Christian Forums

A few things need to be said here. First of all, the seven books in question--Tobit, Judith, 1 and 2 Maccabees, Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, and Baruch--are properly called the deuterocanonical books.

Second, the label "unscriptural" was first applied by the Protestant Reformers of the 16th century. The truth is, portions of these books contradict elements of Protestant doctrine (as in the case of 2 Maccabees 12, which clearly supports prayers for the dead and a belief in purgatory), and the "reformers" therefore needed some excuse to eliminate them from the canon. However, these books are "unscriptural" only if misinterpreted. It should also be noted that the first-century Christians--including Jesus and the apostles--effectively considered these seven books canonical. They quoted from the Septuagint, a Greek translation of the Hebrew scriptures that contained these seven books. More importantly, the deuterocanonicals are clearly alluded to in the New Testament.

Third, the canon of the entire Bible was essentially settled around the turn of the fourth century. Up until this time, there was disagreement over the canon, and some ten different canonical lists existed, none of which corresponded exactly to what the Bible now contains. Around this time there were no less than five instances when the canon was formally identified: the Synod of Rome (382), the Council of Hippo (393), the Council of Carthage (397), a letter from Pope Innocent I to Exsuperius, Bishop of Toulouse (405), and the Second Council of Carthage (419). In every instance, the canon was identical to what Catholic Bibles contain today. In other words, from the end of the fourth century on, in practice Christians accepted the Catholic Church's decision in this matter.

By the time of the Reformation, Christians had been using the same 73 books in their Bibles (46 in the Old Testament, 27 in the New Testament)--and thus considering them inspired--for more than 1100 years. This practice changed with Martin Luther, who dropped the deuterocanonical books on nothing more than his own say-so. Protestantism as a whole has followed his lead in this regard.

One of the two "pillars" of the Protestant Reformation (sola scriptura or "the Bible alone") in part states that nothing can be added to or taken away from God's Word. History shows therefore that Protestants are guilty of violating their own doctrine.

During the Reformation, primarily for doctrinal reasons, Protestants removed seven books from the Old Testament: 1 and 2 Maccabees, Sirach, Wisdom, Baruch, Tobit, and Judith, and parts of two others, Daniel and Esther. They did so even though these books had been regarded as canonical since the beginning of Church history.

As Protestant church historian J. N. D. Kelly writes, "It should be observed that the Old Testament thus admitted as authoritative in the Church was somewhat bulkier and more comprehensive [than the Protestant Bible]. . . . It always included, though with varying degrees of recognition, the so-called apocrypha or deuterocanonical books" (Early Christian Doctrines, 53), which are rejected by Protestants.
Below we give patristic quotations from each of the deuterocanonical books. Notice how the Fathers quoted these books along with the protocanonicals. The deuterocanonicals are those books of the Old Testament that were included in the Bible even though there had been some discussion about whether they should be.

Also included are the earliest official lists of the canon. For the sake of brevity these are not given in full. When the lists of the canon cited here are given in full, they include all the books and only the books found in the modern Catholic Bible.

When examining the question of what books were originally included in the Old Testament canon, it is important to note that some of the books of the Bible have been known by more than one name. Sirach is also known as Ecclesiasticus, 1 and 2 Chronicles as 1 and 2 Paralipomenon, Ezra and Nehemiah as 1 and 2 Esdras, and 1 and 2 Samuel with 1 and 2 Kings as 1, 2, 3, and 4 Kings—that is, 1 and 2 Samuel are named 1 and 2 Kings, and 1 and 2 Kings are named 3 and 4 Kings. The history and use of these designations is explained more fully in Scripture reference works.



The Didache


"You shall not waver with regard to your decisions [Sir. 1:28]. Do not be someone who stretches out his hands to receive but withdraws them when it comes to giving [Sir. 4:31]" (Didache 4:5 [A.D. 70]).



The Letter of Barnabas


"Since, therefore, [Christ] was about to be manifested and to suffer in the flesh, his suffering was foreshown. For the prophet speaks against evil, 'Woe to their soul, because they have counseled an evil counsel against themselves' [Is. 3:9], saying, 'Let us bind the righteous man because he is displeasing to us' [Wis. 2:12.]" (Letter of Barnabas 6:7 [A.D. 74]).



Clement of Rome


"By the word of his might [God] established all things, and by his word he can overthrow them. 'Who shall say to him, "What have you done?" or who shall resist the power of his strength?' [Wis. 12:12]" (Letter to the Corinthians 27:5 [ca. A.D. 80]).



Polycarp of Smyrna


"Stand fast, therefore, in these things, and follow the example of the Lord, being firm and unchangeable in the faith, loving the brotherhood [1 Pet. 2:17].
. . . When you can do good, defer it not, because 'alms delivers from death' [Tob. 4:10, 12:9]. Be all of you subject to one another [1 Pet. 5:5], having your conduct blameless among the Gentiles [1 Pet. 2:12], and the Lord may not be b.asphemed through you. But woe to him by whom the name of the Lord is b.asphemed [Is. 52:5]!" (Letter to the Philadelphians 10 [A.D. 135]).



