Posted on 10/06/2019 9:00:00 AM PDT by NRx
At the end of the day historical testimony is toward the Deuteros not being part of after the 1st century LXX, nor part of the most authoritative canon.
The case for a closed canon which excluded the Deuterocanonical books, and which was received universally by all the Jews, is not as strong as you would present. First, even in Palestine there was not a unanimity concerning the canon. While the Pharisees accepted what is now the Masoretic canon, the Sadducees did not. They only accepted the first five books of the Torah. The present Masoretic canon probably did not reach its current form until the 2nd century. According to Lawrence H. Schiffman, Vice Provost for Undergraduate Education at Yeshiva University:
While virtually all the Writings were regarded as canonical by the time of the destruction of the Temple in 70 C.E., arguments continued regarding the status of Proverbs, Song of Songs, Ecclesiastes, and Esther, and these disputes are attested in rabbinic literature. Second Temple literature indicates that a collection of Writings existed as early as the second century B.C.E. but was not regarded as formally closedOne piece of evidence is that the Kaige Recension, a Greek copy of Scripture that was produced by the Pharisees in the first century B.C., contains Baruch and the additions of Daniel. Additionally evidence is the fact that Rabbi Akiba de Joseph, the head of the rabbinical school in Jamnia in the 2nd century, did not just list what was in the canon, but felt that it was necessary to explicitly exclude the Deuterocanonical books. This he would not have had to do unless there were some Jews who did think that they were canonical.
The idea of two separate canons, a longer Alexandrian one and a shorter Palestinian one, was originally proposed by Protestant scholars in the 18th century to explain why Christians and Jews held two separate canons. While A.C. Sundberg has disputed this theory, his conclusion did not lead to a single Jewish canon along the lines of the Palestinian one. Rather, he posited that the canon of the Writings was not yet closed, and that the Septuagint, along with some of the Deuterocanonical books were used even in Palestine.
That being said, the idea of two canons is again gaining popularity. See Ph. Guilluame, "New Light on the Nebiim form Alexandria: A Chronography to Replace the Deuteronomistic History," The Journal of Hebrew Scripture, Volume 5, Article 9. Evidence to support the idea of an established Alexandrian canon which contains the Deuterocanonical books comes from the fact that the biblical canon of the Ethiopian Jews contains the Deuterocanonical books to this day.
Look at your question. The answer to the last sentence is in the first one. "Christians" added them which is why the manuscript evidence from hundreds of years later show them, while the Palestinian Hebrew canon, which what Christ only quoted from, did not.
Even if we were to agree that there was a single canon among the Jews that excluded the Deuterocanonical books, you yourself admit that they were added by the early Christians. The acceptance of these books was already well enough established by the 4th century that the manuscript history shows their inclusion. Guided by the Holy Spirit, this they would be free to do just as much as accept the books of the New Testament as Scripture. As for the oft made claim that there are no references to the Deuterocanonical books in the New Testament, I would suggest that you take a look at this.
I nowhere argued or claimed a a closed canon universally accepted by all the Jews, so why are you resorting to a strawman? There is not even a universal uniform canon today.
Instead i actually stated "it is to be doubted that" all held to the 22/24 book Josephus/Pharisaic canon, but argued that "there was an established authoritative body of writings of God by the time of Christ," this being (even if nor formally closed), the one held by those who sat in the most authoritative canon seat of Moses, the tripartite one most likely referred to as Scripture by Christ.
We do not possess myriads of inconsistent books, conflicting with each other. other. Our books, those which are justly accredited, are but two and twenty, and contain the record of all time....” — Josephus, Against Apion, 1,8 (38-41)
"In all likelihood Josephus' twenty-two-book canon was the Pharisaic canon, but it is to be doubted that it was also the canon of all Jews in the way that he has intended." (Timothy H. Lim: The Formation of the Jewish Canon; Yale University Press, Oct 22, 2013. P. 49)
"it is clear that the Pharisees held to the twenty-two or twenty-four book canon, and it was this canon that eventually became the canon of Rabbinic Judaism because the majority of those who founded the Jewish faith after the destruction of Jerusalem were Pharisees. (Timothy H. Lim, University of Edinburgh)
While virtually all the Writings were regarded as canonical by the time of the destruction of the Temple in 70 C.E., arguments continued regarding the status of Proverbs, Song of Songs, Ecclesiastes, and Esther, and these disputes are attested in rabbinic literature.
