Sacrifice and Catholic teaching

[fhansen]

Even if you torture that Bible passage in order to come up with such an interpretation, nothing is ruled in, either. And that's exactly the same with the verse that is most often cited in support of Holy Tradition in which it says to hold fast to the traditions (not the "Holy Tradition" theory, note) that you/they have received.

Well, by whatever name we want to call it, there were traditions or teachings that they were told to keep and hold to; and we certainly shouldn't be wrong to conclude that such teachings would be holy or sacred. And it's only speculation from a present-day perspective as to whether or not some or all or none of the Traditions that the Church holds to are those spoken of in Scripture.

 

[Arsenios]

Indeed! that the Holy Spirit opens your eyes (and mine) to Bible Truth ONLY!

Thank you for whatever prayers you may afford me...
For myself, I only pray for God's Great Mercy...
I do not presume to direct His Holy Hand...
May God have Mercy on us all...

Arsenios

 

[Arsenios]

Well, by whatever name we want to call it, there were traditions or teachings that they were told to keep and hold to; and we certainly shouldn't be wrong to conclude that such teachings would be holy or sacred. And it's only speculation from a present-day perspective as to whether or not some or all or none of the Traditions that the Church holds to are those spoken of in Scripture.

2Thess. 2:15
Therefore, Brethren,
Be ye standing fast,
And be ye holding the Traditions which ye have been taught,
Whether by word,
Or whether
By our epistle.

Well, unless one denies this passage is from the Bible, then the Bible definitely does teach that we are to hold to what has been passed along [paradosis] - eg Traditions - And to stand fast keeping to them, and these BOTH by oral giving, or by written epistles...

So...

What does our nameless Brother posting under TheBibleIsTruth say?
Is the keeping of Tradition Biblical?
Or...
Do you DENY that it is Biblical??

Arsenios

 

[Arsenios]

then keep with your "extra biblical" stuff, which is no NO value before the God of the Bible, because He did NOT write any of it!

God writes on stone cold rocks...
And He writes in warm and softened (eg circumcised) hearts...
These hearts are of those men who wrote the Bible...
And their assembly, the Ekklesia, closed the Canon for you...

Arsenios

 

[Arsenios]

so long...

1Co 13:4-8
Love suffereth long,
and is kind;
Love envieth not;
Love vaunteth not itself,
is not puffed up,
Doth not behave itself unseemly,
seeketh not her own,
is not easily provoked,
thinketh no evil;
Rejoiceth not in iniquity,
but rejoiceth in the truth;
Beareth all things,
believeth all things,
hopeth all things,
endureth all things.
Charity never faileth

My Brother, Please do not dismiss a brother so easily...

Arsenios

 

[SolomonVII]

There is an element of truth in that statement, however the Catholic churches which use Tradition (RC, EO, and others) assert that the Tradition they adhere to is not just the customary or historic way of reading the Bible, but that there is a second and equal stream of divine revelation next to the Scriptures which God has given for our guidance, and that it is to be found in the consensus of opinion in the church from the beginning of the church forwards.

There is no Scriptural warrant for that notion, and the doctrines that are supposedly based on such Tradition cannot be shown, from history, actually have been part of the church's thinking from the beginning.

The history of Christianity is very complicated. Everybody has their reasons for believing the way they do, and for the bigger part, we just follow those who have come before. That is part of the faith journey too- agnostics who have to check out every single proposition before they decide would have to live their entire lives in a limbo of indecision and perpetual hesitation. It would be impossible to be a true agnostic, because what is unknown is always going to be greater than what is known in a universe that approaches infinity.
That being said, Christians and Jews can have meaningful discussions when it comes to matters pertaining to the Old Testament, and Christians can have meaningful discussions when it comes to subjects that the Bible cover in general.
That is, if they want to.
It is obvious to me that anyone who is throwing Mary into the mix of this particular discussion is not even interested in meaningful discourse.
Do Catholics re-sacrifice Christ at every Mass?
I think that the answer to that is no. The way to see through the very difficult teachings involved is to understand the difference between ordinary, and sacred time.
For instance, is Jesus born in Bethelehem every time we celebrate the Feasts of the Incarnation? The answer to that would be no too, even though there are weeks of Masses commemorating the Christmas event.
There is a cycle of sacred observances, but time itself is not an endless repetition of the same. Catholics are not Nieztchean in that regard.
Nevertheless, the Mass is more than a remembrance of things past. We do not attend Mass as historians. Catholicism is a sacramental church, and the sacrifice of the Eucharist is a real today as it was at Calvary, when Jesus offers himself eternally as the Paschal Lamb of God.