Irenaeus


"Those . . . who are believed to be presbyters by many, but serve their own lusts and do not place the fear of God supreme in their hearts, but conduct themselves with contempt toward others and are puffed up with the pride of holding the chief seat [Matt. 23:6] and work evil deeds in secret, saying 'No man sees us,' shall be convicted by the Word, who does not judge after outward appearance, nor looks upon the countenance, but the heart; and they shall hear those words to be found in Daniel the prophet: 'O you seed of Canaan and not of Judah, beauty has deceived you and lust perverted your heart' [Dan. 13:56]. You that have grown old in wicked days, now your sins which you have committed before have come to light, for you have pronounced false judgments and have been accustomed to condemn the innocent and to let the guilty go free, although the Lord says, 'You shall not slay the innocent and the righteous' [Dan. 13:52, citing Ex. 23:7]" (Against Heresies 4:26:3 [A.D. 189]; Daniel 13 is not in the Protestant Bible).

"Jeremiah the prophet has pointed out that as many believers as God has prepared for this purpose, to multiply those left on the earth, should both be under the rule of the saints and to minister to this [new] Jerusalem and that [his] kingdom shall be in it, saying, 'Look around Jerusalem toward the east and behold the joy which comes to you from God himself. Behold, your sons whom you have sent forth shall come: They shall come in a band from the east to the west. . . . God shall go before with you in the light of his splendor, with the mercy and righteousness which proceed from him' [Bar. 4:36—5:9]" (ibid., 5:35:1; Baruch was often considered part of Jeremiah, as it is here).



Hippolytus


"What is narrated here [in the story of Susannah] happened at a later time, although it is placed at the front of the book [of Daniel], for it was a custom with the writers to narrate many things in an inverted order in their writings. . . . [W]e ought to give heed, beloved, fearing lest anyone be overtaken in any transgression and risk the loss of his soul, knowing as we do that God is the judge of all and the Word himself is the eye which nothing that is done in the world escapes. Therefore, always watchful in heart and pure in life, let us imitate Susannah" (Commentary on Daniel [A.D. 204]; the story of Susannah [Dan. 13] is not in the Protestant Bible).



Cyprian of Carthage


"In Genesis [it says], 'And God tested Abraham and said to him, "Take your only son whom you love, Isaac, and go to the high land and offer him there as a burnt offering . . ."' [Gen. 22:1–2]. . . . Of this same thing in the Wisdom of Solomon [it says], 'Although in the sight of men they suffered torments, their hope is full of immortality . . .' [Wis. 3:4]. Of this same thing in the Maccabees [it says], 'Was not Abraham found faithful when tested, and it was reckoned to him for righteousness' [1 Macc. 2:52; see Jas. 2:21–23]" (Treatises 7:3:15 [A.D. 248]).

"So Daniel, too, when he was required to worship the idol Bel, which the people and the king then worshipped, in asserting the honor of his God, broke forth with full faith and freedom, saying, 'I worship nothing but the Lord my God, who created the heaven and the earth' [Dan. 14:5]" (Letters 55:5 [A.D. 253]; Daniel 14 is not in the Protestant Bible).



Council of Rome


"Now indeed we must treat of the divine scriptures, what the universal Catholic Church accepts and what she ought to shun. The order of the Old Testament begins here: Genesis, one book; Exodus, one book; Leviticus, one book; Numbers, one book; Deuteronomy, one book; Joshua [Son of] Nave, one book; Judges, one book; Ruth, one book; Kings, four books [that is, 1 and 2 Samuel and 1 and 2 Kings]; Paralipomenon [Chronicles], two books; Psalms, one book; Solomon, three books: Proverbs, one book, Ecclesiastes, one book, [and] Canticle of Canticles [Song of Songs], one book; likewise Wisdom, one book; Ecclesiasticus [Sirach], one book . . . . Likewise the order of the historical [books]: Job, one book; Tobit, one book; Esdras, two books [Ezra and Nehemiah]; Esther, one book; Judith, one book; Maccabees, two books" (Decree of Pope Damasus [A.D. 382]).



Council of Hippo


"[It has been decided] that besides the canonical scriptures nothing be read in church under the name of divine Scripture. But the canonical scriptures are
as follows: Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, Joshua the Son of Nun, Judges, Ruth, the Kings, four books, the Chronicles, two books, Job, the Psalter, the five books of Solomon [Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Song of Songs, Wisdom, and a portion of the Psalms], the twelve books of the prophets, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Daniel, Ezekiel, Tobit, Judith, Esther, Ezra, two books, Maccabees, two books . . ." (Canon 36 [A.D. 393]).



Council of Carthage III


"[It has been decided] that nothing except the canonical scriptures should be read in the Church under the name of the divine scriptures. But the canonical scriptures are: Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, Joshua, Judges, Ruth, four books of Kings, Paralipomenon, two books, Job, the Psalter of David, five books of Solomon, twelve books of the prophets, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Daniel, Ezekiel, Tobit, Judith, Esther, two books of Esdras, two books of the Maccabees . . ." (Canon 47 [A.D. 397]).