"The Writings" do not refer to the Deuteros, while of course there was some debate in the whole, but as Lawrence H. Schiffman (thanks for the name at least) also states in the work you did not cite. Emphasis is mine:
The term "apocrypha" refers to those books which are found in the Hellenistic Jewish Bible canon of Alexandria, Egypt, but not in the Palestinian Jewish canon . The Hellenistic canon was preserved by the Christian church in the Septuagint and Vulgate Bibles, and the Palestinian canon was handed down in the form of the traditional Hebrew Bible. ...
The desire to supplement Scripture was part of a general tendency in the Greco-Roman period toward "rewritten Bible." In such works the authors, out of reverence for the Bible, sought to extend the biblical tradition and often applied it to the issues of their own day. ...
aruch (1 Baruch) is a hortatory work which was treated as a supplement to Jeremiah. It is a pseudepigraphon, purporting to have been written by Baruch, the scribe of Jeremiah... The first part had to have been written by the onset of the first century B.C.E., but the date of the second half cannot be established. It may postdate the destruction of the Second Temple in 70 C.E. From Text to Tradition: A History of Second Temple and Rabbinic Judaism, pp. 12-,121, 123,125, 126, Lawrence H Schiffman, PH D, Sol Scharfstein, Ethel and Irvine Edelman Professor of Hebrew and Judaic Studies; KTAV Publishing House, Inc., 1991)
Thus according to even your source there was a Palestinian Jewish canon, even if there was still some degree of debate i circles, while here again is testimony against the Deuteros being part of the Palestinian canon, with some books even postdating the completion of the Jewish LXX (132 BC)
The idea of two separate future histrcan could sat the same of our canons, a longer Alexandrian one and a shorter Palestinian one, was originally proposed by Protestant scholars in the 18th century to explain why Christians and Jews held two separate canons.
Thank God for more objective historians, yet it is the strong warrant for a shorter Palestinian canon being what is referred to as Scripture by the NT church that is the issue, and as cited, your own Catholic Encyclopedia among other sources affirms,
“the protocanonical books of the Old Testament correspond with those of the Bible of the Hebrews, and the Old Testament as received by Protestants.” “...the Hebrew Bible, which became the Old Testament of Protestantism.” (The Catholic Encyclopedia>Canon of the Old Testament; htttp://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03267a.htm) The Protestant canon of the Old Testament is the same as the Palestinian canon. (The Catholic Almanac, 1960, p. 217)
One piece of evidence is that the Kaige Recension, a Greek copy of Scripture that was produced by the Pharisees in the first century B.C., contains Baruch and the additions of Daniel.
And Luther's Bible also contained (most of) the Deuteros, even if in a separate section, as did (for the record) the Polyglot Bible (1514) of Cardinal Ximenes just prior to Trent, which soon received papal sanction.
Additionally evidence is the fact that Rabbi Akiba de Joseph, the head of the rabbinical school in Jamnia in the 2nd century, did not just list what was in the canon, but felt that it was necessary to explicitly exclude the Deuterocanonical books.
This claim does not help your cause, since modern research research considers the so-called The Council of Jamnia to be hypothetical at best, and or rejects that it excluded the Deuterocanonical books. Read: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Council_of_Jamnia
Evidence to support the idea of an established Alexandrian canon which contains the Deuterocanonical books comes from the fact that the biblical canon of the Ethiopian Jews contains the Deuterocanonical books to this day.
And more, but which is not argued against, as the issue is what "Scripture" "It is written," The Word of God/the Lord" meant in regards the most authoritative 1st. c. canon, and properly referred Christ, who never quoted any Divine text from outside the smaller canon.
Even if we were to agree that there was a single canon among the Jews that excluded the Deuterocanonical books,
Still arguing a strawman from start to finish.
you yourself admit that they were added by the early Christians. The acceptance of these books was already well enough established by the 4th century that the manuscript history shows their inclusion.
Which is not in contention, except that this was not a single universally held canon either. Now as for what your argument really is:
Guided by the Holy Spirit,
Presuably you mean essentially only those who followed Augustine were...
this they would be free to do just as much as accept the books of the New Testament as Scripture.
As can a government do freely today.
As for the oft made claim that there are no references to the Deuterocanonical books in the New Testament, I would suggest that you take a look at this.