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

The history of Christianity is very complicated.

YHWH made everything simple.
....
man came up with many devices.

 

[PeaceB]

Well, then, the best approach probably would be for you to find out what your own church teaches and then come back and resume the discussion.

No, the best approach would be for you to study what the Catholic Church teaches, and stop spreading falsehoods (a.k.a. your personal opinions) concerning what the Catholic Church teaches.

You will not find the words "physical presence" or "physically present" in any official teachings of the Catholic Church. One does not break a piece of Jesus's body in half when a consecrated host is broken. The Catholic Church has never taught this.

Here is Cardinal Ratzinger:

https://adoremus.org/2004/06/15/Cardinal-Ratzinger-The-Living-Liturgy-A-Gift-from-Heaven/

But this is not a statement of physics. It has never been asserted that, so to say, nature in a physical sense is being changed. The transformation reaches down to a more profound level. Tradition has it that this is a metaphysical process. Christ lays hold upon what is, from a purely physical viewpoint, bread and wine, in its inmost being, so that it is changed from within and Christ truly gives Himself in them.
​

Here is Ludwig Ott:

It follows from the dogma of Transubstantiation that the accidents after the change of the substances of the bread and wine exist without their own natural substance in which to inhere. . . The Body and the Blood of Christ cannot be bearers of the accidents of bread and wine; nor can any other substance. It follows from this that the accidents continue without any subject. The Roman Catechism calls this teaching "the perpetual and constant teaching of the Catholic Church". (Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, page 383).

. . .​

Consequently, the quantitas dimensiva of the body and blood of Christ is not present in the manner peculiar to it (secundum modum proprium), that is, not in three dimensional filling of space, but in a manner of substance (per modum substantiae), that is, without actual extension. Cf. S. th. III 76,4. In order to make this mode of being present in the Blessed Sacrament more acceptable to human imagination, theologians distinguish between two formal operations of quantity, the inner extension, that is, the ability of the Body to spread out in three dimensions, and the outer extension, that is, the filling of space in point of fact. The relationship between them is as of cause and effect. While the former belongs to the nature of the body, and for this reason is inseparable from the body, the latter can be abrogated by a miraculous intervention of God. In the Sacrament Christ’s Body is present with the inner, but without the outer extension. (Fundamentals, page 389).​

Now, here is exactly what I wrote:

I don't think the Catholic Church teaches a physical presence. Jesus becomes corporally present, but not in the manner in which a body occupies a place. It it not as though you break a piece of Jesus apart when a consecrated host is broken in half, or that Jesus's body becomes hot and cold when the temperature in the room changes. I don't think you will find any official Catholic documents that speak of a physical presence.​

And I took that language right from Mysterium Fidei, which you would have realized if you had read it:

Mysterium Fidei (September 3, 1965) | Paul VI

To avoid any misunderstanding of this type of presence, which goes beyond the laws of nature and constitutes the greatest miracle of its kind, (50) we have to listen with docility to the voice of the teaching and praying Church. Her voice, which constantly echoes the voice of Christ, assures us that the way in which Christ becomes present in this Sacrament is through the conversion of the whole substance of the bread into His body and of the whole substance of the wine into His blood, a unique and truly wonderful conversion that the Catholic Church fittingly and properly calls transubstantiation. (51) As a result of transubstantiation, the species of bread and wine undoubtedly take on a new signification and a new finality, for they are no longer ordinary bread and wine but instead a sign of something sacred and a sign of spiritual food; but they take on this new signification, this new finality, precisely because they contain a new "reality" which we can rightly call ontological. For what now lies beneath the aforementioned species is not what was there before, but something completely different; and not just in the estimation of Church belief but in reality, since once the substance or nature of the bread and wine has been changed into the body and blood of Christ, nothing remains of the bread and the wine except for the species—beneath which Christ is present whole and entire in His physical "reality," corporeally present, although not in the manner in which bodies are in a place.
​