Augustine


"The whole canon of the scriptures, however, in which we say that consideration is to be applied, is contained in these books: the five of Moses . . . and one book of Joshua [Son of] Nave, one of Judges; one little book which is called Ruth . . . then the four of Kingdoms, and the two of Paralipomenon . . . . [T]here are also others too, of a different order . . . such as Job and Tobit and Esther and Judith and the two books of Maccabees, and the two of Esdras . . . . Then there are the prophets, in which there is one book of the Psalms of David, and three of Solomon. . . . But as to those two books, one of which is entitled Wisdom and the other of which is entitled Ecclesiasticus and which are called 'of Solomon' because of a certain similarity to his books, it is held most certainly that they were written by Jesus Sirach. They must, however, be accounted among the prophetic books, because of the authority which is deservedly accredited to them" (Christian Instruction 2:8:13 [A.D. 397]).

"We read in the books of the Maccabees [2 Macc. 12:43] that sacrifice was offered for the dead. But even if it were found nowhere in the Old Testament writings, the authority of the Catholic Church which is clear on this point is of no small weight, where in the prayers of the priest poured forth to the Lord God at his altar the commendation of the dead has its place" (The Care to be Had for the Dead 1:3 [A.D. 421]).



The Apostolic Constitutions


"Now women also prophesied. Of old, Miriam the sister of Moses and Aaron [Ex. 15:20], and after her, Deborah [Judges. 4:4], and after these Huldah [2 Kgs. 22:14] and Judith [Judith 8], the former under Josiah and the latter under Darius" (Apostolic Constitutions 8:2 [A.D. 400]).



Jerome


"What sin have I committed if I follow the judgment of the churches? But he who brings charges against me for relating [in my preface to the book of Daniel] the objections that the Hebrews are wont to raise against the story of Susannah [Dan. 13], the Song of the Three Children [Dan. 3:29–68, RSV-CE], and the story of Bel and the Dragon [Dan. 14], which are not found in the Hebrew volume, proves that he is just a foolish sycophant. I was not relating my own personal views, but rather the remarks that they are wont to make against us. If I did not reply to their views in my preface, in the interest of brevity, lest it seem that I was composing not a preface, but a book, I believe I added promptly the remark, for I said, 'This is not the time to discuss such matters'" (Against Rufinius 11:33 [A.D. 401]).



Pope Innocent I


"A brief addition shows what books really are received in the canon. These are the things of which you desired to be informed verbally: of Moses, five books, that is, of Genesis, of Exodus, of Leviticus, of Numbers, of Deuteronomy, and Joshua, of Judges, one book, of Kings, four books, and also Ruth, of the prophets, sixteen books, of Solomon, five books, the Psalms. Likewise of the histories, Job, one book, of Tobit, one book, Esther, one, Judith, one, of the Maccabees, two, of Esdras, two, Paralipomenon, two books . . ." (Letters 7 [A.D. 408]).

Both of these Posts [ #617, #618 taken from the Catholic Church Imprimatur

NIHIL OBSTAT: I have concluded that the materials
presented in this work are free of doctrinal or moral errors.
Bernadeane Carr, STL, Censor Librorum, August 10, 2004

IMPRIMATUR: In accord with 1983 CIC 827
permission to publish this work is hereby granted.
+Robert H. Brom, Bishop of San Diego, August 10, 2004
.

neophyte,

I split this off the purgatory thread so that we could have a discussion about the intertestamental books without distracting from our discussion about purgatory.

That being said, I would like to address a few things in your first post:

Quote from: neophyte on Sat Mar 02, 2013 - 06:57:48
A few things need to be said here. First of all, the seven books in question--Tobit, Judith, 1 and 2 Maccabees, Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, and Baruch--are properly called the deuterocanonical books.

They are called many things: deurterocanonical, apocrypha, intertestamental....all are proper ways to address the books and can be used interchangably.  Many of my catholic friends use them that way.  I realize it's third hand, anecdotal evidence, but hopefully we won't let semantics get in the way of a good discussion.

Quote from: neophyte on Sat Mar 02, 2013 - 06:57:48
Second, the label "unscriptural" was first applied by the Protestant Reformers of the 16th century. The truth is, portions of these books contradict elements of Protestant doctrine (as in the case of 2 Maccabees 12, which clearly supports prayers for the dead and a belief in purgatory), and the "reformers" therefore needed some excuse to eliminate them from the canon. However, these books are "unscriptural" only if misinterpreted. It should also be noted that the first-century Christians--including Jesus and the apostles--effectively considered these seven books canonical. They quoted from the Septuagint, a Greek translation of the Hebrew scriptures that contained these seven books. More importantly, the deuterocanonicals are clearly alluded to in the New Testament.

Actually, that passage does not support a belief in purgatory.  Yes prayers and gifts were offered for the dead, but it was for the resurrection of the dead, not to pass through purgatory.  The claim that Jesus and the Apostles supported theses books is unfounded.  The Hebrew cannon most certainly did NOT contain the books.  To claim that the Greek translation did is misleading.  The Alexandrian Jews used a different cannon...yes, it was greek and yes it contained the 7 books in question, but it was not simply a Greek translation.  The Hebrew cannon did not contain any of the books.  The Hebrew cannon is what Jesus and the Apostles used.  The Hebew cannon is what the Apostles quoted from.  None of the Apostles quote from any of the deuterocanonical books.