So this is your argument? Another strawman, for I did not say there are no references to the Deuterocanonical books in the New Testament, for the term is broadly used, and as Jimmky Akin says who also provides a page of "references," "it is not always obvious whether something is a genuine reference...many are not so clear as there may be only a single phrase that echoes one in a deuterocanonical book..As a result, many scholarly works simply give an enormous catalogue of all proposed references and leave it to the individual interpreter to decide whether a given reference is actual or not.I will follow the same procedure until I have time to sit down with the following references, sort through them, and decide which I can prove to be references are to deutercanonical books... (http://jimmyakin.com/deuterocanonical-references-in-the-new-testament)
At least he is trying to be honest, while your (actual) reference is from the notorious so-called "scripturecatholic" who seems to see references to deutercanonical books in every closet, so to speak. From what I see he loos at part of a sentence, and or a allusion or similar thought, "like sheep without a shepherd," and somehow this means that the NT is referencing that Judith 11:19. But he never provides the texts side by side, or even hypertexts the verses, and instead he provides his description of what he sees as a reference. Thus (of course) "John 6:35-59 – Jesus’ Eucharistic discourse is foreshadowed in Sirach 24:21. But which states, "They that eat me shall yet be hungry, and they that drink me shall yet be thirsty." (Sir 24:21) which actually contradicts John 6:35 - 59, which teaches, "And Jesus said unto them, I am the bread of life: he that cometh to me shall never hunger; and he that believeth on me shall never thirst." (John 6:35)
Akin has not had to time to sort thru his, nor am I am going to look thru all of this hungry RC, while these kind of "references," or even describing something found in a books of the Deuteros, like `Hebrews 11:35 and 2 Maccabees 7, is simply not the same as quoting or referring to something as Scripture, it is written, the Word of God/the Lord, " as denote authority. Yet as even Divine truths spoken by pagans can be quoted, then such intro is the strongest testimony to authority, such as,
: “as the Scripture hath said” (John 7:38 ); “What saith the Scripture” (Galatians 4:30 ); “it is (stands) written,” emphasizing the permanent validity of the Old Testament revelation (Mark 1:2 ; Romans 1:17 ; Romans 3:10 ); “that it might be fulfilled,” emphasizing the fulfillment of Old Testament prophecies (Matthew 4:14 , Matthew 12:17 , Matthew 21:4 ); “God hath said,” “He saith,” “the Holy Spirit says,” which personify Scripture and reflect its divine dimension (Romans 9:25 ; Romans 10:21 ; 2 Corinthians 6:16 ); “Moses,” “David,” or “Isaiah” says which emphasize the human element in Scripture (Romans 10:16 , Romans 10:19-20 ; Hebrews 4:7 ). - https://www.studylight.org/dictionaries/hbd/o/old-testament-quotations-in-the-new-testament.html
What I did argue was that,
That there was an established authoritative body of writings of God by the time of Christ is manifest by the frequent quotes or references to them as authoratative by the Lord Jesus and the NT writers. Which was never manifest as being an issue with the Scribes and Pharisees whom the Lord affirmed sat in the magisterial seat of Moses, (Mt. 23:2) to whom conditional obedience was enjoined.
Otherwise it seems the argument is that since the Roman church government tended to side with the larger canon, yet leaving freedom for the faithful to disagree until the Reformation made it an issue, then we are supposed to accept it,
And why? Because Rome also says has the marks of the one true apostolic church (OTAC) based upon her own interpretation, the do the EOs who significantly disagree with you all? .
If that is the argument then neither should have allowed us to read the Bible (well, Rome tried to hinder that ). For as said, distinctive Catholic teachings that are not manifest in the only wholly inspired substantive authoritative record of what the NT church believed (including how they understood the OT and gospels), which is Scripture, especially Acts thru Revelation.
Or is the argument that as asked before when your resorted to the authority argument, an assuredly (if conditionally) infallible magisterium is essential for determination and assurance of Truth (including writings and men being of God), etc.
And that being the historical instruments and stewards of Divine revelation (oral and written) means that Rome is that assuredly infallible magisterium.
If that is the case then it settles the case in my favor on that basis alone.
If there was no closed canon, then you cannot hold Christians to the later established Masoretic canon.
The term "apocrypha" refers to those books which are found in the Hellenistic Jewish Bible canon of Alexandria, Egypt, but not in the Palestinian Jewish canon . The Hellenistic canon was preserved by the Christian church in the Septuagint and Vulgate Bibles, and the Palestinian canon was handed down in the form of the traditional Hebrew Bible. ...
But this is exactly the Catholic position; the Church received and follows the Alexandrian canon rather than the Palestinian one. The Christian Church cannot be held bound by the decision of 1st/2nd century Jews to limit themselves to the narrower Palestinian canon. By this time the authority over all of Scripture had been translated from the Jews to the Christian Church.
