HOW WE GOT OUR BIBLE And WHY WE BELIEVE IT IS GOD'S WORD

OUR English version, and probably most of the translations of the Bible, consists of sixty-six Books, thirty-nine in the Old Testament and twenty-seven in the New, and is regarded with special consideration by all Christians because it is held to be the record of the divine religion of Redemption.

The Old Testament shows how this religion was prepared through many centuries; the New tells how it was at length provided and proclaimed.

- The consequent manifestation of his grace in the redeemed, both individually in believers and corporately in the community of Christians, which we call the church.

Thus both Testaments together form a complete record of human sin and divine salvation, the former making the latter necessary.

The Books of the Old Testament are the product of at least thirty authors and cover a period of at least a thousand years.

The Jewish Old Testament, following the classification of the Hebrew text, is in three parts;

The law consists of the first five books of the Bible and on this account is called the Pentateuch (five rolls).

Note - It may be said in passing that there is no trace in the historical tradition of the Jews of a Hexateuch (six rolls, including Joshua).

The second division of the Hebrew Bible, called the prophets, includes the historical books of Judges, Samuel and Kings, and the prophetic books proper with the exception of Daniel, which because it is apocalyptic rather than, as the other prophetic books, strictly predictive, is in the third section.

The historical books are called "the former prophets" because they are written from a religious standpoint and are not mere historical annals. They were pretty certainly the work of prophets or prophetic men.

The third part of the Hebrew Bible is so called from the first book in it, and the rest of it consists of those Books which are not found in the other two parts. Our English Old Testament has a different order and comes from the Greek Version of the Old Testament (the Septuagint).

The New Testament numbers twenty-seven Books, and is the work of eight authors, covering only about fifty years. Of the eight authors, five were apostles of CHRIST and three were associates of the apostles.

These three provide respectively the commencement, the course, and the culmination of the Christian religion.

There is a striking connection between the Old Testament and the New beyond the general unity mentioned above. The Old Testament emphasizes the three aspects of the divine Saviour: the prophet, the priest, and the king. These answer to the three deepest necessities of man.

Each of these is emphasized in the Old Testament, and in general can be associated with sections of its Books.

The New Testament fitly shows how this threefold need is met in CHRIST as Prophet, Priest, and King; revealing, redeeming, and ruling. The full title "Jesus Christ our Lord" suggests this:

Such is the Bible as we have it today. But how did it come to be what it now is? There has been a gradual growth, and the steps of this we must note.

At first and for a long time the revelation of GOD was oral. "The word of the Lord came to Abram" (Genesis 15:1).

This was sufficient for ages. But the time came when it was necessary to put the divine revelation in a written form. It would seem as though a book were essential for the maintenance and continuance of religion, and it is at least interesting and perhaps also significant that all the great religious systems of the world have their sacred books.

Literature is the nearest possible approach to reliability. This is a point which will need fuller consideration at a later stage.

There are traces in the Old Testament of a gradual growth by accretion. The Jewish tradition associates Moses with the commencement of the Scripture, and there is no doubt of the essential truth of this position. Certainly there is no other tradition attaching to the books; and in view of the tenacity with which the Jews kept their national traditions, this belief about Moses calls for adequate explanation.

A careful study of passages found throughout the Old Testament shows this development, indications being found at almost every period, of growth and additions to the existing writings.

“And the LORD said unto Moses, Write this for a memorial in a book, and rehearse it in the ears of Joshua: for I will utterly put out the remembrance of Amalek from under heaven” (Exodus 17:14).

“And Moses wrote their goings out according to their journeys by the commandment of the LORD: and these [are] their journeys according to their goings out” (Numbers 33:2).

“And it shall be, when he sitteth upon the throne of his kingdom, that he shall write him a copy of this law in a book out of [that which is] before the priests the Levites” (Deuteronomy 17:18).

“This book of the law shall not depart out of thy mouth; but thou shalt meditate therein day and night, that thou mayest observe to do according to all that is written therein: for then thou shalt make thy way prosperous, and then thou shalt have good success . . . And Joshua wrote these words in the book of the law of God, and took a great stone, and set it up there under an oak, that was by the sanctuary of the LORD” (Joshua 1:8; 24:26).

“Then Samuel told the people the manner of the kingdom, and wrote it in a book, and laid it up before the LORD. And Samuel sent all the people away, every man to his house” (I Samuel 10:25).

“Bind up the testimony, seal the law among my disciples . . . To the law and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them” (Isaiah 8:16, 20).

“Take thee a roll of a book, and write therein all the words that I have spoken unto thee against Israel, and against Judah, and against all the nations, from the day I spake unto thee, from the days of Josiah, even unto this day” (Jeremiah 36:2).

“In the first year of his reign I Daniel understood by books the number of the years, whereof the word of the LORD came to Jeremiah the prophet, that he would accomplish seventy years in the desolations of Jerusalem” (Daniel 9:2).

“And all the people gathered themselves together as one man into the street that was before the water gate; and they spake unto Ezra the scribe to bring the book of the law of Moses, which the LORD had commanded to Israel” (Nehemiah 8:1).