Quote from: neophyte on Sat Mar 02, 2013 - 06:57:48
By the time of the Reformation, Christians had been using the same 73 books in their Bibles (46 in the Old Testament, 27 in the New Testament)--and thus considering them inspired--for more than 1100 years. This practice changed with Martin Luther, who dropped the deuterocanonical books on nothing more than his own say-so. Protestantism as a whole has followed his lead in this regard.

This is also misleading.  Protestants did not "drop the deuterocanonical books on nothing more than [their] own say-so."  There was fair amount of debate about these books even among protestants.  However, they were not considered inspired because they were not part of the original Jewish scriptures and they were not alluded to or quoted from by Jesus or His Apostles.

Quote from: neophyte on Sat Mar 02, 2013 - 06:57:48
One of the two "pillars" of the Protestant Reformation (sola scriptura or "the Bible alone") in part states that nothing can be added to or taken away from God's Word. History shows therefore that Protestants are guilty of violating their own doctrine.

This is a rather dubious claim and could be considered offensive by some.  Up until the council of carthage, Christians were using the Hebrew Cannon and the NT as we know it today.  Who's to say that the Roman Catholic Church did not add to the scriptures at that time?  See, we can go both ways and that whole line of reasoning is a dead end.  Please, let's stick with the facts and and leave out unwarranted accustations.

QuoteThey are called many things: deurterocanonical, apocrypha, intertestamental....all are proper ways to address the books and can be used interchangably.  Many of my catholic friends use them that way.  I realize it's third hand, anecdotal evidence, but hopefully we won't let semantics get in the way of a good discussion.

The only ones who have ever called these books "apocrypha" are the Protestants because they do not see these books as inspired scripture.  Catholics do not call them "apocrypha." 

QuoteActually, that passage does not support a belief in purgatory.  Yes prayers and gifts were offered for the dead, but it was for the resurrection of the dead, not to pass through purgatory.  The claim that Jesus and the Apostles supported theses books is unfounded.  The Hebrew cannon most certainly did NOT contain the books.  To claim that the Greek translation did is misleading.  The Alexandrian Jews used a different cannon...yes, it was greek and yes it contained the 7 books in question, but it was not simply a Greek translation.  The Hebrew cannon did not contain any of the books.  The Hebrew cannon is what Jesus and the Apostles used.  The Hebew cannon is what the Apostles quoted from.  None of the Apostles quote from any of the deuterocanonical books.

This is what the Second Book of Maccabees says: 

2 Maccabees 12:43-44   And making a gathering, he sent twelve thousand drachms of silver to Jerusalem for sacrifice to be offered for the sins of the dead, thinking well and religiously concerning the resurrection, (For if he had not hoped that they that were slain should rise again, it would have seemed superfluous and vain to pray for the dead,)

Purgatory means "purging of sins."  Judas Maccabees sent offerings for the sins of the dead, so that their sins would be purged (forgiven).  Furthermore, the Jewish believed in a Purgatory.  It is mentioned in their Talmund.  See the Jewish encyclopedia below.  So, where did you think we got it from?? 

http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/12446-purgatory

QuoteThis is also misleading.  Protestants did not "drop the deuterocanonical books on nothing more than [their] own say-so."  There was fair amount of debate about these books even among protestants.  However, they were not considered inspired because they were not part of the original Jewish scriptures and they were not alluded to or quoted from by Jesus or His Apostles.

What debate??  All they did was copy the Palestinian canon, which was already in existence.  Could you actually cite a council where Protestants actually got together to even discuss the books of the Bible??   

QuoteThis is a rather dubious claim and could be considered offensive by some.  Up until the council of carthage, Christians were using the Hebrew Cannon and the NT as we know it today.  Who's to say that the Roman Catholic Church did not add to the scriptures at that time?  See, we can go both ways and that whole line of reasoning is a dead end.  Please, let's stick with the facts and and leave out unwarranted accustations.

Actually, the Early Christians were using the Alexandrian canon and all other kinds of scripture because there was no canon of scripture.  When St. Jerome wrote the Latin Vulgate toward the end of the 4th century, that was what the Early Christians used since that time, and the Latin Vulgate included the Alexandrian canon.

I'm sorry Selene, but the Early Christians did NOT use the Alexandrian canon.  I do agree that St. Jerome used it when he translated the scriptures into Latin, and that is how those seven books initially became part of the canon.  St. Jerome translated the scriptures before the Council of Carthage.

Quote from: BondServant on Wed Mar 06, 2013 - 02:21:37
I'm sorry Selene, but the Early Christians did NOT use the Alexandrian canon.  I do agree that St. Jerome used it when he translated the scriptures into Latin, and that is how those seven books initially became part of the canon.  St. Jerome translated the scriptures before the Council of Carthage.

St. Jerome was an Early Christian.  The fact that he used those books before the Council of Carthage showed that the early Christians used it as well.  Historical facts show that the Early Christians used the Alexandrian canon because it is the Speguinit Bible.  That is a historical fact.   

Quote from: BondServant on Wed Mar 06, 2013 - 02:21:37
I'm sorry Selene, but the Early Christians did NOT use the Alexandrian canon.  I do agree that St. Jerome used it when he translated the scriptures into Latin, and that is how those seven books initially became part of the canon.  St. Jerome translated the scriptures before the Council of Carthage.

