-
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
-
CF has always been a site that welcomes people from different backgrounds and beliefs to participate in discussion and even debate. That is the nature of its ministry. In view of recent events emotions are running very high. We need to remind people of some basic principles in debating on this site. We need to be civil when we express differences in opinion. No personal attacks. Avoid you, your statements. Don't characterize an entire political party with comparisons to Fascism or Communism or other extreme movements that committed atrocities. CF is not the place for broad brush or blanket statements about groups and political parties. Put the broad brushes and blankets away when you come to CF, better yet, put them in the incinerator. Debate had no place for them. We need to remember that people that commit acts of violence represent themselves or a small extreme faction.
Protestant canon
- Thread starter Montalban
- Start date
- Status
heymikey80
Quidquid Latine dictum sit, altum viditur
That was the "briefly".
A.S. gives people an argument that is only internally consistent a long as certain facts are neglected.
It's like the astronaut who believed the moon was made of blue cheese. He thought he loved blue cheese until he went to the moon and tasted it.
Upvote
0
Ortho_Cat
Orthodox Christian
I'd say the LXX is more than "Judaica" (i.e. those writings which pertain to jewish customs or tradiiton). The LXX was considered to be sacred scripture, used by the jews during 3rd century BC to 2 century AD. There were many jewish writings which were not included in the LXX, which could have been.
The authority of the larger group of "writings", out of which the ketuvim were selected, had not yet been determined, although some sort of selective process must have been employed because the Septuagint did not include other well-known Jewish documents such as Enoch or Jubilees or other writings that are now part of the Pseudepigrapha. It is not known what principles were used to determine the contents of the Septuagint beyond the "Law and the Prophets", a phrase used several times in the New Testament.
The earliest complete manuscripts we have of LXX are centuries older than those for the masoretic text. Remnants of both can be found at Qumran.
The term deuterocanonical is used to distinguish from the other protocanonical books read during liturgy. I know of few churches (perhaps Ethiopian Orthodox) who consider proto's and deutero's to be on the same "level" so to speak; nevertheless, they are still considered part of sacred scripture and used for "instruction in godliness." (Athanasius).
What more authority is needed if Christ and his Apostles authorized the greek translation of scripture by their words?
Upvote
0
Standing Up
On and on
Indeed. From this thread, it's clear folks don't know the difference between the 22-24 scripture within the larger canon. Not too surprising given the equality of Tradition and Scripture some teach. Big book no doubt.
Upvote
0
Ortho_Cat
Orthodox Christian
Originally Posted by heymikey80
Now now, no one said all books were treated equally, just that the deutero's were included in the greek translations of scriptures used by the majority of jews at the time (greek speaking).
Sure. The LXX is a Greek translation of Judaica. To conclude every book is assessed equally goes against everything we know about the treatment of the canon by the Jewish people.
Indeed. From this thread, it's clear folks don't know the difference between the 22-24 scripture within the larger canon. Not too surprising given the equality of Tradition and Scripture some teach. Big book no doubt.
Now now, no one said all books were treated equally, just that the deutero's were included in the greek translations of scriptures used by the majority of jews at the time (greek speaking).
Upvote
0
Standing Up
On and on
Yes, but the leap is that they were therefore 'accepted' as scripture. They weren't very early on. Basically, Rome adopted Augustine's take c400ad, rather than Jerome's. I quoted one tiny paragraph of their exchange. It may be worth considering.
Upvote
0
heymikey80
Quidquid Latine dictum sit, altum viditur
Aquila replaced the LXX readily; awfully fast for a translation that omitted texts the Jewish people considered inspired. The translation was made in the early 100s.
Upvote
0
SummaScriptura
Forever Newbie
- May 30, 2007
- 6,986
- 1,051
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Baptist
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Constitution
Then why did the LXX continue to be the text of the Bible used by the Church for another three centuries?
Upvote
0
heymikey80
Quidquid Latine dictum sit, altum viditur
Around 130 AD. So you're saying that Judaism had ripped its inspired texts apart by 130 AD, while at the same time trying to preserve all that was left of their world?
Upvote
0
Ortho_Cat
Orthodox Christian
What the Jews rejected were all the Christian writings (which included the books which eventually became the New Testament) and the Septuagint. They rejected the Septuagint because the Christians were using it to support their own views of the Messiah (Jesus Christ) and quoting from it in their writings. The LXX is very Christological.
Upvote
0
A
Anoetos
Guest
Well...no...that's the usual spin put on it, but it's not really true. The Palestinian rabbinate had been disapproving of any translation of the Tanakh into heathen language since the Rabbis of Alexandria first undertook to do it.
It had more to do with Antihellenism than Antichristianity
Upvote
0
A
Anoetos
Guest
That said though, I'll admit that it's coopting by the nascent church didn't do anything to improve their opinion of it.
I doubt they were aware that Tobit and Judith had earlier Aramaic editions.
I doubt they were aware that Tobit and Judith had earlier Aramaic editions.
Upvote
0
- Status
Similar threads