Thus according to even your source there was a Palestinian Jewish canon, even if there was still some degree of debate i circles, while here again is testimony against the Deuteros being part of the Palestinian canon, with some books even postdating the completion of the Jewish LXX (132 BC)
The existence of a shorter Palestinian canon is irrelevant if the early Christian Church had accepted the longer Alexandrian canon that had exited alongside it.
Thank God for more objective historians, yet it is the strong warrant for a shorter Palestinian canon being what is referred to as Scripture by the NT church that is the issue, and as cited, your own Catholic Encyclopedia among other sources affirms,
Since there was no single, and universally accepted, canon among the Jews, it is anachronistic to say that the New Testament Church meant this when they referred to Scripture. This is especially true since they quoted the Old Testament using the Septuagint, a product of Alexandria, rather than the Hebrew Old Testament.
This claim does not help your cause, since modern research research considers the so-called The Council of Jamnia to be hypothetical at best, and or rejects that it excluded the Deuterocanonical books. Read: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Council_of_Jamnia
I did not mention the Council of Jamnia. While that council most likely did not exist, there was a rabbinical school there, of which Akiba was a member.
And more, but which is not argued against, as the issue is what "Scripture" "It is written," The Word of God/the Lord" meant in regards the most authoritative 1st. c. canon, and properly referred Christ, who never quoted any Divine text from outside the smaller canon.
But there was no one authoritative canon, the issue being disputed among the Jews.
Which is not in contention, except that this was not a single universally held canon either.
I never said that there was. No one can deny that the issue of the canon was disputed, that is until the 4th century, when the Church made authoritative ruling, even if it was not, at the time, an infallible one. That the question arose again later does not negate that the issue was considered settled until the late Middle Ages. Even then, the majority of opinion was in favor of retaining the Deuterocanonical books that had been accepted by the Church since the 4th century.
As regards to the reference to the Deuterocanonical books in the New Testament, while individual references can be questioned, the overall conclusion must be that the New Testament was influenced by these books.
That there was an established authoritative body of writings of God by the time of Christ is manifest by the frequent quotes or references to them as authoratative by the Lord Jesus and the NT writers. Which was never manifest as being an issue with the Scribes and Pharisees whom the Lord affirmed sat in the magisterial seat of Moses, (Mt. 23:2) to whom conditional obedience was enjoined.
But as you have admitted, this authoritative body was not a closed canon. After the establishment of the Church, whatever authority that was possessed by the Seat of Moses was transferred to the Church, which decided in favor of the larger Alexandrian canon.
Otherwise it seems the argument is that since the Roman church government tended to side with the larger canon, yet leaving freedom for the faithful to disagree until the Reformation made it an issue, then we are supposed to accept it.
Exactly, except that I would take issue with your characterization of the "Roman church government," a pejorative term which seeks to limit the Catholic Church to the pope and Rome. It was the universal Church, in union with the pope, which accepted the larger canon. But why should any Christian accept the decision of the Protestant Reformers to reject what the universal Church had accepted for over a thousand years? The best that you could argue for is that the question is still open and in dispute among Christians, with the Protestant position being in the minority.
But although you all did not have a closed canon (and some RCs even debate whether Trent actually closed it, vs. defining what books it presently consisted of) you hold them to the later binding defined canon. And that the canon was not universally accepted, and the faithful had freedom to doubt or disagree on its exact contents, has already been established, if seemingly forgotten.
Thus once again the issue is that of authority which I refuted, yes which again is your recourse. That the Jews later established the Masoretic canon is not the basis for our non-compelled consensus on our canon, and that this was that which Christ referred as Scripture, but its establishment is essentially due to to the enduring enduring qualities and supernatural attestation of these books, despite the Deuteros being included in Scripture for a long time. They are not simply true, but have a unique anointing in veracity. Hebrews 4:12. I would say the Wisdom of Solomon comes closest to Scripture, but is falsely assigned to him.
But this is exactly the Catholic position; the Church received and follows the Alexandrian canon rather than the Palestinian one. The Christian Church cannot be held bound by the decision of 1st/2nd century Jews to limit themselves to the narrower Palestinian canon. By this time the authority over all of Scripture had been translated from the Jews to the Christian Church.
So either the NT church could not be bound by any judgments of those who sat in the seat of Moses, or they could but dissent based upon evidential warrant for the former being wrong, but somehow "The Church" later becomes (conditionally) infallible - if she does say so herself - so that it cannot be wrong despite evidential warrant to the contrary. For the latter is disallowed because she is the infallible judge of whether there is or not, thus the Assumption, etc.
