“You have not “refuted” anything. All you have done is to appeal to the protestant hermeneutical tradition to claim that the Holy Fathers of the Sixth Ecumenical Council erred,”
Though, coincidentally, they certainly err (they forbid marriage to clergy, amongst other things), my argument was that you didn’t actually understand what that Synod accomplished. That was why I quoted your Partriarch and John of Damascus who wrote after the synod, since the point was to demonstrate that the synod did not do what you claim it did. It didn’t actually give any lists, mind you, it simply affirmed a wide array of contradictory affirmations of people/synods they accepted.
If we understood it as you do, then the Trullan synod disagrees with itself, since it affirms the synod of Laodicia which does not list the apocrypha (save Baruch), of Carthage which affirms them, of Athanasius who denies them, of Amphilochius who denies them, of the Apostolic Canons which gives a list of scripture that includes the Epistles of Clement, and yet still denies the majority of the apocrypha, etc etc.
Hence the reason why I quoted a Partriarch and a “Holy Father” who agreed with me, but not with you, who wrote after the synod, since it demonstrates, as Henry Percival points out,
“We have thus four [five if we accept the Laodicean list as genuine] different canons of Holy Scripture, all having the approval of the Council in Trullo and of the Seventh Ecumenical. From this there seems but one conclusion possible, viz.: that the approval given was not specific but general.” (NPNF2, Vol. 14, The Seven Ecumenical Councils, Appendix Containing Canons and Rulings not Having Conciliar Origin But Approved by Name in Canon II of the Synod of Trullo, Appendix VIII, From the Iambics of St. Amphilochius the Bishop to Seleucus, on the Same Subject (The Canon of Holy Scripture), Note, p. 612.)
Unless you hold that the church can err, there is no other conclusion, as your theories don’t even make sense in their own universe, and you disagree with the Holy Fathers, especially of the East, who were near universal in their rejection of the apocrypha.
Mind you, they’re not perfect either. If memory serves, John of Damascus rejects Revelation. Athanasius is perfect except for Baruch, which he erroneously believed was accepted by the Jews.
“Trust me, we Orthodox are very adept at ignoring the words of patriarchs — “
And Church Fathers too, don’t forget them.
“You seem to fancy that the Masorete represents a faithful reproduction of the hypothetical Hebrew ur-text directly inspired of God, and thus appeal to rabbinic tradition (yes, that’s what you were appealing to — rabbis using a Hebrew particle in an unusual technical way when reading the Scriptures, rather than in its usual meaning is not Hebrew linguistics, but rabbinic tradition)”
The primary conclusions settled on the word “bara,” which was indeed linguistic and not “traditional,” though the “tradition” on “eth,” as you claim, was the same understanding taken by the translators of the Syriac and other Church Fathers. Thus, it was not an obscure reading.
Thus, your tradition conflicts with their tradition, if tradition it is. Come to think of it, a tradition can have no power unless it claims to be constant from the Apostles. If your tradition is different from the earlier traditions, it’s invalid.
You will come to find that most of your traditions disagree with someone elses earlier tradition. Hence the reason why scripture is the only reliable rule of faith (it doesn’t change, FYI.)
” I, with the Church, prefer the Septuagint, even though it’s in Greek, because that’s the version the Holy Apostles quoted from and the Church has always used”
You mean the Septuagint that removes important Messianic prophecies from the Old Testament? Such as: (note what’s missing)
Isaiah 9:6 (Septuagint)
“For a child is born to us, and a son is given to us, whose government is upon his shoulder: and his name is called the Messenger of great counsel: for I will bring peace upon the princes, and health to him. 7 His government shall be great, and of his peace there is no end: it shall be upon the throne of David, and upon his kingdom, to establish it, and to support it with judgment and with righteousness, from henceforth and forever. The seal of the Lord of hosts shall perform this.”
How Jerome translates it from the Hebrew into the Latin:
Isa 9:6 parvulus enim natus est nobis filius datus est nobis et factus est principatus super umerum eius et vocabitur nomen eius Admirabilis consiliarius Deus fortis Pater futuri saeculi Princeps pacis
And the KJV:
Isa 9:6 For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace.
How the Targum by Jonathan Ben Uzziel renders it in his paraphrase, 30 years before the time of Christ:
“The prophet said to the house of David, For unto us a Child is born, unto us a Son is given, and He has taken the law upon Himself to keep it. His name is called from eternity. Wonderful, The Mighty God, who liveth to eternity, The Messiah, whose peace shall be great upon us in His days.” (The Chaldee paraphrase on the prophet Isaiah [by Jonathan b. Uziel] tr. by C.W.H. Pauli)
Notice what’s missing?