Please explain why approximately 66% of scripture references in the NT to the OT follow the Greek more closely than the Hebrew.

A sampling:

Matt. 1:23 / Isaiah 7:14 - behold, a "virgin" shall conceive. Hebrew - behold, a "young woman" shall conceive.

Matt. 3:3; Mark 1:3; John 1:23 / Isaiah 40:3 - make "His paths straight." Hebrew - make "level in the desert a highway."

Matt. 9:13; 12:7 / Hosea 6:6 - I desire "mercy" and not sacrifice. Hebrew - I desire "goodness" and not sacrifice.

Matt. 12:21 / Isaiah 42:4 - in His name will the Gentiles hope (or trust). Hebrew - the isles shall wait for his law.

Matt. 13:15 / Isaiah 6:10 - heart grown dull; eyes have closed; to heal. Hebrew - heart is fat; ears are heavy; eyes are shut; be healed.

Matt. 15:9; Mark 7:7 / Isaiah 29:13 - teaching as doctrines the precepts of men. Hebrew - a commandment of men (not doctrines).

Matt. 21:16 / Psalm 8:2 - out of the mouth of babes and sucklings thou has "perfect praise." Hebrew - thou has "established strength."

Mark 7:6-8 – Jesus quotes Isaiah 29:13 from the Septuagint – "This people honors me with their lips, but their heart is far from me; in vain do they worship me, teaching as doctrines the precepts of men."

Luke 3:5-6 / Isaiah 40:4-5 - crooked be made straight, rough ways smooth, shall see salvation. Hebrew - omits these phrases.

Luke 4:18 / Isaiah 61:1 - and recovering of sight to the blind. Hebrew - the opening of prison to them that are bound.

Luke 4:18 / Isaiah 58:6 - to set at liberty those that are oppressed (or bruised). Hebrew - to let the oppressed go free.

John 6:31 / Psalm 78:24 - He gave them "bread" out of heaven to eat. Hebrew - gave them "food" or "grain" from heaven.

John 12:38 / Isaiah 53:1 - who has believed our "report?" Hebrew - who has believed our "message?"

John 12:40 / Isaiah 6:10 - lest they should see with eyes...turn for me to heal them. Hebrew - shut their eyes...and be healed.

Acts 2:19 / Joel 2:30 - blood and fire and "vapor" of smoke. Hebrew - blood and fire and "pillars" or "columns" of smoke.

Acts 2:25-26 / Psalm 16:8 - I saw...tongue rejoiced...dwell in hope.. Hebrew - I have set...glory rejoiced...dwell in safety.

Quote from: Catholica on Wed Mar 06, 2013 - 07:14:57
Please explain why approximately 66% of scripture references in the NT to the OT follow the Greek more closely than the Hebrew.

The NT was written in Greek.  Not just Greek, but the "slang" or "common" Greek.

The NT being written in Greek doesn't mean they used the Alexandrian Cannon.  It means they were trying to reach a wide audience.

That being said, you do need to check your Hebrew translations.  The first example you gave is the hebrew word `almah which means "virgin."

I'm curious as to what website you pulled that list from?

Quote from: BondServant on Wed Mar 06, 2013 - 07:24:31

Quote from: Catholica on Wed Mar 06, 2013 - 07:14:57
Please explain why approximately 66% of scripture references in the NT to the OT follow the Greek more closely than the Hebrew.

The NT was written in Greek.  Not just Greek, but the "slang" or "common" Greek.

The NT being written in Greek doesn't mean they used the Alexandrian Cannon.  It means they were trying to reach a wide audience.

That being said, you do need to check your Hebrew translations.  The first example you gave is the hebrew word `almah which means "virgin."

I'm curious as to what website you pulled that list from?

Below is the Hebrew Bible that the Jewish people used.  They used the word "young woman" in Isaiah 7:14.  The word "virgin" came from the Alexandrian canon.  See the weblink below of the Palestinian canon of the Jews.   

http://www.chabad.org/library/bible_cdo/aid/15938

The following weblink is from the Greek Septuagint (which consist of the Alexandrian canon).  Isaiah 7:14 in the Alexandrian canon uses the word "virgin", but in the Hebrew Palestinian canon, the word "young woman" was used. 

http://bibledatabase.net/html/septuagint/23_007.htm

Quote from: BondServant on Wed Mar 06, 2013 - 07:24:31

Quote from: Catholica on Wed Mar 06, 2013 - 07:14:57
Please explain why approximately 66% of scripture references in the NT to the OT follow the Greek more closely than the Hebrew.

The NT was written in Greek.  Not just Greek, but the "slang" or "common" Greek.

The NT being written in Greek doesn't mean they used the Alexandrian Cannon.  It means they were trying to reach a wide audience.

That being said, you do need to check your Hebrew translations.  The first example you gave is the hebrew word `almah which means "virgin."

Nope. Almah means young girl. It is only the context of the verse (the fact that an almah bringing forth child being a "sign" that implies this almah would also be a virgin.

There are several quotes here and on the site that have no analog in the Hebrew. I think your research is faulty.