That is essentially your position, but the novel and unScriptural premise of ensured perpetual magisterial infallibility as per Rome was not how the NT church began or ruled. Look upthread.
If you disagree, show me where ensured magisterial infallibility of office as per Rome was exampled and or essential for authority and preservation of Truth in the OT and the NT. Want to try Caiaphas? Or save time trying for it is not there, despite strenuous extrapolative attempts.
The existence of a shorter Palestinian canon is irrelevant if the early Christian Church had accepted the longer Alexandrian canon that had exited alongside it.
Which presumes it was infallible, and infallibly defined it them, neither of which is the case.
Since there was no single, and universally accepted, canon among the Jews, it is anachronistic to say that the New Testament Church meant this when they referred to Scripture.
That is simply an absurd argument, since there need not be a universally accepted canon for the church to hold to one (and the most authoritative) body of inspired writings as being the correct one, which is what your own finally church presumed to do!
And there still is not one universally accepted identical canon among all Catholics, unless you exclude the EOs, and RCs necessarily must make an issue of exactness. The analogical difference here with that of Prots vs. EO with Rome is only a matter of degrees.
This is especially true since they quoted the Old Testament using the Septuagint, a product of Alexandria, rather than the Hebrew Old Testament.
Rather, the anachronism is on you, since you are the one reading a 4th century LXX, even with its different canon than that of Trent, into the 1st c., despite extensive historical testimony contrary to that presumption. The original 3rd century BC commission to pen the LXX was, according to tradition, only that of translating the Torah into Greek for inclusion in the Library of Alexandria with more later being added, but as much shown, the weight of evidence is against the 1st c. LXX containing the Deuteros, if all of it contents of were even penned by it completion in 132 BC.
I did not mention the Council of Jamnia. While that council most likely did not exist, there was a rabbinical school there, of which Akiba was a member.
You invoked the leader of the "rabbinical school in Jamnia" as explicitly excluding the Deuterocanonical books, which claim is dubious.
But there was no one authoritative canon, the issue being disputed among the Jews.
Again, there not not be one universally held authoritative for Christ and the NT church to reference one authoritative body of writings, which quite evidentially did exist, even most likely concurring with that of the Pharisees, whose authority itself was not universally recognized. And again, if you mean one infallibly defined/indisputable canon, then for RCs, that would wait 1400 years.
Which is not in contention, except that this was not a single universally held canon either.
I never said that there was.
But you mispresented /argued against me as one arguing "for a closed canon which excluded the Deuterocanonical books," which I never did!
No one can deny that the issue of the canon was disputed, that is until the 4th century, when the Church made authoritative ruling, even if it was not, at the time, an infallible one. That the question arose again later does not negate that the issue was considered settled until the late Middle Ages.
Wrong again. You asserted that from 405 "From this point on there was universal acceptance of the Deuterocanonical books in the West," yet a documented, scholarly disagreements over the canonicity (proper) of certain books continued down through the centuries and right into Trent, until it provided the first "infallible," indisputable canon - after the death of Luther.
Even then, the majority of opinion was in favor of retaining the Deuterocanonical books that had been accepted by the Church since the 4th century.
Even then, forbidding disagreement was was hardly universally affirmed, with only 44% (with 27% nay, 29% abstaining) voting to affirm it as an article of faith with its anathemas on those who dissent from it.
As regards to the reference to the Deuterocanonical books in the New Testament, while individual references can be questioned, the overall conclusion must be that the New Testament was influenced by these books.
Using that "influenced" goal post then even the books of pagans can be affirmed as Scripture.
But as you have admitted, this authoritative body was not a closed canon.
As you must admit as regards yours, at least until 1546.
After the establishment of the Church, whatever authority that was possessed by the Seat of Moses was transferred to the Church, which decided in favor of the larger Alexandrian canon.
Then it follows that if the doctrinal judgment of those who are actually said to sit in the seat of Moses can be faulty (despite clearly having binding authority), then so can those who claim to be its successors. Even after allowing doubt and disagreement among her faithful for over 1400 post-apostolic years.
And if so, and if God can manifestly raise up deliverance from tyrannical rulers and governments in establishing new ones, and raise up children of Abraham from stones, then so can God raise up men and churches from stones who professes the essential evangelical faith of the gospel of Peter and Paul, that of Christ. Would to God that Catholics were born again by it, as well as all Prots.
Exactly, except that I would take issue with your characterization of the "Roman church government," a pejorative term which seeks to limit the Catholic Church to the pope and Rome.
Not again. "Rome" is to the Catholic church as "Washington" is to the USA, denoting the official seat of its government, the Vatican.