Trent speaks of a sacramental presence, not a physical presence:

~The Council of Trent - Session 13~

On the real presence of our Lord Jesus Christ in the most holy sacrament of the Eucharist.

In the first place, the holy Synod teaches, and openly and simply professes, that, in the august sacrament of the holy Eucharist, after the consecration of the bread and wine, our Lord Jesus Christ, true God and man, is truly, really, and substantially contained under the species of those sensible things. For neither are these things mutually repugnant,-that our Saviour Himself always sitteth at the right hand of the Father in heaven, according to the natural mode of existing, and that, nevertheless, He be, in many other places, sacramentally present to us in his own substance, by a manner of existing, which, though we can scarcely express it in words, yet can we, by the understanding illuminated by faith, conceive, and we ought most firmly to believe, to be possible unto God: for thus all our forefathers, as many as were in the true Church of Christ, who have treated of this most holy Sacrament, have most openly professed, that our Redeemer instituted this so admirable a sacrament at the last supper, when, after the blessing of the bread and wine, He testified, in express and clear words, that He gave them His own very Body, and His own Blood; words which,-recorded by the holy Evangelists, and afterwards repeated by Saint Paul, whereas they carry with them that proper and most manifest meaning in which they were understood by the Fathers,-it is indeed a crime the most unworthy that they should be wrested, by certain contentions and wicked men, to fictitious and imaginary tropes, whereby the verity of the flesh and blood of Christ is denied, contrary to the universal sense of the Church, which, as the pillar and ground of truth, has detested, as satanical, these inventions devised by impious men; she recognising, with a mind ever grateful and unforgetting, this most excellent benefit of Christ.
​

. . .​

CANON VIII. lf any one saith, that Christ, given in the Eucharist, is eaten spiritually only, and not also sacramentally and really; let him be anathema.​

So once again you prove yourself to be nothing more than a poorly catechized ex-Catholic who does not know what he is talking about. You are welcome to post official teachings of the Catholic Church at any time to support your assertions. You have been asked numerous times to do so, and you always refuse. So not only are you in error, but you are also disingenuous, and a liar. And that goes for your friend @Phil 1:21 as well.

 

[PeaceB]

Please use scripture to substantiate your position. And I am digging into honest, and plain to see in my opinion, paradoxes in Catholic doctrine. In your above quote, it says-

" in the last supper, on the night in which He was betrayed,--that He might leave, to His own beloved Spouse the Church, a visible sacrifice, such as the nature of man requires, whereby that bloody sacrifice, once to be accomplished on the cross, might be represented, and the memory thereof remain even unto the end of the world, and its salutary virtue be applied to the remission of those sins which we daily commit,"

This suggest, that communion and receiving communion remits sins.

"its salutary virtue be applied to the remission of those sins"

Believing in Jesus forgives sins. I know Catholics who recieve communion everyday, and are some of the worst and arrogant people on the planet. Also, Priest who were later nailed for being perverts, whom I recieved communion from, who have not admitted wrongdoing, and whose daily sins were and are not remitted just from receiving communion. I do not believe by recieving communion you are forgiven sins or they are remitted. It is just following Jesus' command.