These references, taken from each period of the history, indicate a gradual growth of the Jewish Scriptures.

The complete volume is associated by tradition with Ezra, and there are no valid reasons for doubting this, especially as it harmonizes with the testimony of the wellinformed and representative Jew, Josephus, who, writing in the first century of the Christian Era, said that no book was added to the Jewish Scripture after the time of Malachi.

As to the preservation of the gradually growing volume through the ages from Moses to Ezra, it has been pointed out by that eminent Egyptologist, Professor Naville, that it was the custom among Eastern nations to deposit their books in their sanctuaries, and there is every likelihood that the Jews did the same. The copy found by Hilkiah was probably this temple copy (II Kings 22:8).

At first came the oral accounts of the life of CHRIST and the presentation of the Christian message.

Then followed the apostolic letters, confirming and elaborating their oral teaching.

These letters were read in the assemblies of the Christians (I Thessalonians 5:27; II Thessalonians 3:14).

The next stage was the interchange of these letters among the churches (Colossians 4:16).

Not long after the need of a record of the life of the founder was felt, and as a result came our Gospels (Luke 1:l-4; John 20:31). The story of the early church naturally followed (Acts), and the Apocalypse fitly crowned the whole with its outlook on the future.

As the primitive churches had the Old Testament volume in their hands, it was a constant reminder of the need of an analogous volume of the New Testament, though everything was so very gradual and natural that it is only when the process is complete that it is realized to have been also manifestly supernatural.

At this point the important question arises how we can be sure that our Bible today really represents the books which have been thus naturally and simply collected into a volume.

The answer is that it is quite easy to prove that our Bible is the same as the church has had through the centuries.

We start with the printed Bibles of today and it is obviously easy to show that they correspond with the printed Bibles of the sixteenth century, or the time when printing was invented.

From these we can go back through the English and Latin versions until we reach to the great manuscripts of the fourth century as represented by the three outstanding codices known as:

Then we can go back still farther and compare the use of Scripture in the writings of the Fathers of the third century, and from these work back to the second century when versions in several languages are found.

From this it is but a short step to the time of the apostles and the actual composition of the New Testament writings.

There is no reasonable doubt that we possess today what has always been regarded as the Scriptures of the Christian Church.

Our Old Testament is identical with the Bible of the Jews at the present time. This is the translation of Hebrew manuscripts dating from several centuries past, and the fact of the Jews always having used the same Bible as they do today is a proof that all through the ages the Christian Church has not been mistaken in its inclusion of the Old Testament in its Bible.

An additional evidence of great value is the fact that the Hebrew Bible was translated into Greek about two centuries before CHRIST, and this translation is essentially the same as the Hebrew text from which we get our Old Testament.

The additional books which are found in the Greek Old Testament, called the Apocrypha, were never part of the Jewish Scriptures, and were never regarded as Scripture by those who knew the Hebrew language. These books were not written in Hebrew, and were not included in Scripture by any body of Christians until the Church of Rome arbitrarily decided to include them at the Council of Trent in the sixteenth century. In addition to other points which could be mentioned, these books contain inaccuracies in history and doctrine, which make it impossible for them to be regarded as part of the Word of GOD for man.

These are some of the facts which are connected with our Bible as we now have it, and from them we can proceed to consider the various points which are involved in our belief that the Bible is for us the Word of GOD, and as such, the rule of our faith and practice

i have read the whole thread and rather than posting 10 different replies, will post this one. for id purposes only, i will use the term “sca” for so called apocrypha to identify the “disputed” OT books.

1. mr thomas, the author of the aricle stated no Christian considered the SCA Scripture before Rome did in the 16th century. i pointed out what an absurd statement this was and have to wonder whether mr thomas is merely ignorant of history ( in which case he shouldn’t be writing about matters he doesn’t understand ) or more likely he is trying to deceive his readers. after all, if he told the truth, somebody might wonder WHY no one had a 66 book Bible BEFORE the 16th century.

2. forthedeclaration states the Bible was preserved by non-Catholic Christians. REALLY????? Do the “Christians” have any names?

3 mrs don-o congatulations on the truth you are bringing forth. as is often the case, some can’t handle it.

4. salvation, i did smile at the Epistle today from Ephesians. there is “one” canon included in the “one” Faith.

5. BB, where to start? these books were NOT seperated from the other OT books in the Septuagint. LOL, i think you are confusing what some Protestants did with them in the 16th century, such as the authors of the KJV. Jerome, was a great Catholic leader, but he by himself couldn’t decide doctrine. He submitted to the Church and included the SCA in the Vulgate.
When the devil wants to attack the Scriptures, he always accuses them of teaching error, nothing new under the sun.
LOL, you don’t think they sound like Scripture! is that the standard? obviously the great majority of Christians for 2,000 years disagree with you.
Back to St Jerome, i always laugh when those who reject the Catholic Faith, reject baptismal regeneration, the Eucharist, the Papacy, apostolic succession, etc, all doctrines held by St Jerome, use him to attack that very same Faith when it comes to the canon of Scripture. Unbelievable!

the bottom line is, How can we know what is the true canon?

we can KNOW the canon of the Catholic Church is correct for two reasons:

1. Authority - Jesus gave His AUTHORITY to the Church in Matthew 28 to TEACH. we are not left to wonder or have to decide the correct canon for ourself, we merely must follow the Faith that has been AUTHORIZED to be taught and has been for 2,000 years.