Quote from: BondServant on Wed Mar 06, 2013 - 07:24:31
I'm curious as to what website you pulled that list from?

scripturecatholic.com/septuagint.html

Quote from: BondServant on Wed Mar 06, 2013 - 07:24:31

Quote from: Catholica on Wed Mar 06, 2013 - 07:14:57
Please explain why approximately 66% of scripture references in the NT to the OT follow the Greek more closely than the Hebrew.

The NT was written in Greek.  Not just Greek, but the "slang" or "common" Greek.

The NT being written in Greek doesn't mean they used the Alexandrian Cannon.  It means they were trying to reach a wide audience.

That being said, you do need to check your Hebrew translations.  The first example you gave is the hebrew word `almah which means "virgin."

I'm curious as to what website you pulled that list from?

Catholica is correct.  The Hebrew word for "virgin" is "bethuwlah."  And that is a language fact. 

I figured you pulled it from a catholic site.  almah is used 6 times....4 times it is translated "virgin" (including in Isaiah) and 2 times it is translated "maid."  In a large majority of translations, it is rendered "virgin," including Young's Literal Translation.  I will grant a handful of new, more modern translations render the word, "young woman," but that is not the proper translation.  Look it up in a concordance or lexicon.  almah means "virgin."

Quote from: BondServant on Wed Mar 06, 2013 - 09:19:01
I figured you pulled it from a catholic site.

Why do you say that? Does that somehow invalidate what I wrote?

Quote
  almah is used 6 times....4 times it is translated "virgin" (including in Isaiah) and 2 times it is translated "maid."  In a large majority of translations, it is rendered "virgin," including Young's Literal Translation.  I will grant a handful of new, more modern translations render the word, "young woman," but that is not the proper translation.  Look it up in a concordance or lexicon.  almah means "virgin."

How a translator translates something into English oftens reflects their own theology. I listen to Protestant radio sometimes. Oh the uproar when a bible translation comes out that renders Isaiah 7:14 "young woman".

Clearly there is some controversy. Whether or not the very first item on this particular list is from the Greek is not really the point. There are somewhere around 200 other references which repeat the Greek from the Septuagint.

Also this statement you made about the New Testament written in Greek to reach the widest audience. Then it makes zero sense that the early church would not also use the Greek old testament. If Greek was used for one they would have used Greek for the other.

Quote from: BondServant on Wed Mar 06, 2013 - 09:19:01
I figured you pulled it from a catholic site.  almah is used 6 times....4 times it is translated "virgin" (including in Isaiah) and 2 times it is translated "maid."  In a large majority of translations, it is rendered "virgin," including Young's Literal Translation.  I will grant a handful of new, more modern translations render the word, "young woman," but that is not the proper translation.  Look it up in a concordance or lexicon.  almah means "virgin."

If you really did an honest study of the word, you would have learned that this Hebrew word was rendered from the LXX (which is the Greek Septuagint).  See the weblink below on its Gesenius' Lexicon.  Therefore, the fact that even the KJV (Protestant Bible) admits that this Hebrew word came from the LXX shows that the Catholic website was telling the truth.     

http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=H5959&t=KJV

So, let's be honest here and pretend that you don't see where the word actually came from....the LXX. 

Christ's blood forgave all our unrighteousness......but the FACT is we still have to repent of sins.  Why?  Because it was our PAST sins He forgave.....Not our present or future sins.  Why else did you think we needed to repent??  If He forgave all our sins - past, present, and future, there would not be any need for repentence.  The Catholics do not believe that all present and future sins are forgiven.  That's what we have been saying about Purgatory.  Didn't you read the posts??   

Quote from: Catholica on Wed Mar 06, 2013 - 10:52:47

Quote from: BondServant on Wed Mar 06, 2013 - 09:19:01
I figured you pulled it from a catholic site.

Why do you say that? Does that somehow invalidate what I wrote?

Quote

  almah is used 6 times....4 times it is translated "virgin" (including in Isaiah) and 2 times it is translated "maid."  In a large majority of translations, it is rendered "virgin," including Young's Literal Translation.  I will grant a handful of new, more modern translations render the word, "young woman," but that is not the proper translation.  Look it up in a concordance or lexicon.  almah means "virgin."

How a translator translates something into English oftens reflects their own theology. I listen to Protestant radio sometimes. Oh the uproar when a bible translation comes out that renders Isaiah 7:14 "young woman".

Clearly there is some controversy. Whether or not the very first item on this particular list is from the Greek is not really the point. There are somewhere around 200 other references which repeat the Greek from the Septuagint.

Also this statement you made about the New Testament written in Greek to reach the widest audience. Then it makes zero sense that the early church would not also use the Greek old testament. If Greek was used for one they would have used Greek for the other.

That is true especially when the New Testament books are still being written at that time.  Therefore, the Scripture that the Apostles used was the Old Testament books, and in this case would be the Greek Septuagint..........since as Bondservant already pointed out, they wanted to reach a wider audience.  Well, reaching a wider audience would mean to use the Greek Septuagint.   

Quote from: Catholica on Wed Mar 06, 2013 - 10:52:47
Why do you say that? Does that somehow invalidate what I wrote?

Yes, it does.  Quoting a catholic website to prove the validity of the deuterocanonical books is like quoting from the whitehouse website to prove the validity of the impact of sequestration.  The bias is overwhelming, and inconvenient facts are usually ignored.