And need I show you that Rome herself used the term "Roman Church" in identifying herself even well before the Reformation (1075), as well as after it? If that is necessarily a pejorative term then you must correct your church.
It was the universal Church, in union with the pope,
You mean in exclusion to those "other Catholics," those of
Eastern Orthodoxy, official name Orthodox Catholic Church (https://www.britannica.com/topic/Eastern-Orthodoxy); The official designation of the church in its liturgical and canonical texts is "the Orthodox Catholic Church" (https://www.dowoca.org/orthodoxy); "Eastern Orthodoxy or Orthodoxy, One of the three branches of world Christianity and the major Christian church in the Middle East and Eastern Europe, the Orthodox church, also sometimes called the Eastern church, or the Greek Orthodox, or Orthodox Catholic church, Eastern Orthodox Church... (The Catholic Encyclopedia, Volume XI. Published 1911; http://mb-soft.com/believe/txc/orthodox.htm); or the Oriental Church, or the Christian Church of the East, or the Orthodox Catholic Church, or the Graeco-Russian Church. (https://www.oca.org/questions/teaching/what-is-the-proper-name-for-the-orthodox-church)
But why should any Christian accept the decision of the Protestant Reformers to reject what the universal Church had accepted for over a thousand years?
They did not in either case. The establishment of the 66 book Prot canon is not essentially due to the Reformers decree, though certainly influenced by the teaching of such, but as with the common people ascertaining that men such as John the Baptist were of God - despite the judgment of those in leadership - it was been the ongoing purity power and probity of what we recognize as the written word of God that is the essential basis for its establishment.
Which, despite no binding "infallible" decree, is arguably overall more settled among Prots overall (%-wise) than among those who accept a larger canon. Thus if unity by authority is your argument, then you do not have a real case.
In addition, there simply was and is no uniformly accepted canon in the universal Church for over a thousand years, regardless of how often you repeat that propaganda. We disagree with what Trent later settled for RCs and which many esteemed faithful RCs did without ecclesial censure in their time until Trent made the majority position binding upon her own.
Thus as you tend to forget or ignore some of what refutes you while failing to refute what you do not, your real argument is that of authority, that as the authoritative magisterial stewards of Scripture we must submit to Rome. Which again, in principal works against you. Maybe its time to move on.
Such ignorant trolling is being ignored.
For the record and the ignorant or insolent: The Westminster Confession of Faith (1647)
Under the name of Holy Scripture, or the Word of God written, are now contained all the books of the Old and New Testament, which are these:
Of the Old Testament:
Genesis
Exodus
Leviticus
Numbers
Deuteronomy
Joshua
Judges
Ruth
I. Samuel
II. Samuel
I. Kings
II. Kings
I. Chronicles
II. Chronicles
Ezra
Nehemiah
Esther
Job
Psalms
Proverbs
Ecclesiastes
The Song of Songs
Isaiah
Jeremiah
Lamentations
Ezekiel
Daniel
Hosea
Joel
Amos
Obadiah
Jonah
Micah
Nahum
Habakkuk
Zephaniah
Haggai
Zechariah
Malachi
Of the New Testament:
The Gospels according to
Matthew
Mark
Luke
John
The Acts of the Apostles
Paul’s Epistles
To the Romans
Corinthians I.
Corinthians II.
Galatians
Ephesians
Philippians
Colossians
Thessalonians I.
Thessalonians II.
To Timothy I.
To Timothy II.