2. The Holy Spirit - this dovetails with the authority given the Church, in that Jesus sent the Holy Spirit to the Church to give it the power to teach and the wisdom to TEACH TRUTH and understand spiritual ideas. The Holy Spirit works thru the Church, and yes, Church Councils, to bring forth true doctrine. so when St Paul opened up the Scriptures, he saw the SCA in his Bible. was this a suprise to the Holy Spirit? Did He inspire St Paul to warn Christians these SCA were not Scripture?
did the 1st century Jews, who utterly rejected Jesus, did they possess the Holy Spirit? the answer is no they did not, why would ANYONE look to the 1st century lost Jews to decide their canon??? The Church had the Holy Spirit leading it to ALL TRUTH.
would the Holy Spirit ALLOW the wrong books to be in the Bible for 1,500 years? again, this can not be stated enough, the first 66 book Bible did not appear on the world stage until the 16th century.
if the Church could be wrong about the canon of the OT, they could also be wrong about the 27 book NT. we know they were led by the Holy Spirit in both instances, but for those on the other side, who follow the Catholic TRADITION of 27 books in the NT, why do you follow this TRADITION?

finally, to all the non-Catholics who reject the SCA, DOES ANY HUMAN, LIVING AT ANY POINT SINCE THE APOSTLES ALL DIES, HAVE THE INFALLIBLE AUTHORITY TO DECLARE THIS IS THE CORRECT CANON OF SCRIPTURE? If yes, please name him or her and where their AUTHORITY COMES FROM?

From Jedin again:

“[Seripando was] Impressed by the doubts of St. Jerome, Rufinus, and St. John Damascene about the deuterocanonical books of the Old Testament, Seripando favored a distinction in the degrees of authority of the books of the Florentine canon. The highest authority among all the books of the Old Testament must be accorded those which Christ Himself and the apostles quoted in the New Testament, especially the Psalms. But the rule of citation in the New Testament does not indicate the difference of degree in the strict sense of the word, because certain Old Testament books not quoted in the New Testament are equal in authority to those quoted. St. Jerome gives an actual difference in degree of authority when he gives a higher place to those books which are adequate to prove a dogma than to those which are read merely for edification. The former, the protocanonical books, are “libri canonici et authentici”; Tobias, Judith, the Book of Wisdom, the books of Esdras, Ecclesiasticus, the books of the Maccabees, and Baruch are only “canonici et ecclesiastici” and make up the canon morum in contrast to the canon fidei. These, Seripando says in the words of St. Jerome, are suited for the edification of the people, but they are not authentic, that is, not sufficient to prove a dogma. Seripando emphasized that in spite of the Florentine canon the question of a twofold canon was still open and was treated as such by learned men in the Church. Without doubt he was thinking of Cardinal Cajetan, who in his commentary on the Epistle to the Hebrews accepted St. Jerome’s view which had had supporters throughout the Middle Ages.”

Source: Hubert Jedin, Papal Legate At The Council Of Trent (St Louis: B. Herder Book Co., 1947), pp. 270-271.

http://aomin.org/aoblog/index.php?blogid=1&archive=2007-12&catid=7

I am thoroughly enjoying this conversation! Thank you all so very much for sharing your insights!

Two things come to mind.

First, I believe that Alexander the Great's conquest of the civilized world was God's will (Daniel 11) and among the results was that it paved the way for the rapid spread of Christianity.

More specifically, Alexander caused the Greek language to be normalized throughout the civilized world. Since most understood that language, the Greek translations of Hebrew Scripture were needful. Indeed, the translation followed his conquering of the known civilized world.

Moreover, normalizing the Greek language entailed normalizing word concepts such as "Logos" which is the root of God's Name Word - Jesus Christ - and also the root of the word 'logic.'

Indeed, it facilitated His Name being published to man:

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God. All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made. - John 1:1-3

It is therefore not surprising that the LXX was quoted so often. The language was understood. It is also not surprising that the New Testament was written in that language.

Second, God's hand in the Hebrew language and Scripture cannot be ignored.

The Essenes resisted the Greek influence and withdrew from that society, copying and preserving Hebrew Scriptures which were discovered in 1946, the Dead Sea Scrolls.

Their discovery occurred about the same time as the Jews were restored to their homeland after a 2,000 year diaspora. That event along with the fact that the Hebrew language was preserved all that time was obviously the hand of God.

"Coincidence is God's way of remaining anonymous." - Einstein

I believe the Dead Sea Scrolls are also part of God's planned revelations.

But thou, O Daniel, shut up the words, and seal the book, [even] to the time of the end: many shall run to and fro, and knowledge shall be increased. - Daniel 12:4

Among other things, the scrolls evidence the true antiquity and faithfulness of Hebrew Scriptures and writings.