Quote from: Catholica on Wed Mar 06, 2013 - 10:52:47
Clearly there is some controversy. Whether or not the very first item on this particular list is from the Greek is not really the point. There are somewhere around 200 other references which repeat the Greek from the Septuagint.

Yes, there is controversy...many anti-messiah Jews claim that Isaiah used the wrong word for "virgin" and therefore the prophecy about Jesus is invalid and thus, His claim to be the messiah is also invalid.

Quote from: Catholica on Wed Mar 06, 2013 - 10:52:47
Also this statement you made about the New Testament written in Greek to reach the widest audience. Then it makes zero sense that the early church would not also use the Greek old testament. If Greek was used for one they would have used Greek for the other.

It makes plenty of sense.  All you need is a little knowledge of history.  I can start a new thread on the history of the first century church, if you'd like.  For now, it should suffice to point out that Paul preached to gentiles after the Jews rejected Christ.  Most of Paul's preaching was done in what is modern day Greece and Turkey.  It makes plenty of sense that his letters would have been written in their vernacular.  Frankly what language Paul wrote in has absolutely no bearing on which canon the Apostles used.

On another note, why have you not discussed why neither Jesus, nor any of His apostles have quoted from any of the seven books in question?

QuoteYes, it does.  Quoting a catholic website to prove the validity of the deuterocanonical books is like quoting from the whitehouse website to prove the validity of the impact of sequestration.  The bias is overwhelming, and inconvenient facts are usually ignored.

For your information, there are nonCatholic websites that already determined that the Apostles and the Early Christians were using the LXX Bible.  I see that you also chose to ignore the fact that the Hebrew word used actually came from the LXX.  Now, why is that??  Below is a website from a non-Catholic source: 

QuoteMore and more Bible scholars today are recognizing the immense value of the Septuagint and its unique relationship to the New Testament. For example, Bible scholar George Howard points out:

If the writers of the NT [New Testament] were influenced by secular Greek, they were influenced more by LXX [Septuagint]. Separated from LXX the NT would have been almost unintelligible to the contemporary reader, according to B. Atkinson. ... At any rate, in the past decades there has developed an appreciation for the influence which LXX vocabulary had on NT thought and the contributions in this area of Septuagintal research are still coming. Consequently, the debate over which source is more important for NT lexicography, Greek or Hebrew, will probably be resolved in terms of LXX.

Dr. Sven Soderlund of Regent College writes:

The LXX was the Bible for most writers of the NT. Not only did they take from it most of their express citations of Scripture, but their writings¡ªin particular the Gospels, and among them especially Luke¡ªcontain numerous reminiscences of its language. The theological terms of the NT, such as ¡°law,¡± ¡°righteousness,¡± ¡°mercy,¡± ¡°truth,¡± ¡°propitiation,¡± were taken over directly from the LXX and must be understood in the light of their use in that version.

Other Old Testament scholars have expressed similar sentiments.

http://www.scrollpublishing.com/store/Septuagint.html

QuoteIt makes plenty of sense.  All you need is a little knowledge of history.  I can start a new thread on the history of the first century church, if you'd like.  For now, it should suffice to point out that Paul preached to gentiles after the Jews rejected Christ.  Most of Paul's preaching was done in what is modern day Greece and Turkey.  It makes plenty of sense that his letters would have been written in their vernacular.  Frankly what language Paul wrote in has absolutely no bearing on which canon the Apostles used.

On another note, why have you not discussed why neither Jesus, nor any of His apostles have quoted from any of the seven books in question?

You mean YOUR version of history.  Afterall, you chose not to approve of any of my posts under this thread despite the fact that there is nothing obscene in it.       

And for your information, Jesus also never quoted from the Book of Esther.  Does that mean that Esther should not be counted as one of the inspired books?? 

Quote from: BondServant on Wed Mar 06, 2013 - 19:27:14

Quote from: Catholica on Wed Mar 06, 2013 - 10:52:47
Why do you say that? Does that somehow invalidate what I wrote?

Yes, it does.  Quoting a catholic website to prove the validity of the deuterocanonical books is like quoting from the whitehouse website to prove the validity of the impact of sequestration.  The bias is overwhelming, and inconvenient facts are usually ignored.

An argument is an argument.  Who writes the argument is of little consequence.  I too am biased toward Catholic belief.  You are biased against Catholic belief.  It invalidates neither of our arguments.

Rather you need to look at the actual argument itself and see if it holds water.  I would venture to guess that it does hold water, but you are unwilling to really look into it.  If you did, you would potentially have to abandon your ideas about early Bible use.  There are plenty of tools today at your disposal to accomplish this.

Quote from: BondServant on Wed Mar 06, 2013 - 19:27:14

Quote from: Catholica on Wed Mar 06, 2013 - 10:52:47
Clearly there is some controversy. Whether or not the very first item on this particular list is from the Greek is not really the point. There are somewhere around 200 other references which repeat the Greek from the Septuagint.

Yes, there is controversy...many anti-messiah Jews claim that Isaiah used the wrong word for "virgin" and therefore the prophecy about Jesus is invalid and thus, His claim to be the messiah is also invalid.