Now as they were eating, Jesus took bread, and after blessing it broke it and gave it to the disciples, and said, “Take, eat; this is my body.” 27 And he took a cup, and when he had given thanks he gave it to them, saying, “Drink of it, all of you, 28 for this is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins.​

And when the hour came, he reclined at table, and the apostles with him. 15 And he said to them, “I have earnestly desired to eat this Passover with you before I suffer. 16 For I tell you I will not eat it until it is fulfilled in the kingdom of God.” 17 And he took a cup, and when he had given thanks he said, “Take this, and divide it among yourselves. 18 For I tell you that from now on I will not drink of the fruit of the vine until the kingdom of God comes.” 19 And he took bread, and when he had given thanks, he broke it and gave it to them, saying, “This is my body, which is given for you. Do this in remembrance of me.” 20 And likewise the cup after they had eaten, saying, “This cup that is poured out for you is the new covenant in my blood.​

Please pray to the spirit to open your eyes, through his word, not mans opinions. Peace

OK. I will. You do the same.

 

[PeaceB]

"Mary falls into the latter", where in the Bible is this found, or is it just a guess?

I am not aware of any explicit teaching of that in the Bible. Nor is it just a guess.

at least the Protestants use the Holy Bible as their ultimate Authority, while the catholics and orthodox are more interested in "church tradition"! The difference is HUGE!

No, the Bible is not your ultimate authority. You do not even have a Bible, nor do you even know what the Bible is. You are subject to nothing other than the dictates of your own conscience and your own personal interpretations of some of the books of the Bible. You reject many books that comprise the written word of God, and you should be ashamed of yourself for doing so. So it can hardly be said that you are a Bible Christian.

 

[concretecamper]

So once again you prove yourself to be nothing more than poorly catechized ex-Catholic who does not know what he is talking about. You are welcome to post official teachings of the Catholic Church at any time to support your assertions. You have been asked numerous times to do so, and you always refuse. So not only are you in error, but you are also disingenuous, and a liar.

He will report you for calling him a liar. Also, I am copying to a document all the false quotes about what the RCC teaches. It will come in handy in the future

 

[TheBibleIsTruth]

I am not aware of any explicit teaching of that in the Bible. Nor is it just a guess.


No, the Bible is not your ultimate authority. You do not even have a Bible, nor do you even know what the Bible is. You are subject to nothing other than the dictates of your own conscience and your own personal interpretations of some of the books of the Bible. You reject many books that comprise the written word of God, and you should be ashamed of yourself for doing so. So it can hardly be said that you are a Bible Christian.

The Bible might not be your ultimate Authority, but it is for all those who are non-RC's and have a high regard for God's Word!

 

[Arsenios]

I am copying to a document all the false quotes about what the RCC teaches.
It will come in handy in the future

"Love... Rejoiceth not in iniquity,"

Please throw away such a list, my friend...
It only harbours hard-heartedness of heart...

Arsenios

 

[PeaceB]

The Bible might not be your ultimate Authority, but it is for all those who are non-RC's and have a high regard for God's Word!

No. You do not even have the Bible. You have a part of the Bible. You reject at least 7 books of the inspired word of God, so you do not have a high regard for God's word. You should be ashamed of yourself for rejecting God's word.

 

[TheBibleIsTruth]

No. You do not even have the Bible. You have a part of the Bible. You reject at least 7 books of the inspired word of God, so you do not have a high regard for God's word. You should be ashamed of yourself for rejecting God's word.

A Study I did on The Canon of the Old Testament Books

THE CANON OF THE OLD TESTAMENT BOOKS

• The so called "Protestant" Canon of the Old Testament has 39 Books, which are the same that the Hebrew Bible Canon has, which is 22 Books. Though there are different number of Books, there is no difference in the content, as it is only the way the Books have been grouped, in the Canons. The Hebrew Canon has not changed from the time when the Books of the Old Testament were complied into one Book. There is no evidence to show that at any time the Hebrew Canon ever had more, or less Books. Any such suggestions are not based on facts, but conjecture, and must be rejected. The evidence below shows the exact number of the Books in the Hebrew Canon. The early evidence of the Jewish historian, Josephus, who lived between 37-100 A.D., during the life-time of the Apostles, is that of only 22 Books. This in itself is conclusive.
  