But there's more. As if to say the Hebrew Scriptures are more important than the Greek for eternity, the Name of God, The Rock, was lost in translation of the Song of Moses to the Greek and thereafter to the Latin.

Translations of Deuteronomy 32:4

English from Hebrew (Masoretic)

[He is] the Rock, his work [is] perfect: for all his ways [are] judgment: a God of truth and without iniquity, just and right [is] he.

tsuwr po`al tamiym derek mishpat 'el 'emuwnah `evel tsaddiyq yashar

English from the Greek (Septuagint)

As for God, His works are true, and all His ways are justice. God is faithful and there is no unrighteousness in Him; just and holy is the Lord.

English from Latin (Vulgate)

The works of God are perfect, and all his ways are judgments: God is faithful and without any iniquity, he is just and right.

Dei perfecta sunt opera et omnes viae eius iudicia Deus fidelis et absque ulla iniquitate iustus et rectus

So one might wonder what the big deal is about one of "minor" Names of God.

In my view, no Name of God is minor. But this Name, The Rock, was specifically published in the Song of Moses and is specifically a Name of Christ. And the Song of Moses will be sung in heaven along with the Song of the Lamb:

Now therefore write ye this song for you, and teach it the children of Israel: put it in their mouths, that this song may be a witness for me against the children of Israel. - Deut 31:19

Give ear, O ye heavens, and I will speak; and hear, O earth, the words of my mouth. My doctrine shall drop as the rain, my speech shall distil as the dew, as the small rain upon the tender herb, and as the showers upon the grass: Because I will publish the name of the LORD: ascribe ye greatness unto our God. [He is] the Rock, his work [is] perfect: for all his ways [are] judgment: a God of truth and without iniquity, just and right [is] he. – Deu 32:1-4

Moreover, brethren, I would not that ye should be ignorant, how that all our fathers were under the cloud, and all passed through the sea; And were all baptized unto Moses in the cloud and in the sea; And did all eat the same spiritual meat; And did all drink the same spiritual drink: for they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them: and that Rock was Christ. - I Cor 10:1-4

And I saw as it were a sea of glass mingled with fire: and them that had gotten the victory over the beast, and over his image, and over his mark, [and] over the number of his name, stand on the sea of glass, having the harps of God. And they sing the song of Moses the servant of God, and the song of the Lamb, saying, Great and marvellous [are] thy works, Lord God Almighty; just and true [are] thy ways, thou King of saints. Who shall not fear thee, O Lord, and glorify thy name? for [thou] only [art] holy: for all nations shall come and worship before thee; for thy judgments are made manifest. – Rev 15:2-4

And so, my two cents are that we should recognize the Greek translation as God's will for one age but the Hebrew translation as God's will for all ages.

The words of the LORD [are] pure words: [as] silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times. Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever. - Psalms 12:6-7

God's Name is I AM.

"By What logic would Jewish scholars of that time, those whom actually knew the Hebrew, and were well apprised of tradition, knowing what was considered to be properly seen as Scripture, and what was not --- throw out portions of what was Holy to themselves?"

By what logic? The "logic" by which they rejected Jesus aa the Messiah, and thus had to reject the entire N.T. and everything it was based on, i.e. the Septuagint.

Comparison of LXX and MT with NT texts (Link. C'mon, worth a look.)

I am not at all puzzled that a believing Jew in 100 A.D., reeling from the destruction of the Temple, and eager to combat the disruptive evangelizing efforts of the Christians, would want to reject the LXX has his Scriptural basis.

Nor am I puzzled that an A.D. 700 Jew, defensive aainst Christians on the one side and Muslims on the other, would adopt a new Hebrew edition (the Masoretic) as his favored translation. It bolsters his conviction that the Christians have long been very much mistaken.

What I remain sincerely perplexed about, is why a Christian would prefer an A.D. 100 canon, and an A.D. 700 translation, instead of the far older B.C. Scriptural resouces attested to by the earliest Christians.

Why in the world?

The Septuagint predates the first appearance of the Masoretic text by almost ten centuries. The Septuagint itself is based upon Hebrew texts at least twelve centuries older than the texts upon which the Masoretic version is based.

Most of the quotations from the Old Testament in the New Testament used either the Septuagint, or the even older Hebrew texts upon which it was based, as their primary source. Discredit the Septuagint and there is no New Testament.

Which --- from an A.D. Jewish point of view --- is quite agreeable, isn't it?

I'm out the rest of the day Shape-Note Singin' --- so I bid you farewell for now. But let's pray for each other. God bless you.

Mat 28:19 Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:
Mat 28:20 Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world. Amen.

Well then, the Catholic Canon ends with the book of John...Or it should if the religion was honest...

Oh what rubbish...And Paul did warn folks about your religion in numerous places thru out the NT...

2Co 2:17 For we are not as many, which corrupt the word of God: but as of sincerity, but as of God, in the sight of God speak we in Christ.

Gal 1:7 Which is not another; but there be some that trouble you, and would pervert the gospel of Christ.

Paul warned us about you...

Luk 24:44 And he said unto them, These are the words which I spake unto you, while I was yet with you, that all things must be fulfilled, which were written in the law of Moses, and in the prophets, and in the psalms, concerning me.

