Would it matter if the Deuterocanonical books were in Protestant Bibles?

[VerumAdInfernos]

He certainly is but IT IS a fact that the NT writers quote the Septuagint over 90% of the time, and IT IS a historical fact that Christs apostles and the early Church used the Septuagint, that should end this debate right there.

 

[BrianH]

He certainly is but IT IS a *fact *that the NT writers quote the Septuagint over 90% of the time, and IT IS a historical fact that Christs apostles and the early Church used the Septuagint, that should end this debate right there.

Fact??

Sources of Old Testament Quotations Since the New Testament was written in Greek for predominantly Greek readers, it is not surprising that a large majority of Old Testament quotes in the New Testament are drawn from the Greek translation of the Old Testament known as the Septuagint (LXX). Of Paul’s 93 quotes, 51 are in absolute or virtual agreement with the LXX, while only 4 agree with the Hebrew text. This means that 38 diverge from all known Greek or Hebrew Old Testament texts. Of Matthew’s 43 quotes, 11 agree with the LXX, while the other 32 differ from all known sources. How then are these quotes to be explained? The New Testament writers may have used a version of the Old Testament which is unknown to us, or they may have been quoting from memory. It is also possible that the New Testament writers were more concerned with meaning and interpretation. It has also been suggested that the Old Testament quotations may have been drawn from “testimony books,” collections of selected, combined, and interpreted Old Testament texts gathered by the early Christian community for proclamation and apologetics. The frequent use of certain Old Testament texts, such as Psalms 110:1, Isaiah 43:1, and so forth, in the preaching and writing of the early church and the discovery of such collections at Qumran seem to support such a possibility.

studylight.org/dic/hbd/view.cgi?number=T4699

 

[JRKH]

Very powerful statement. Some canons were broader but not smaller accept possibly very small groups and I cannot verify them yet.

Yes, and the other thing I find to be quite convincing for the larger canon is St Paul’s statement that, “ALL scripture is useful…” It is important to remember that when St Paul wrote this He and Timothy were ministering mainly to Greek speakers who would have been using the Greek Septuigent texts that were more widely available outside of Palistine.

Peace
James

 

[JRKH]

I’ve read a descent amount on other threads where Catholics postulate that all of Protestantism is just a money making scheme. Well, let me ask this then. Isn’t it possible that Jerome and all those other priests did not conform their will so much as their pocket books by protecting their jobs?

First let me say that I have never read any catholic saying that all of protestantism is just a money making scheme and I certainly have never written, or even thought such a thing.
As to your question I will merely say that Anything is possible.
But such an accusation would require some proof.

What we do know is that St Jerome had questions about the Deuteros’s. He expressed those questions and was told to include them anyway. This he did without further dissent. There is no evidence that I am aware of that Jerome was threatened or coerced in any way, but rather was obedient to the Church as he was to Christ in the Church
Some Protestants hold Jerome’s questions up as more than they are. They look at the questions but do not look at Jeromes subsequent actions. Thus they miss the point of Gods grace and protection in the Church.

Peace
James

 

[VerumAdInfernos]

First let me say that I have never read any catholic saying that all of protestantism is just a money making scheme and I certainly have never written, or even thought such a thing.
As to your question I will merely say that Anything is possible.
But such an accusation would require some proof.

What we do know is that St Jerome had questions about the Deuteros’s. He expressed those questions and was told to include them anyway. This he did without further dissent. There is no evidence that I am aware of that Jerome was threatened or coerced in any way, but rather was obedient to the Church as he was to Christ in the Church
Some Protestants hold Jerome’s questions up as more than they are. They look at the questions but do not look at Jeromes subsequent actions. Thus they miss the point of Gods grace and protection in the Church.

Peace
James

Amen Amen!! He was humble, truly a St., Martin Luther was an arrogant iconoclast who wanted to get rid of the books James and Revelation!!! He was a Heretic with a capital H!!!

 

[JRKH]

Amen Amen!! He was humble, truly a St., Martin Luther was an arrogant iconoclast who wanted to get rid of the books James and Revelation!!! He was a Heretic with a capital H!!!

While I try to avoid such inflamatory adjectives, you do make a good point about Luthers view of the books in the New testament. I believe he wished to remove more than just James and Revelation. He also had a low opinion of Hebrews and Jude.

The issues that are raised about the differing canons and how we try to determine the justifications can take many forms. Of course I can only speak from my own journey. Without getting into the personalities of people, I have noted in earlier posts that it seems rediculous to think that God would allow an erronious canon to exist in the western Church for 1000 years before “correcting it”. Such does not fit with the idea of Christ’s Promise to be with us to the end of days, or with the Idea of sending the Holy Spirit to “Lead us into all truth”.
As another apsect of this, we should note that the canon was discerned by Church Councils and then was subsequently affirmed without change by seven later church councils ALL BEFORE the reformation and the Council of Trent. Thus we have not only the original councils word but the affirmation and re-affirmation of subsequent councils that the canon was correct.
The refomers have no such councils to rely on. The changes were made by a single man - Martin Luther. Since then, many different explanations are advanced, but not one is convincing to me.
The Bottom line is, as I have stated before, If the councils got the canon wrong in 400 AD then the ENTIRE CANON is suspect. NOT ONE book can be relied upon whether in the OT or the NT. Especially since, as you point out above, the man (ML) who tells us the OT was wrong also wanted to change the NT.
If on the other hand the councils got the canon right, then they got the WHOLE canon right. WHY? because it is impossible that the Holy spirit would only protect one part the council(s) and canon from error.