• The next "Canon" of the Old Testament Books, is from the Greek translation of the Hebrew Old Testament, known as the Septuagint, which was the work of Jewish scholars, and completed in about 150 B.C. There are additional books in this translation of the Greek Old Testament, which some argue to be the original "Canon" of the Old Testament Books, as do the Roman Catholic church. It is wrongly assumed, that as the Septuagint was based on Hebrew manuscripts, and it differs from the Hebrew Canon of today, which is said to be of a later date, that the Septuagint books have to be right. It is admitted that the Septuagint does have additional books, which are not found in the Hebrew Bible at any time. However, what we are not told by those who prefer the Septuagint Old Testament, is that what we have today, is not the same as what the original Septuagint had, as its books. The Septuagint has over the centuries. been through a great number of "revisions", starting from the 2nd century A.D. The scholar Origen, who lived between 185-254 A.D., said that there were so many different "readings" to some of the text of the Septuagint, when he was working on a Greek translation. As the evidence below shows, there are some "books" that are included in the Septuagint we have today, which could not have formed part of the original work, which was completed by 150 B.C.. 1 and 2 Maccabees, Baruch, and Wisdom, were written after the Septuagint was completed, by between 50-100 years, which can only mean that they could not have been in the original Septuagint, but included in one of its "revisions". This in itself shows beyond any doubt, that the "books" in the Septuagint that we have today, and what Jerome, and later the Roman Catholic church, used, are not part of any original "canon", either Hebrew, or Greek, and therefore cannot be included with the Books of the Old Testament that are established in the Hebrew Canon.
  
• We next have the Latin "canon" of the Old Testament Books, which is from the translation known as the "Latin Vulgate", which is the work of the scholar, Jerome, who lived between 347-420 A.D. Jerome's work was originally based on only the Hebrew Canon Books of the Old Testament, as he rejected the Septuagint, with its additional books. He based his version on the Hebrew manuscripts of his time, and also, in his original work, has the same number of Books, as does the Hebrew Canon. His objection and reasons can be seen below. Because of the fact that the Old Latin version of the Old Testament, which was from a century before Jerome, did include the additional books, being based on the Septuagint, and was read by some in the Church, that Jerome translated these books into Latin, but stressed that they were not for the purpose of "doctrine", but could be read for edification. Like the Septuagint, Jerome's Latin Bible went through a great number of "revisions", and it was then that these additional books were included into the Latin Old Testament. Even though the Old Latin version was based on the Septuagint, the inclusion of these additional books, could not have been from the original Septuagint, as it did not contain these books, as their dates excludes them.
  

THE HEBREW CANON

From the Jewish Encyclopaedia

"The Jewish canon comprises twenty-four books, the five of the Pentateuch, eight books of the Prophets (Joshua, Judges, Samuel, Kings, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, the Minor Prophets), and eleven Hagiographa (Psalms, Proverbs, Job, Song of Solomon, Ruth, Lamentations, Ecclesiastes, Esther,Daniel, Ezra, and Chronicles). Samuel and Kings form but a single book each, as is seen in Aquila's Greek translation. The "twelve" prophets were known to Ecclus. (Sirach) as one book (xlix. 10), and the separation of Ezra from Nehemiah is not indicated in either the Talmud or the Masorah. A Bible codex written in Spain in 1448 divides Samuel, Kings, and Ezra into two books each (Ginsburg, l.c. p. 586). These books are classified and arranged into three subdivisions, "Torah," "Prophets," and "Hagiographa"; " (BIBLE CANON - JewishEncyclopedia.com)

Josephus - Jewish Historian. 1st Century A.D (against Apion I.7-8)

"And if any of these have been transgressors of these rules, they are prohibited to present themselves at the altar, or to be partakers of any other of our purifications. And this is justly, or rather necessarily done: because every one is not permitted of his own accord to be a writer; nor is there any disagreement in what is written. They being only prophets that have written the original and eldest accounts of things, as they learned them of God himself, by inspiration: and others have written what hath happened in their own times, and that in a very distinct manner also.