These writings were complete almost 5 hundred years before Jesus showed up...How do you think you legitimately stick Maccabees in between then and the time Jesus showed up???

Luk 11:50 That the blood of all the prophets, which was shed from the foundation of the world, may be required of this generation;
Luk 11:51 From the blood of Abel unto the blood of Zacharias, which perished between the altar and the temple: verily I say unto you, It shall be required of this generation.

The prophets who lived and died between Genesis and Zachariah...That's the OT canon and Maccabees nor the rest of your added books are allowed...Jesus would not allow it...

And we're supposed to believe that your religion is the true church??? And why??? Because your religion says so...Does the bible say so??? Certainly not...

In fact, the bible condemns your religion at every turn...

Catholics look to their religion to tell them what God says...They turn to their religion to find what old Catholics from years gone by have believed and taught...

Catholics turn to their religion to learn what messages the supposed ghost of Mary has brought to the religion...

But we on the other hand turn to God in the scriptures for our teaching...And those of us who actually believe everything God says in the scriptures would never consider becoming a Catholic...Because of what God says...

did the 1st century Jews, who utterly rejected Jesus, did they possess the Holy Spirit? the answer is no they did not, why would ANYONE look to the 1st century lost Jews to decide their canon??? The Church had the Holy Spirit leading it to ALL TRUTH.

You gotta be kiddin' us...You don't think God knew what he was doing???

This is what allows you to be a Catholic...You apparently don't believe God...

Rom 3:1 What advantage then hath the Jew? or what profit is there of circumcision?
Rom 3:2 Much every way: chiefly, because that unto them were committed the oracles of God.

You ought to do a study on the Levites...

would the Holy Spirit ALLOW the wrong books to be in the Bible for 1,500 years?

In the Catholic bible, absolutely...He allows it in the Koran, he allows the JW bible to be full of lies...God allows religions to exist that reject his word...Your religion is living proof of this...

BB, where to start? these books were NOT seperated from the other OT books in the Septuagint. LOL, i think you are confusing what some Protestants did with them in the 16th century, such as the authors of the KJV. Jerome, was a great Catholic leader, but he by himself couldn’t decide doctrine. He submitted to the Church and included the SCA in the Vulgate. When the devil wants to attack the Scriptures, he always accuses them of teaching error, nothing new under the sun. LOL, you don’t think they sound like Scripture! is that the standard? obviously the great majority of Christians for 2,000 years disagree with you. Back to St Jerome, i always laugh when those who reject the Catholic Faith, reject baptismal regeneration, the Eucharist, the Papacy, apostolic succession, etc, all doctrines held by St Jerome, use him to attack that very same Faith when it comes to the canon of Scripture. Unbelievable!

True to form, you offer nothing of substance to back up your claims but merely resort to ridicule, mockery, blatant Catholic bigotry and their claims to exclusivity of the Christian faith. Perhaps it is lost on such as you that Jerome was given the job of translating the Bible into Latin. From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vulgate, we learn:

In 385, Jerome was forced out of Rome, and eventually settled in Bethlehem, where he was able to use a surviving manuscript of the Hexapla, likely from the nearby Theological Library of Caesarea Maritima, a columnar comparison of the variant versions of the Old Testament undertaken 150 years before by Origen. Jerome first embarked on a revision of the Psalms, translated from the revised Septuagint Greek column of the Hexapla, which later came to be called the Gallican version. He also appears to have undertaken further new translations into Latin from the Hexaplar Septuagint column for other books. But from 390 to 405, Jerome translated anew from the Hebrew all 39 books in the Hebrew Bible, including a further version of the Psalms. This new translation of the Psalms was labelled by him as "iuxta Hebraeos" (i.e. "close to the Hebrews", "immediately following the Hebrews"), and was commonly found in the Vulgate, until it was widely replaced by his Gallican psalms beginning in the 9th century.

The Vulgate is usually credited as being the first translation of the Old Testament into Latin directly from the Hebrew Tanakh, rather than the Greek Septuagint. Jerome's extensive use of exegetical material written in Greek, on the other hand, as well as his use of the Aquiline and Theodotiontic columns of the Hexapla, along with the somewhat paraphrastic style in which he translated makes it difficult to determine exactly how direct the conversion of Hebrew to Latin was.[4][5][6]

As Jerome completed his translations of each book of the bible, he recorded his observations and comments in an extensive correspondence with other scholars; and these letters were subsequently collected and appended as prologues to the Vulgate text for those books where they survived. In these letters, Jerome described those books or portions of books in the Septuagint that were not found in the Hebrew as being non-canonical: he called them apocrypha.[7] Jerome's views did not, however, prevail; and all complete manuscripts and editions of the Vulgate include some or all these books. Of the Old Testament texts not found in the Hebrew, Jerome translated Tobit and Judith anew from the Aramaic; and from the Greek, the additions to Esther from the Septuagint, and the additions to Daniel from Theodotion. Other books; Baruch, Letter of Jeremiah, Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, 1 and 2 Maccabees[8] are variously found in Vulgate manuscripts with texts derived from the Old Latin; sometimes together with Latin versions of other texts found neither in the Hebrew Bible, nor in the Septuagint, 4 Esdras, the Prayer of Manasses and Laodiceans. Their style is still markedly distinguishable from Jerome's. In the Vulgate text, Jerome's translations from the Greek of the additions to Esther and Daniel are combined with his separate translations of these books from the Hebrew.