To Titus
To Philemon
The Epistle to the Hebrews
The Epistle of James
The first and second Epistles of Peter
The first, second, and third Epistles of John
The Epistle of Jude
The Revelation of John
All which are given by inspiration of God, to be the rule of faith and life
1611 KJV Original Book Names Viewing the 1611 King James Version Bible Book Names. Click to switch to the Standard KJV Bible Books List 1611 BOOK NAME IN TABLE OF CONTENTS 1611 BOOK NAME IN TEXT Genesis THE FIRST BOOKE OF MOSES, called Genesis. Exodus THE SECOND BOOKE OF Moses, called Exodus. Leuiticus THE THIRD BOOKE OF Moses, called Leviticus. Numbers THE FOURTH BOOKE OF Moses, called Numbers. Deuteronomie THE FIFTH BOOKE OF Moses, called Deuteronomie. Ioshua THE BOOKE OF Ioshua. Iudges THE BOOKE OF Iudges. Ruth THE BOOKE OF Ruth. 1. Samuel THE FIRST BOOKE of Samuel, otherwise called, The first Booke of the Kings. 2. Samuel THE SECOND BOOKE of Samuel, otherwise called, The second Booke of the Kings. 1. Kings THE FIRST BOOKE OF the Kings, commonly called The third Booke of the Kings. 2. Kings THE SECOND BOOKE OF the Kings, commonly called The fourth Booke of the Kings. 1. Chronicles THE FIRST BOOKE of the Chronicles. 2. Chronicles THE SECOND BOOKE of the Chronicles. Ezrah EZRA. Nehemiah THE BOOKE OF Nehemiah. Ester THE BOOKE OF Esther. Iob THE BOOKE OF Iob. Psalmes THE BOOKE OF Psalmes. Prouerbs THE PROVERBES. Ecclesiastes ECCLESIASTES, or the Preacher Song of Solomon The Song of Solomon. Isaiah THE BOOKE OF THE Prophet Isaiah. Ieremiah THE BOOKE OF THE Prophet Ieremiah. Lamentations The Lamentations of Ieremiah. Ezekiel THE BOOKE OF THE Prophet Ezekiel. Daniel THE BOOKE OF Daniel. Hosea HOSEA. Ioel IOEL. Amos AMOS. Obadiah OBADIAH. Ionah IONAH. Micah MICAH. Nahvm NAHVM. Habakkvk HABAKKVK. Zephaniah ZEPHANIAH. Haggai HAGGAI. Zechariah ZECHARIAH. Malachi MALACHI. Matthew THE GOSPEL ACCORDING to S. Matthew. Marke The Gospel according to S. Marke. Luke The Gospel according to S. Luke. Iohn The Gospel according to S. John. The Actes THE ACTES OF the Apostles. The Epistle to the Romanes THE EPISTLE OF PAVL THE Apostle to the Romanes. 1. Corinthians THE FIRST EPISTLE of Paul the Apostle to the Corinthians. 2. Corinthians THE SECOND EPISTLE of Paul the Apostle to the Corinthians. Galatians THE EPISTLE OF Paul to the Galatians. Ephesians THE EPISTLE OF PAVL THE Apostle to the Ephesians. Philippians THE EPISTLE OF PAVL THE Apostle to the Philippeans. Colossians THE EPISTLE OF PAVL THE Apostle to the Colossians. 1. Thessalonians THE FIRST EPISTLE OF Paul the Apostle to the Thessalonians. 2. Thessalonians THE SECOND EPISTLE OF Paul the Apostle to the Thessalonians. 1. Timotheus THE FIRST EPISTLE of Paul the Apostle to Timothie. 2. Timotheus THE SECOND EPISTLE of Paul the Apostle to Timothie. Titus THE EPISTLE OF Paul to Titus. Philemon THE EPISTLE OF Paul to Philemon. To the Hebrewes THE EPISTLE OF PAVL the Apostle to the Hebrewes. The Epistle of Iames THE GENERALL Epistle of Iames. 1. Peter THE FIRST EPISTLE generall of Peter. 2. Peter THE SECOND EPISTLE generall of Peter. 1. Iohn THE FIRST EPISTLE generall of Iohn. 2. Iohn The second Epistle of Iohn. 3. Iohn The third Epistle of Iohn. Iude THE GENERALL Epistle of Iude. Reuelation THE REVELATION of S. Iohn the Diuine. 1. Esdras I. ESDRAS. 2. Esdras II. ESDRAS. Tobit TOBIT. Iudeth IVDETH. The rest of Esther THE BOOKE OF Esther. Wisedome The Wisdome of Solomon. Ecclesiasticus THE WISDOME OF Iesus the sonne of Sirach, Or Ecclesiasticus. Baruch BARVCH. Epistle of Ieremiah The Epistle of Ieremie. The song of the three children. The Song of the three holy children, which followeth in the third Chapter of Daniel after this place, [And they walked in the midst of the fire, praising God, and blessing the Lord. ] That which followeth is not in the Hebrew; to wit, [Then Azarias stood vp vnto these wordes, [And Nabuchodonofor.] The story of Susanna. The historie of Susanna, set apart from the beginning of Daniel, because it is not in Hebrew, as neither the narration of Bel and the Dragon. The idole Bel and the Dragon. The history of the destruction of Bel and the Dragon, cut off from the end of Daniel. The prayer of Manasseh. The prayer of Manasses King of Iuda, when he was holden captiue in Babylon. 1. Maccabees The first booke of the Maccabees. 2. Maccabees The second booke of the Maccabees.