For we have not an innumerable multitude of books among us, disagreeing from, and contradicting one another: [as the Greeks have:] but only twenty two books: which contain the records of all the past times: which are justly believed to be divine. And of them five belong to Moses: which contain his laws, and the traditions of the origin of mankind, till his death. This interval of time was little short of three thousand years. But as to the time from the death of Moses, till the reign of Artaxerxes, King of Persia, who reigned after Xerxes, the Prophets, who were after Moses, wrote down what was done in their times, in thirteen books. The remaining four books contain hymns to God; and precepts for the conduct of human life. ’Tis true, our history hath been written since Artaxerxes very particularly; but hath not been esteemed of the like authority with the former by our forefathers; because there hath not been an exact succession of Prophets since that time. And how firmly we have given credit to these books of our own nation, is evident by what we do. For during so many ages as have already passed, no one has been so bold, as either to add any thing to them; to take any thing from them; or to make any change in them. But it is become natural to all Jews, immediately, and from their very birth, to esteem these books to contain divine doctrines; and to persist in them: and, if occasion be, willingly to die for them. For ’tis no new thing for our captives, many of them in number, and frequently in time, to be seen to endure wracks, and deaths of all kinds, upon the theatres; that they may not be obliged to say one word against our laws, and the records that contain them. Whereas there are none at all among the Greeks who would undergo the least harm on that account: no nor in case all the writings that are among them were to be destroyed. For they take them to be such discourses as are framed agreeably to the inclinations of those that write them. And they have justly the same opinion of the elder writers: since they see some of the present generation bold enough to write about such affairs, wherein they were not present; nor had concern enough to inform themselves about them from those that knew them. Examples of which may be had in this late war of ours: where some persons have written histories, and published them, without having been in the places concerned; or having been near them when the actions were done: but these men put a few things together, by hearsay; and insolently abuse the world; and call these writings by the name of Histories. (Josephus: Against Apion I)

From Catholic Faith and Reason

"Toward the end of the first century A.D. at Jamnia, they decided that their Bible consisted only of books written up to the time of Ezra, when prophecy was deemed to have ceased; and this criterion, though not applied uniformly, excluded the books of more recent origin which were on the whole less in accord with the Pharisaic outlook. the need for a decision was forced upon the Jews because of the growing controversies with Christians; and besides delimiting the Canon of Scripture they also not long afterward condemned the Greek Septuagint translation as inaccurate" (Jerome Bible Commentary, Introduction, http://www.catholicfaithandreason.org/the-canon-of-the-old-testament.html)

From The Catholic Encyclopaedia

"The so-called Council of Jamnia (c. A.D. 90) has reasonably been taken as having terminated the disputes between rival rabbinic schools concerning the canonicity of Canticles. So while the intuitive sense and increasingly reverent consciousness of the faithful element of Israel could, and presumably did, give a general impulse and direction to authority, we must conclude that it was the word of official authority which actually fixed the limits of the Hebrew Canon, and here, broadly speaking, the advanced and conservative exegetes meet on common ground." (CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: Canon of the Old Testament)

