greek. Gabriel made the claim that it is called deuterocanon because it was written in Greek as a second (deutero) language. That’s false. I am discussing etymology of terms here.
Per Crucem, it appears your knowledge of history has been tainted with Protestantism falsehood opinions.
You don’t read Catholic History that is recorded from Catholics who write during the time of the historical event do you? Your history has a bias twist to it that misinterprets history and leans to one side that makes an argument to the historical Truth. You don’t reveal true history here. Let’s be honest with each other here.
If you did, you would not jump to false conclusions of the Deutero’s as you do. You should not cheat yourself out of Truth by holding to bias opinions of history.
For now I will post from one of your own protestant view of Catholic history, from one who read Catholic history without a distorted and bias view.
Those unbiased scholars true to history record the many reasons why the Jews, Luther rejected and renamed the Deutero’s books one reason was they had no Hebrew counter parts.
Deutero never means a second canon, But I did not say Deuterocanonical when you
misinterpreted my post. Duetero reflects that only the 7 books in question were brought down to us in the second language of Greek, never by a second canon. The Catholic Church never had a second canon.
Tell me Per Crucem; are you one of those protestants who believe this false protestant opinion; "The Catholic Church has not always accepted the Apocrypha. The Apocrypha was not officially accepted by the Catholic Church at a universal council until 1546 at the Council of Trent. "
I would really love your reply if you falsely believe this lie in Protestantism?
Here is one of your own who attests to the fact;
The early Christian Church used the same Greek-language Scriptures as the Jews of the time (some of whom spoke no Hebrew), the so-called Septuagint, which consisted of the books of what we now call the Old Testament and the “Apocrypha,”[2] or Deuterocanonical Books.
In about 90 CE, the Jewish Canon of Scripture began to be finalized, and today it looks very much like the Protestant Christian “Old Testament.” The Jewish Canon seems to have centered around the so-called Masoretic Text, which is in Hebrew. **It is probable that books whose only extant editions were in Greek were considered less authentic; **however, more recent manuscript discoveries indicate that the Greek versions of certain canonical books may be closer to the originals, in some respects, than the Masoretic Text.
Nevertheless, Greek-language scriptures, including all books of the Septuagint as well as all of the Greek New Testament, constituted “Holy Scripture” for early Christians. [3]
wesley.nnu.edu/noncanon/
This anti-catholic site
bible.ca/catholic-apocrypha.htm has done their homework on only one here, why haven’t you?
2.Not one of them is in the Hebrew language, which was alone used by the inspired historians and poets of the Old Testament.
Here’s a neutral source;
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Development_of_the_Hebrew_Bible_canon that list’s the criteria from the second century Jewish cannon of Jamnia; 1.The writing had to be composed in Hebrew.
In all fairness to you, I purposely did not list any Catholic sources here only those who have viewed an unbiased Christian history including anti-Catholics.
I am not trying to win an argument with you. Just trying to get your facts straight without prejudice views of Church history.
I can give you this; that there are many diverse reasons and opinions why the Deutero’s are questioned, one reason I listed was they had no Hebrew counterparts at the time to prove their authenticity, while the Catholic Church never moved away from the Deutero’s as being Inspired coming to us in the second language.
Peace be with you
I like it.
good word