One tiny piece of what you said I actually agree with. You said, "When the devil wants to attack the Scriptures, he always accuses them of teaching error, nothing new under the sun.". He certainly did do that with Eve before there even WAS Scripture, but it is God's word that he attacks and, in essence, he calls into question the goodness and truthfulness of what Almighty God says. That Jerome as well as many numerous early church theologians REJECTED these books as BEING the word of God should be enough of a clue that, contrary to your unlearned assertion, the "great majority of Christians" do NOT agree with you nor the current magesterium of the Roman Catholic Church. These disputed books do NOT belong among the universally accepted Divinely-inspired Holy Scriptures. They contain errors, legends, myths as well as historical and geographical errors.

Now, perhaps you don't find these facts of much consequence and, seeing that you hold your Church's pronouncements ABOVE Holy Scripture, it is not at all surprising that your standard for the authority of God's word is less than it should be. But, you are not addressing entry-level RCIA students here. You cannot berate or bully your way into the conversation and expect that what you state is to be received thereby MUST be because YOU say it is. You see, Satan not only brings doubts upon the truth from God but he also distorts what IS truth and perverts whatever God has made that is good. Christ most certainly DID establish the church to be the upholder and supporter of the truth to the entire world and He gave the body of believers an unbiased and infallible resource as the authority for which ALL truth claims should be measured. That is what the Word of God's purpose truly is and, without it, all believers would be at the mercy of fallible human men who have more than demonstrated through the centuries that they are NOT up to the task. I think the very fact that the Roman Catholic Church has perverted what IS Scripture should be an adequate reason why they do NOT have the authority given to them by their loyal followers. If the very essential truth of the Gospel of Jesus Christ who justifies us by grace through faith has not been preserved, then it should be obvious that other dogmas (like the canon) are also suspect.

I have a higher opinion of God's word, I guess, and that is why I reject the self-declared infallibility of the Roman Catholic hierarchy. The indwelling Holy Spirit is who leads us into ALL truth and the church is supposed to be made up of genuine believers who also are sealed with that same Spirit. We KNOW the truth because He has illuminated it within our hearts. The Apocryphal books do NOT belong on the same level as the divinely-inspired works and this IS what has been held since the first century by Christians. You, of course, are free to believe whatever you want. It hardly makes it true, though.

This link which you [Mrs. Don-o] provided:

The Septuagint in the New Testament

is a good one, and reminds me both, as to where I have misspoken, but points irrefutably also to the essence of the argument I had in mind at that time.

My own mis-speak concerning this, was allowing a previous claim I had seen here on FR threads, which proposed essentially that "New Testament persons could be seen as quoting books of the Apocrypha, and did so many dozens of times", to cloud my mind.

It was that claim which I had in mind, and spoke to, when I said "I doubt seriously 80%". Which as it turns out, was not the claim you made at all. My apologies.

I saw the "80%" and thought it a repeat of the previously proposed argument. My mistake.

When we go back to the link provided here first by yourself, looking at the charts there, is it not found that ALL, and I mean EVERY SINGLE 'Old Testament' quote/reference is from the "books" now found to be limited to those included in the Hebrew Scripture, and NONE of them, zip-zada-zero are sourced from the Apocrypha?

Which is why my own somewhat misguided;

"...and see how much of that can be easily enough falsifiable (otherwise found in Hebrew canon)."

was ultimately, overall correct (although the word Tanach, would have been even better than "canon")

You say;

Discredit the Septuagint and there is no New Testament.

No one here has willfully attempted to "discredit" any particular version of Septuagint in toto, but I myself have been pointing to fact that the inclusion of those "extra" works here in dispute, you know, the Apocrypha(?), should not be confused with the primary, the actual Word, which the Hebrew scholars maintain was established at the Great Assembly, as Zionist Conspirator has reminded us.

The discussion here currently is not about the translations themselves per se, but about which "books" are to be considered to be a part of the divine Revelation, which Christ Himself was the embodiment of, when He stood before the Sanhedrin.

This last part, is extremely important. Include here spurious works not part of the Word given to the Hebrews, long known to them as being the Word, and what do we end up with but an impure Christ?

Thankfully, with much relief, we are spared such.

Thank you, men of the Great Assembly for doing that which was set before you to do. Thank you Sanhedrin, for your slaying of the Sacrifice, done not in the Temple, the Second Temple which had never contained the true, original Ark of the Covenant^*, but nonetheless was done in fulfillment of all Divine Law, grievous as it was, in it's fruition.

That is the Christ I know. I know no other.

^*[save for Christ Himself, each aspect, jot & tittle of the Law]

The author errs in asserting that “the Apocrypha was ‘not included in Scripture by any body of Christians until the Church of Rome arbitrarily decided to include them at the Council of Trent.’” Though you are correct that the mistake of shortening the Old Testament originated with St. Jerome.

