Good points, Jo, just as the rest of your reply. I think your conclusions are right on the money. It's a desperate attempt to smear the Church.
Another 'apologist' recently linked to an article of a famous Septuagint editor who wrote a lengthy and very educated, even objective commentary on the subject considering whe it was written.
The problem is, his conclusions were based on the mid-19th century knowledge, which was proven wrong with the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls. Yet, this doesn't stop these 'apologists' from presenting an outdated article as 'objective' evidence of their view.
Their assumption, which is often presented as fact, even if silent, is that the early Church, save for a handful of individuals, really didn't know anything about the canon it painstakingly put together, and 'distorted' the faith because it couldn't or didn't want to read the Scripture aright, or — worse — because the hierarchy is inherently 'corrupt.'
But what really amazes me with all such speudo-intellectual arguments is that they miss the obvious, something one doesn't need a PhD to understand and see. They will dig up some obscure line or even an article, out of context, because — just like the random verses they use to prove their notions — they ignore the next sentence or pragraph (perhaps even hoping that the other side will not check) that completely invalidates their 'argument.'
How does one ignore that the Peshitta Syriac denies the NT deuterocanonical books, but accepts its denial of the OT deuterocanonicals? It must be either the effect of 'text-proofing' only the buzz words and forgetting the context, or it must be deliberate distortion. In either case, the conclusions can't be right because the method is wrong.
Thus, if one can find one of the 'fathers,' such as Origen who expresses doubt about the 'canon' (interpreted out of context of course, using modern-day or un-orthodox definition), then he must be right and the rest of the Church must be wrong.
They triumph when they find, besides a heretic, a genuine father of the Church (+Athanasius, +Jerome, +Augustine), who express similar opinions (out of context, of course), because — as you point aptly — no matter what these fathers thought, they always deferred to the Church in the end, which shows that their egos did not constitute a church in itself, as is the case with our Protestant friends.
But, even if there are a half a dozen of those who doubted the Septuagint (in part), and I don't believe half-a-dozen can be found (since only three are mentioned), what does that mean with respect to hundreds of others who had no doubts? That the half-a-dozen are right?
It is also not true that +Athanasius considered all the OT deuterocanonical books as 'apocrypha,' nor did he favor the (Pharisaical) Hebrew canon.
The plainest of these arguments are the facts we find in the NT: the holy Apostles quote the Septuagint as Scripture. If those who, we believe were given the spiritual truth by divine inspiration, are use something as Scripture, would they do so if they were not 'valid?' If what they say is true by the very fact that they are believed to have been inspired, isn't then their choice of Scripture equally valid?
At no time did the Jewish religious authorities of Palestine object to, deny or reject the Septuagint the Greek-speaking Jews used for centuries until it became obvious in the latter part of the 1st century (when the Gospels were written), that the Apostles used the LXX in their witness.
It was only shortly afterwords (c. 90 AD) that the rabbis of Jamnia threw out the NT and LXX along with it, because the two are intimately connected.
As is the case with all issues regarding Scripture: the originals are sadly missing. As you noted earlier in the thread, the Essens and the Sadducees had different 'canons' from the Palestinians (Pharisees), or Samaritans, or Ethiopians. Just as there are three Talmuds, out of which the Pharisaical rabbis use only the most recent version, there are different segments of the OT which do not match our artificial standard: the Palestinian Hebrew text.
The 'apologists' also ignore the fact that only the Pharisees survived and that ti is natural that their version of the Jewish canon is the norm. If only the EOC survived, its practices and teachings would become the surviving norm. That in and of itself is no proof that ti is actually the most authentic 'norm' there is.
You have done a terrific job exposing the truth on this subject.
As I said, this subject proves that the "Protestant apologist" is merely a wolf in sheep's clothing. They'll do or say anything to "win" an argument - even if it means denying simple logic. I am STILL waiting for the answer to WHY they accept the NT Deuts, but not the OT Deuts. They quote writers when it suits them, totally ignoring these same "authorities" when it doesn't suit them. All in the effort to "win" an argument. These people are not concerned about the truth, Kosta.
They triumph when they find, besides a heretic, a genuine father of the Church (+Athanasius, +Jerome, +Augustine), who express similar opinions (out of context, of course), because — as you point aptly — no matter what these fathers thought, they always deferred to the Church in the end, which shows that their egos did not constitute a church in itself, as is the case with our Protestant friends.
Exactly. Jerome was the only Church Father I found who denied the OT Deuts belonged in Sacred Scriptures. But he deferred to the Church, realizing that IT is guided by the Spirit. We would NEVER know what the Bible WAS if we relied on Calvin's way of determining Sacred Scriptures - "let the Spirit tell me what is Scriptures"...
You have done a terrific job exposing the truth on this subject.
I hope other people who are sitting on the fence will also realize this. Only God can help the more obstinate who defer to their own opinions over common sense.
Regards