From The Catholic Encyclopaedia

The canon among the Palestinian Jews (protocanonical books). It has already been intimated that there is a smaller, or incomplete, and larger, or complete, Old Testament. Both of these were handed down by the Jews; the former by the Palestinian, the latter by the Alexandrian, Hellenist, Jews. The Jewish Bible of today is composed of three divisions, whose titles combined form the current Hebrew name for the complete Scriptures of Judaism: Hat-Torah, Nebiim, wa-Kéthubim, i.e. The Law, the Prophets, and the Writings. This triplication is ancient; it is supposed as long-established in the Mishnah, the Jewish code of unwritten sacred laws reduced to writing, c. A.D. 200. A grouping closely akin to it occurs in the New Testament in Christ's own words, Luke 24:44: "All things must needs be fulfilled, which are written in the law of Moses, and in the prophets, and in the psalms concerning me". Going back to the prologue of Ecclesiasticus, prefixed to it about 132 B.C., we find mentioned "the Law, and the Prophets, and others that have followed them". The Torah, or Law, consists of the five Mosaic books, Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy. The Prophets were subdivided by the Jews into the Former Prophets [i.e. the prophetico-historical books: Josue, Judges, 1 and 2 Samuel (I and II Kings), and 1 and 2 Kings (III and IV Kings)] and the Latter Prophets (Isaias, Jeremias, Ezechiel, and the twelve minor Prophets, counted by the Hebrews as one book). The Writings, more generally known by a title borrowed from the Greek Fathers, Hagiographa (holy writings), embrace all the remaining books of the Hebrew Bible. Named in the order in which they stand in the current Hebrew text, these are: Psalms, Proverbs, Job, Canticle of Canticles, Ruth, Lamentations, Ecclesiastes, Esther, Daniel, Esdras, Nehemias, or II Esdras, Paralipomenon." (CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: Canon of the Old Testament)
From Global Catholic Network

"During the first century, the Jews disagreed as to what constituted the canon of Scripture. In fact, there were a large number of different canons in use, including the growing canon used by Christians. In order to combat the spreading Christian cult, rabbis met at the city of Jamnia or Javneh in A.D. 90 to determine which books were truly the Word of God. They pronounced many books, including the Gospels, to be unfit as scriptures. This canon also excluded seven books (Baruch, Sirach, 1 and 2 Maccabees, Tobit, Judith, and the Wisdom of Solomon, plus portions of Esther and Daniel) that Christians considered part of the Old Testament.

The group of Jews which met at Javneh became the dominant group for later Jewish history, and today most Jews accept the canon of Javneh. However, some Jews, such as those from Ethiopia, follow a different canon which is identical to the Catholic Old Testament and includes the seven deuterocanonical books (cf. Encyclopedia Judaica, vol. 6, p. 1147)." (James Akin)

THE GREEK CANON

From Sir Frederic Kenyon

"This, however, is merely an exaggeration of the original story, which is in itself mostly legendary, though containing a substratum of truth. First it should be noticed that Aristeas is speaking of the Greek Pentateuch, and properly the term 'Septuagint' should be confined to this, though following early Christian usage it is applied to the Greek Bible as a whole. Again, it may be accepted that a Greek translation of the Law was already in existence by about 250 b.c., or even earlier, and that it was sponsored by Jewish authorities at Alexandria. But whether this official version was promulgated at that time, or nearer to that of Aristeas himself (c. 130-100 b.c.) is a question which will be referred to later. On the other hand, it is clear that the translation was made by Hellenistic Jews, not Palestinian as the Letter of Aristeas states, and in the first instance for Jews, either for use in the synagogue in public worship or for private study. The other books were added later, by different translators at different times; the Prophets by c. 150, the Hagiographa by the beginning of the Christian era. As we have seen, the grandson of ben Sira found not only the Law, but the Prophets and "the rest of the books" in Greek c. 132 b.c., and he also notes that they "have no small difference when they are spoken in their own language "-i.e. that they differed to some extent from the Hebrew. Indeed the style of the translation differs so markedly in different books as to prove that the whole Old Testament cannot have been the work of a single group of translators. The Pentateuch itself bears evidence of different hands. The prophetic books are much freer, and this is especially noticeable in the case of Isaiah, which often defeated the translators, who took refuge in paraphrase. The 'Septuagint' text of Daniel, on the other hand, was replaced in nearly all Christian copies by the version of Theodotion (or that later revised by Theodotion) because of its divergence from the Hebrew" (Our Bible and the Ancient Manuscripts, p.99)

From Encyclopaedia Britannica (on date written)

"Septuagint, abbreviation LXX, the earliest extant Greek translation of the Old Testament from the original Hebrew. The Septuagint was presumably made for the Jewish community in Egypt when Greek was the common language throughout the region. Analysis of the language has established that the Torah, or Pentateuch (the first five books of the Old Testament), was translated near the middle of the 3rd century bce and that the rest of the Old Testament was translated in the 2nd century bce." (Septuagint | biblical literature)

