Posted on 05/04/2011 10:56:18 AM PDT by Alex Murphy
Exactly ..
What? That Catholics added the New Testament to the canon and that Protestants reject the New Testament canon?
Yep
“In 1534, Martin Luther translated the Bible into German. He grouped the seven deuterocanonical books (Tobit, Judith, Wisdom, Sirach, Baruch, and I & II Maccabees) of the Old Testament under the title “Apocrypha,” declaring, “These are books which are not held equal to the Sacred Scriptures and yet are useful and good for reading.” Luther also categorized the New Testament books: “
http://www.catholiceducation.org/articles/religion/re0134.html
Luther categorized them the same way Augustine did ,,,, not inspired but suitable for spiritual reading
The Jewish canon was the one Christ read from in the temple, the majority of jewish communities used the canon that had been marked as inspired by the prophet Nehemiah ( ..that canon had been set from the days of Nehemiah... )but never officially until there was religious tension between Christianity and Judaism ... just was there was no closed Christian canon before Trent.
The Jews reject the books because they are not inspired, They contain errors and inconsistencies and contradictions even within the same book ...
The OT canon belongs to the Jews, God has never removed it from their care and authority ..Rome had no right to add uninspired books to their canon
“Rabbinic Judaism recognizes the twenty-four books of the Masoretic Text, commonly called the Tanakh or “Hebrew Bible”. Evidence suggests that the process of canonization occurred between 200 BC and AD 200, indeed a popular position is that the Torah was canonized c. 400 BC, the Prophets c. 200 BC, and the Writings c. AD 100[5] perhaps at a hypothetical Council of Jamnia—however this position is increasingly criticised by modern scholars. The book of Deuteronomy includes a prohibition against adding or subtracting (4:2, 12:32) which might apply to the book itself (i.e. a “closed book”, a prohibition against future scribal editing) or to the instruction received by Moses on Mt. Sinai.[6] The book of 2 Maccabees, itself not a part of the Jewish canon, describes Nehemiah (around 400 BC) as having “founded a library and collected books about the kings and prophets, and the writings of David, and letters of kings about votive offerings” (2:13–15). The Book of Nehemiah suggests that the priest-scribe Ezra brought the Torah back from Babylon to Jerusalem and the Second Temple (8–9) around the same time period. Both I and II Maccabees suggest that Judas Maccabeus (around 167 BC) likewise collected sacred books (3:42–50, 2:13–15, 15:6–9), indeed some scholars argue that the Jewish canon was fixed by the Hasmonean dynasty.[7] However, these primary sources do not suggest that the canon was at that time closed; moreover, it is not clear that these sacred books were identical to those that later became part of the canon. “The Men of the Great Assembly”, also known as the Great Synagogue, was, according to Jewish tradition, an assembly of 120 scribes, sages, and prophets, in the period from the end of the Biblical prophets to the time of the development of Rabbinic Judaism, marking a transition from an era of prophets to an era of Rabbis. They lived in a period of about two centuries ending c. 70 CE.[1]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_canon
What support do you have for this assertion? The Church is legitimate heir to the Old Testament through Jesus Christ and His Apostles. Rome added nothing that was not already among the Jewish canons. The Masoretic Text did not exist in its final form until many centuries after Christ.
Rabbinic Judaism recognizes the twenty-four books of the Masoretic Text
Again, the Masoretic Text does not contain the books of Ecclesiastes, Song of Solomon, and Esther. These books are, however, included in the Protestant canon. Do you disown the Protestant canon?
Again, the 'Masoretic text' DOES include the books of Ecclesiastes (Kohelet), Song of Solomon (Shir HaShirim), and Esther.
Leftist Wiki is not a good source when it comes to anything controversial. Generally, the understanding of a religion is greatly helped by knowing what it says about itself.
Your claims have no basis in history.
Somewhere between 430 B.C., under Esdras & Nehemiah, and 100 B.C. the O.T. was settled IN HEBREW.
Although there were Greek translations from then until Jerome made a fresh Latin translation, under Pope Damasus, the same collection of books remained.
In his cell in Bethlehem, between 392 and 404, he translated the O.T. into Latin DIRECTLY FROM THE HEBREW!
This is the same O.T. collection decreed by the Council of Trent to be included in the authoritative Bible in 1546.
The Council of Carthage settled the N.T. in 397.
What authority do you claim for Epiphanius and Hilary?
You are correct about these three books. However, I stand by my earlier claim that the KJV uses the Septuagint (LXX) instead of the Masoretic Text (MT) for the an important prophesies of Christ, including:
Isaiah 7:14
(LXX)-Behold, a virgin will conceive...