The Holy Orthodox Church, which regards the Council of Trent as an heretical conventicle of the Latin church having no authority whatsoever, has always regarded the books protestants slander as “the Apocrypha” as an integral part of the Old Testament canon, since the canon was fixed in 692. They were included in the canon of Scripture by the local Council of Carthage (of 419), whose canons were given ecumenical force by the Sixth Ecumenical Council at its disciplinary session in 692 (or some would argue by the Fourth in 451, though the Chalcedonian canon cited is an general acceptance of “the ancient canons” and hardly seems to apply to a council which took place a mere 32 years earlier, while the canons of the Sixth explicitly accept as binding on the whole church the canons of Carthage).

The Latins, of course, regard the Council of Carthage as having sufficed, since under their (erroneous) theory of ecclesiology, the papal assent it received as a local council of the Patriarchate of Rome sufficed to render its canons universal.

Orthodox usage confines the reading of the Old Testament Scriptures to Vespers and the lesser daily offices, but all of the books of the Old Testament, including those rejected by protestants, are read in the context of Vespers from time to time throughout the annual cycle. As a particularly striking example, during Great Lent at Great Compline, we read the Prayer of Manasseh (which the Latins do not include in their canon).

Jerome’s error in thinking the Masorete represented an “ur-text”, was ignored in the East, rejected by the Latins, and embraced by the protestants. It is now unsupportable given the fact that the (also Hebrew) Dead Sea Scrolls, when there is a disagreement between the Masorete and the LXX support the reading in the LXX much more often than they agree with the Masorete.

Discredit the Septuagint and there is no New Testament.

No one here has willfully attempted to "discredit" any particular version of Septuagint in toto, but I myself have been pointing to fact that the inclusion of those "extra" works here in dispute, you know, the Apocrypha(?), should not be confused with the primary, the actual Word

I agree. The Septuagint is the name for the Koine Greek translation of the Hebrew Old Testament and it's history is easily discovered that the translation was a gradual process that went on for hundreds of years before Christ. No one doubts that Jesus as well as the Apostles would "quote" the Septuagint seeing as it WAS the Greek version in use and Koine Greek was the lingua franca of the Roman Empire even in Israel. Though the Hebrew was ALWAYS read in the Jewish temple services, it was not the normal language used throughout the Eastern Mediterranean by every day people. That there remained Hebrew texts at all, proves that there WERE times where the Hebrew was quoted in the New Testament (i.e., Jesus reading from Isaiah in the Temple and St. Jerome offered, for example, Matt 2:15 and 2:23, John 19:37, John 7:38, 1 Cor. 2:9.[34] as examples not found in the Septuagint, but in Hebrew texts). It should not be a surprise that the Old Testament verses used by Jesus in His sermons and teachings would naturally be spoken in the language the common people spoke and that WAS Greek. This alone does not convince me that this was a tacit "blessing" of the Septuagint - and all it may or may not have contained - by Jesus but his sanction of what was the truth from God as spoken in the word.

We learn from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Septuagint that:

The Pentateuch always maintained its pre-eminence as the basis of the canon

Some of the newer works, those called anagignoskomena in Greek, are not included in the Jewish canon. Among these books are Maccabees and the Wisdom of Ben Sira. Also, the Septuagint version of some works, like Daniel and Esther, are longer than those in the Masoretic Text.[19] Some of the later books (Wisdom of Solomon, 2 Maccabees, and others) apparently were not translated, but composed in Greek.

The authority of the larger group of "writings", out of which the ketuvim (in Biblical Hebrew: כְּתוּבִים "writings") is the third and final section of the Tanakh (Hebrew Bible), after Torah (instruction) and Nevi'im (prophets)) were selected, had not yet been determined, although some sort of selective process must have been employed because the Septuagint did not include other well-known Jewish documents such as Enoch or Jubilees or other writings that are now part of the Pseudepigrapha. It is not known what principles were used to determine the contents of the Septuagint beyond the "Law and the Prophets", a phrase used several times in the New Testament.

That word, anagignoskomena is a Greek word that means "things that are read", and we learn in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_apocrypha#Anagignoskomena that:

contains books that are not present in the Hebrew Bible

The anagignoskomena are Tobit, Judith, Wisdom of Solomon, Wisdom of Jesus Sirach, Baruch, Epistle of Jeremy (in the Vulgate this is chapter 6 of Baruch), additions to Daniel (The Prayer of Azarias, Susanna and Bel and the Dragon), additions to Esther, 1 Maccabees, 2 Maccabees, 3 Maccabees, 1 Esdras, i.e. all the Deuterocanonical plus 3 Maccabees and 1 Esdras.