Peace
James

 

[MarcoPolo]

Randy might email him and tell him!!

I cannot do a book review in 100 words or less but I will try. In general, I believe it is a good to very good book. However, it is apologetics and not an attempt to be impartial in looking at the evidence like the Canon Debate. There is a huge difference between writing for an academic journal and engaging in effective apologetics. Make no mistake, it is good apologetics.

What does McDonald’s book cover that Michuta’s doesn’t?

 

[SemperReformada]

What we do know is that St Jerome had questions about the Deuteros’s. He expressed those questions and was told to include them anyway. This he did without further dissent. There is no evidence that I am aware of that Jerome was threatened or coerced in any way, but rather was obedient to the Church as he was to Christ in the Church
Some Protestants hold Jerome’s questions up as more than they are. They look at the questions but do not look at Jeromes subsequent actions. Thus they miss the point of Gods grace and protection in the Church.

Peace
James

You are apparently unaware that Jerome wrote prologues to each of the dc’s and these prologues, along with the dc’s appeared in the Vulgate. So yes, Jerome included the dc’s in the Vulgate but also included his prologues to each dc and the prologues clearly expressed his doubts as to their inspiration. Jerome’s prologues caused more than a few to reject the dc’s as canonical.

 

[JRKH]

You are apparently unaware that Jerome wrote prologues to each of the dc’s and these prologues, along with the dc’s appeared in the Vulgate. So yes, Jerome included the dc’s in the Vulgate but also included his prologues to each dc and the prologues clearly expressed his doubts as to their inspiration. Jerome’s prologues caused more than a few to reject the dc’s as canonical.

Yes I am unaware of any prologues to the Deuteros.
Of course, interestingly enough, the books were included anyway, apparently along with some additional commentary which the Church obviously allowed.
If anything this appears to 1) Disprove any possibility that Jerome was “forced” to include the Deuteros in order to protect himself and 2) Prove that the Church was open to the idea of discussion in the area of interpretation which is something that she is often accused of not allowing.

Peace
James

 

[BrianH]

What does McDonald’s book cover that Michuta’s doesn’t?

It covers Judaism, Jamnia, LXX/MT, and many other topics at a greater depth and is very even in its tone and presentation; it features different scholars for each section.

 

[SemperReformada]

Yes I am unaware of any prologues to the Deuteros.
Of course, interestingly enough, the books were included anyway, apparently along with some additional commentary which the Church obviously allowed.
If anything this appears to 1) Disprove any possibility that Jerome was “forced” to include the Deuteros in order to protect himself and 2) Prove that the Church was open to the idea of discussion in the area of interpretation which is something that she is often accused of not allowing.

Peace
James

I don’t recall anyone saying Jerome was “forced” to do anything. Nor should it be a surprise to anyone that the dc’s were included in the Vulgate even if Jerome or anyone else believed them to be less than inspired. For example, the major scriptural commentary of the middle ages included the dc’s but at the same time very clear that the dc’s were not on par with canonical scripture. Luther didn’t accept the dc’s as canonical but included them in his version of the bible. The Geneva bible (the bible of the reformation) included the dc’s as well but the reformers, as you know, though the dc’s to be non-canonical.

Since Carthage and Hippo were not ecumenical councils and were only provincial coucnils I do believe the subject of the canon was up for discussion up to the time of Trent.

 

[VerumAdInfernos]

I don’t recall anyone saying Jerome was “forced” to do anything. Nor should it be a surprise to anyone that the dc’s were included in the Vulgate even if Jerome or anyone else believed them to be less than inspired. For example, the major scriptural commentary of the middle ages included the dc’s but at the same time very clear that the dc’s were not on par with canonical scripture. Luther didn’t accept the dc’s as canonical but included them in his version of the bible. The Geneva bible (the bible of the reformation) included the dc’s as well but the reformers, as you know, though the dc’s to be non-canonical.

Since Carthage and Hippo were not ecumenical councils and were only provincial coucnils I do believe the subject of the canon was up for discussion up to the time of Trent.

And thus was re-affirmed at the council of Trent, so what’s your issue with the Deuteros then.

 

[JRKH]

I don’t recall anyone saying Jerome was “forced” to do anything.

My reference to force or coersion is related to this post:

I’ve read a descent amount on other threads where Catholics postulate that all of Protestantism is just a money making scheme. Well, let me ask this then. Isn’t it possible that Jerome and all those other priests did not conform their will so much as their pocket books by protecting their jobs?

Nor should it be a surprise to anyone that the dc’s were included in the Vulgate even if Jerome or anyone else believed them to be less than inspired. For example, the major scriptural commentary of the middle ages included the dc’s but at the same time very clear that the dc’s were not on par with canonical scripture. Luther didn’t accept the dc’s as canonical but included them in his version of the bible. The Geneva bible (the bible of the reformation) included the dc’s as well but the reformers, as you know, though the dc’s to be non-canonical.

Since Carthage and Hippo were not ecumenical councils and were only provincial coucnils I do believe the subject of the canon was up for discussion up to the time of Trent.

Well I’ll step back for now since I am not that up to speed on all of this and I don’t want to get in deeper than I should based on my knowledge.

Happy Turkey

Peace
James