OK, if you are a glutton for punishment:
Only ignorance or guile can explain why one would argue that all that a translation contains means all such is considered Scripture, vs what constitutes the Protestant Bible of 66 books of Scripture (which contextually was the issue, vs what may be considered merely fit to read).
Based upon your presumption then Luther considered the Deuteros to be Scripture since he included most of these books in his Bible - between the Old and New Testaments. Thus these works are sometimes known as inter-testamental books.
You could have simply accessed the documented WP page on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_apocrypha:
“Likewise the English-language King James Version (KJV) of 1611 followed the lead of the Luther Bible in using an inter-testamental section labelled “Books called Apocrypha”, or just “Apocrypha” at the running page header.[38] following the Geneva Bible of 1560 almost exactly.”
“These same books are also listed in Article VI of the Thirty-Nine Articles of the Church of England.”
“All [}Protestant] English translations of the Bible printed in the sixteenth century included a section or appendix for Apocryphal books. Matthew’s Bible, published in 1537, contains all the Apocrypha of the later King James Version in an inter-testamental section. The 1538 Myles Coverdale Bible contained an Apocrypha that excluded Baruch and the Prayer of Manasseh. The 1560 Geneva Bible placed the Prayer of Manasseh after 2 Chronicles; the rest of the Apocrypha were placed in an inter-testamental section.”
“All King James Bibles published before 1666 included the Apocrypha,[42] though separately to denote them as not equal to Scripture proper, as noted by Jerome in the Vulgate, to which he gave the name, “The Apocrypha.”[43] In 1826,[44] the National Bible Society of Scotland petitioned the British and Foreign Bible Society not to print the Apocrypha,[45] resulting in a decision that no BFBS funds were to pay for printing any Apocryphal books anywhere. They reasoned that not printing the Apocrypha within the Bible would prove to be less costly to produce.[46][47] Since that time most modern editions of the Bible and reprintings of the King James Bible omit the Apocrypha section.”
These the 66 book Prot canon is shown to have been overall universally settled early on, more so than that of Catholicism which claims a universally settled canon from the 4th century.
Your only argument then is you asked “where does the Protestant Bible of 66 books show up?,” versus where does the Protestant canon of 66 books show up, which is simply sophistry, or ignorance, since canonicity was the issue.
Thus once again your posts have earned the title of “trolling,” and fit to be ignored.
Bye.
Also, King James himself said, “As to the Apocriphe bookes, I omit them because I am no Papist” (Book I:13, Basilicon Doron). Article 6 of the Thirty-nine Articles of Religion established by the Episcopal Church in the United States of America in 1801, referring to the Apocrypha, states: "And the other Books (as Hierome saith) the Church doth read for example of life and instruction of manners; but yet doth it not apply them to establish any doctrine;" (Thirty-nine Articles of Religion).
As for saving money, publishing was costly, and with the lack of demand for these obscure books it made sense to leave them out in order providing Scripture.
You have now been provided more than is warranted in response to your flailing failing attempts to support what cannot be, that the 66 book Prot. canon of Scripture was not overall settled early on the Reformation, and thus you have no right to expect more here.
For them, which goes back to the reason for it, which was established thru many posts before you showed up with your ignorant or sophistical and diversionary trolling. Will your ignorant vain attempts ever cease?
And Acts 17:28 has "dependency" upon wisdom from within paganism, which does not make such Scripture: "For in him we live, and move, and have our being; as certain also of your own poets have said, For we are also his offspring." (Acts 17:28)
And before you showed up distinction was made btwn types of references vs quoting or invoking Hebrew canonical Scripture as Scripture. Once again you are engaging in vain rabble-rousing.
Why all the fuss over these debatable ‘books’ added to/left out of the bible?
Catholics pick and choose over the rest of it any way.
Most famously (or Infamous; if you prefer):
Call no man father.
Why all the fuss?
When an Ethiopian eunuch got saved and baptized with only the Book of Isaiah for a text!
They need actual Scriptural warrant for their distinctives which they can only wish the only wholly inspired-of-God and substantive record of what the New Testament church believed provides.
2 Macc. 12:44-45 is thus invoked as supporting mythical RC Purgatory , yet what it teaches is about men who died due to being idolators, thus being guilty of a mortal sin for which there is no hope, and prayers and sacrifice being made for them that they might attain to the resurrection (of the just), yet which those in RC Purgatory are assured of any way (though their imagined suffering can be reduced by offerings of the faithful in this realm).
But that is another subject. Read my other posts here as regards the exclusion of these from the Palestinian canon of the Hebrews.
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.