How would that invalidate his claim?  Mary was still a young maiden who had not yet produced a child.  She was a virgin also.  This would only invalidate the claim of a fundamentalist.  Everything about Jesus screamed "Messiah".

Quote from: BondServant on Wed Mar 06, 2013 - 19:27:14

Quote from: Catholica on Wed Mar 06, 2013 - 10:52:47
Also this statement you made about the New Testament written in Greek to reach the widest audience. Then it makes zero sense that the early church would not also use the Greek old testament. If Greek was used for one they would have used Greek for the other.

It makes plenty of sense.  All you need is a little knowledge of history.  I can start a new thread on the history of the first century church, if you'd like.  For now, it should suffice to point out that Paul preached to gentiles after the Jews rejected Christ.  Most of Paul's preaching was done in what is modern day Greece and Turkey.  It makes plenty of sense that his letters would have been written in their vernacular.  Frankly what language Paul wrote in has absolutely no bearing on which canon the Apostles used.

You missed my point.  If Paul was preaching in Greek because it was the common language, and writing his letters in Greek, then why would they not use the Greek Old Testament, which is the LXX?  There was no Greek OT that did not include the deuterocanon.  If Greek was chosen for the New Testament, then Greek would have been used for the OT as well, not Hebrew.

But I disagree that Greek was chosen because it was the common language.  Greek was chosen because it was considered a sacred language, and one that the Jews would have accepted as well as Gentiles, since it was the Jews who commissioned the LXX in the first place. 

The letter to the Hebrews was written in Greek.  Go figure.

Quote from: BondServant on Wed Mar 06, 2013 - 19:27:14
On another note, why have you not discussed why neither Jesus, nor any of His apostles have quoted from any of the seven books in question?

Didn't they?  There are lots of potential references in the NT to the deuterocanon.  I guess whether one believes that these references really correlate to the deuterocanon or not depends on one's bias for the most part as well. So that is pretty much an invalid argument.  Add to that that there are several books common to both canons that are also not referenced by Jesus or the apostles, and one can really understand how invalid that argument is.

catholica, I absolutely and fully agree that everything about Jesus "screamed 'Messiah'."  I do not adhere to the anti-messiah jews POV and am at a loss to explain it.  However, they do make the argument I outlined above.  I disagree, of course, but you mentioned controversy and I was agreeing that there was controversy over which hebrew word was used for "virgin."  That being said, I've done as you suggested and checked my research.  Three different concordances list almah as "virgin." There is another word bethulah, that also means virgin and that is where the controversy comes into place.

As for quotes of the deuterocanon books, there are none in the NT.  Neither Jesus nor any of His Apostles ever quoted from any of those books.  It is a fact and it is quite valid.

I have listed my facts about why the deuterocannon books are not in the Protestant Bible.  You obviously disagree, but you have only shown opinion and Catholic Dogma in response.  I think at this point it would be best for us to "agree to disagree."

If you can show me hard evidence of Jesus or His Apostles quoting from the apocrypha, or hard evidence that they used the Alexandrian Canon instead of the Hebrew Canon that was in use in Jerusalem during their time, I may reconsider, but I am not going to argue over which word for"virgin" ancient writers decided to use, nor will I argue "potential references."

I would like to end by stating for the record (since you unjustly attacked me for it), that I did look in depth at the resource you posted.  It was faulty.  As I stated above, I rechecked my research at your suggestion, and the examples you posted were faulty.  The reason I mentioned its bias is because it is was factually inaccurate, but still using the "facts" as an argument.  THAT is why the source was invalid.

Quote from: BondServant on Thu Mar 07, 2013 - 21:22:09
catholica, I absolutely and fully agree that everything about Jesus "screamed 'Messiah'."  I do not adhere to the anti-messiah jews POV and am at a loss to explain it.  However, they do make the argument I outlined above.  I disagree, of course, but you mentioned controversy and I was agreeing that there was controversy over which hebrew word was used for "virgin."  That being said, I've done as you suggested and checked my research.  Three different concordances list almah as "virgin." There is another word bethulah, that also means virgin and that is where the controversy comes into place.

As for quotes of the deuterocanon books, there are none in the NT.  Neither Jesus nor any of His Apostles ever quoted from any of those books.  It is a fact and it is quite valid.

I have listed my facts about why the deuterocannon books are not in the Protestant Bible.  You obviously disagree, but you have only shown opinion and Catholic Dogma in response.  I think at this point it would be best for us to "agree to disagree."

If you can show me hard evidence of Jesus or His Apostles quoting from the apocrypha, or hard evidence that they used the Alexandrian Canon instead of the Hebrew Canon that was in use in Jerusalem during their time, I may reconsider, but I am not going to argue over which word for"virgin" ancient writers decided to use, nor will I argue "potential references."

I would like to end by stating for the record (since you unjustly attacked me for it), that I did look in depth at the resource you posted.  It was faulty.  As I stated above, I rechecked my research at your suggestion, and the examples you posted were faulty.  The reason I mentioned its bias is because it is was factually inaccurate, but still using the "facts" as an argument.  THAT is why the source was invalid.

It was already shown to you that the word "virgin" used in that biblical verse came from the LXX Bible.  And that was from the King James Bible concordance.  But you ignored it.