(MT)-Behold, a young woman will conceive...
(KJV)-Behold, a virgin will conceive...
If true, this would mean, according to the (non-Septuagint) OT canon and Zakkai's school, Jamnia c.90 A.D. :
Jesus is *not* the Messiah, there is no afterlife reference in the OT, and there's a curse on converts to Christianity.
Jerome learned Hebrew in order to translate the OT books for the Latin vulgate after living among the jews he learned the jews did not accept the apocrypha as inspired canon.So when he put together his Latin bible he did not include them in the inspired canon..he placed them in a separate section for readings .
All scripture is written by prophets.. yet in the book of Maccabees the author is clear saying there were no prophets in the land.. also Maccabees like the other apocrypha is not Christocentric ... all the hebrew books were given to the Jews to point to Christ.. yet these greek books lack that quality ...Christ is not found in them as he is in the hebrew bible..
These books contains many errors and contradictions ...God does not author contradictions and error.. He tells us clearly that if a prophet errors then he is no prophet ... so we must draw from that "scripture " that contains errors is not written by a prophet and it is not inspired..
But I think most to the point.. Rome had NO AUTHORITY to determine a canon of the OT ..God tells us plainly that the books were written by Hebrews for hebrews.. They reveal Gods prophetic words to reveal the messiah TO THEM...They are called the oracles of God in this regard..
The OT was written by them and placed in their care..not Rome's
I suppose you would have us believe that Judaism has a central authority that formally declared a canon. That is simply not true. You presume that Palestinian Jews were the only Jews, but there were vibrant, autonomous Jewish communities from Ethiopia to China and Malaysia most recognizing the Septuagint along with a number of other lost books.
Can you please provide a quote where Augustine said they are not inspired.
Where do you guys get this bit about how Jerome “put them in a separate book for reading”?
That’s simple nonsense!
Where is the indication by Jerome that he didn’t accept them?
“In the latter part of the century, Jerome recognizing the differences between the Greek Septuagint and the original Hebrew, began to make translations from the Hebrew text instead of the Septuagint. For that he was soundly criticized by many of his day. But he recognized and argued that the Septuagint was not the inspired originals, and that a more accurate translation would logically be made from the original Hebrew language of the Old Testament from which the Septuagint was taken. Jerome’s translation grew in importance and soon became the accepted Latin version. The version Jerome produced in the 4th century A.D. came to be regarded as the official Scripture of the Roman Catholic Church. But even then (contrary to revised teaching today), it clearly distinguished between the libri eccesiastici and the libri canonici. The Apocrypha was accorded secondary status, and not God inspired Canon for doctrine. At the Council of Carthage (397), which Augustine attended, the decision was to accept the Apocrypha as suitable for reading [still as a lower level then the rest of the Old Testament]. This despite Jerome’s maintaining that they should not be included in the Vulgate. Ironic that the Latin Vulgate remains the basis of the official Roman Catholic Bible, and yet the translator himself (Jerome) denied the Apocrypha as canonical.
http://www.mountainretreatorg.net/articles/apoc.html
Augustine agreed with Jerome that they were suitable for spiritual reading but not inspired..
http://www.mountainretreatorg.net/articles/apoc.html
Have you ever REALLY read them ? Have you noticed the inconsistencies and errors??
Yea THEIR CANON
God never removed the authority over that canon to the Gentiles.. That is the word of God to the Jews.. that is Gods covenant with the hebrew people.. Rome had NO AUTHORITY to remake the OT in its image and likeness..
Jesus gave the church the New Testament .. that is His covenant with us.. The OT His covenant with them
Have you ever really studied the Apocrypha ,have you not seen the errors and inconsistencies in them?
One more time... All scripture is written by prophets, Gods word tells us if a prophet errors he is no prophet of God ... and in Maccabees itself it tells us there are no prophets in the land
The books may have some historic interest or background.. but they are not the inspired word of God..
By "their" do you mean some Jews, all Jews, only Palestinian Jews, the exclusion of Ethiopian and Egyptian Jews, people of Jewish ethnicity, or the inheritors of Judaism?
Do you make any accommodations for Orthodox, Reformed, Conservative, Hasidic, Kabbalah, the Pharisees, Sadducees, the Essenes, Therapeutae, Bana'im, Hypsistarians, Hemerobaptists, MaghÄriya, Sephardic or the historic Jewish schisms; the Samaritans, Karaite Judaism, Sabbatians and Frankists, Messianic Judaism, Jews for Jesus, or a number of other smaller sects?
How do you account for the recognition of the Talmud and Tanakh as Scripture by many Jewish sects?
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.