Some editions add additional books, as Psalm 151 or the Odes, including the Prayer of Manasses. 2 Esdras is added as appendix in the Slavonic Bibles and 4 Maccabees as appendix in Greek editions.[23]

I disagree completely that the Jewish Sanhedrin would have rejected these Anagignoskomena as belonging with the revered and accepted Holy Scriptures only because of the use by first century Christians. In fact, the Septuagint as a whole was gradually rejected by observant Jews for a whole different reason. Again, from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Septuagint:

What was perhaps most significant for the LXX, as distinct from other Greek versions, was that the LXX began to lose Jewish sanction after differences between it and contemporary Hebrew scriptures were discovered.[4] Even Greek-speaking Jews tended less to the LXX, preferring other Jewish versions in Greek, such as that of the 2nd century Aquila translation, which seemed to be more concordant with contemporary Hebrew texts.[10] While Jews have not used the LXX in worship or religious study since the 2nd century CE, recent scholarship has brought renewed interest in it in Judaic Studies.

So, I agree completely with BlueDragon that the Jews would NOT have abandoned books from their recognized body of Scripture because this new competing religion had accepted them. If that were so, why did they only choose these ones and not any of the others? It makes no sense at all since these disputed books contained NOTHING relevant to Christianity. They were NEVER accepted as scripture by the Jews. So, not only do we have the witness of Jewish antiquity against their divine origin, we also have no example of Jesus or any Apostle referring to them AS Scripture - no "it is written" or "thus sayeth the Lord" - but no direct quote that would confirm the approval of them as part of the Word of the Lord. I stand by my initial assertion that the main reason we have these knock-down, drag-out fights over them is because they were included in the Roman Catholic canon formally and finally at the Council of Trent and not segregated from the mutally agreed upon books that have ALWAYS been held as Holy Scripture. To admit the magesterium was wrong about a dogma is verboten or too hard of a thing to do for some. It opens a crack in the door of presumed infallibility they MUST keep closed at all cost.

Thanks for a good discussion --- I love looking into these Scriptures.

In what some call the Intertestamental period, God was preparing the Jewish people for the imminent coming of the Messiah, Jesus Christ. Just look at all the things that were happening within Judaism during this period ---truly God's Providence at work:

Translation of the Jewish scriptures into Koine Greek (Septuagint), greatly facilitating its being spread beyond Judea
Establishment of synagogues, intense interest in Scripture at the "congregational" level in “houses of prayer” and “houses of study” (i.e. beyond just the Temple scribes);
Greek and Aramaic now the common language of the Jewish people;
Translation and production of copies of the Scriptures and other related writings, in various language editions (e.g. Dead Sea Scrolls);
During Second Temple Judaism, new theological themes gained prominence:
- Eternal Life ("what will become of me at the end of my earthly existence?");
- Apocalypse ("What will come at the end of the earth itself?")
- Divine Judgment "How will the nations be judged?")
The writing of the Deuterocanonical books, by Divine inspiration, heightened these expectations and addressed these questions.

The Holy Spirit didn’t drop the ball or “go dark” for 400 years. The seven books written during this Deuterocanonical period were part of the whole great work the Holy Spirit was accomplishing, to prepare for the Messiah, to spread the truths of His Word beyond Eretz Israel, beyond even the Diaspora Jews in the Hellenistic/Roman world, and in fact ultimately to all the Gentile nations.

It’s --- excuse me --- regrettably short-sighted to see the faithful retention of the Deuterocanonical Books as a way to keep a grip on the authority of the Council of Trent, i.e. the Magisterium of the Catholic Church. This shows ignorance of the fact that these books are agreed upon by 2/3 of all Christians --- not just Roman Catholics, but also the Greek Orthodox, Slavonic and Ethiopian Orthodox churches. One must consider not just Catholic Western Europe since the 16th century, but all the historic ancient churches of Europe, Asia (Middle East) and Africa, for well over a millennium.

again, where to start?

maybe facts, i know they are stubborn things.

1. read the article you pasted. Jerome did not think the SCA were canonical, BUT HIS VIEW DID NOT PREVAIL. Jerome, unlike SOME, did not SUBSTITUTE his private judgements for the JUDGEMENT OF THE CHURCH.
2. the SCA were included in every Bible up until the 16th century. what do St Paul and I have in common, that you do not? WHEN WE OPEN UP OUR BIBLE, WE SEE THE SCA.
3. the same Church that set the 27 book NT canon, accepted the SCA as canonical.
4. you falsely stated the SCA were in a seperate section of the Septuagint, do you wish to correct the record?
5. when the canon was set in the 4th century, the Church had no idea the “Protestants” would come along 12 centuries later and reject the SCA. if the Reformation never occurred, if Luther and Calvin remained in the Church, the canon of 73 books would still be here.
6. “the indwelling of the Holy Spirit leads us to all truth” WE AGREE!! the difference is i don’t believe the Holy Spirit didn’t lead anyone to the correct canon until the 16th century.
7. you state the SCA were not held as Scripture by the first century Christians? CARE TO NAME ANY FIRST CENTURY CHRISTIANS WHO STATED THIS?
8. the overwhelming majority of Christians have always accepted the SCA as canonical. the Catholic Church ( Latin and Greek ) received this belief from the Apostles.

finally, the question you should really think about:

is there anyone on earth who has the AUTHORITY to declare a book “canonical” or are we all free to decide the canon for ourself, being led by what we think is the Holy Spirit?

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.