From Bible Odyssey (on date written)

"Old Greek (OG) or Septuagint

The earliest translation of the Hebrew Bible is the Old Greek (OG), the translation made in Alexandria, Egypt, for the use of the Greek-speaking Jewish community there. At first, just the Torah was translated, in the third century B.C.E.; the rest of the biblical books were translated later. The whole Hebrew Bible was likely translated into ancient Greek by the middle of the second century B.C.E." (What Are the Earliest Versions and Translations of the Bible?)

From Global Catholic Network (for books in LXX)

"The version of the Bible in use at the time of Jesus was the Septuagint (abbreviated LXX, for the 70 men who translated it from Hebrew into Greek by the beginning of the first century B.C.). This version of the Bible included the seven Deuterocanonical books. This was the version of the Old Testament used by the New Testament authors and by Christians during the first century A.D." (EWTN.com - The 7 books removed by Martin Luther.)

From Catholic Education (for books in LXX)

"The Septuagint version of Scripture, from which Christ quoted, includes the Deuterocanonical books, books that were supposedly "added" by Rome in the 16th century. And this is by no means the only citation of the Septuagint in the New Testament. In fact, fully two thirds of the Old Testament passages that are quoted in the New Testament are from the Septuagint. So why aren't the deuterocanonical books in today's Jewish Bible, anyway? Because the Jews who formulated the modern Jewish canon were a) not interested in apostolic teaching and, b) driven by a very different set of concerns from those motivating the apostolic community." (5 Myths about 7 Books)

From The Catholic Encyclopaedia

The most explicit definition of the Catholic Canon is that given by the Council of Trent, Session IV, 1546. For the Old Testament its catalogue reads as follows:

The five books of Moses (Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy), Josue, Judges, Ruth, the four books of Kings, two of Paralipomenon, the first and second of Esdras (which latter is called Nehemias), Tobias, Judith, Esther, Job, the Davidic Psalter (in number one hundred and fifty Psalms), Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, the Canticle of Canticles, Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, Isaias, Jeremias, with Baruch, Ezechiel, Daniel, the twelve minor Prophets (Osee, Joel, Amos, Abdias, Jonas, Micheas, Nahum, Habacuc, Sophonias, Aggeus, Zacharias, Malachias), two books of Machabees, the first and second.

The order of books copies that of the Council of Florence, 1442, and in its general plan is that of the Septuagint. The divergence of titles from those found in the Protestant versions is due to the fact that the official Latin Vulgate retained the forms of the Septuagint. (CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: Canon of the Old Testament)

Books of Maccabees (dates written)

From United States Conference of Catholic Bishops

"First Maccabees was written about 100 B.C., in Hebrew, but the original has not come down to us. Instead, we have an early, pre-Christian, Greek translation full of Hebrew idioms" (scripture)

From Catholic News Agency

“I Maccabees. Author: Unknown, Date Written: c. 100 BC, Date of Narrative: (323-104 BC) - (I Maccabees :: Catholic News Agency)

II Maccabees. Author: Unknown, Date Written: c. 100 BC, Date of Narrative: 180-161 BC - (http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/resources/bible/introduction-to-the-old-testament/ii-maccabees/)

From Catholic Answers

"As far as the dates of composition are concerned, these can be taken as approximately 100 B.C. for the first and 124 B.C. for the second, on the basis of the information given in the first letter they refer to (2 Mace. 1:9)." (https://www.catholic.com/magazine/print-edition/1-2-maccabees)

From Encyclopaedia Biblica
On I Maccabees. "The book must, therefore, have been completed before the year 63 B.C." (vol. III. 2859)

On I Maccabees "It seems therefore most probable, on the whole, that the epitomist put forth his work near the close of the last century B.C." (vol. III. 2744)

From Professor F F Bruce

"1 Maccabees is our principal source for the attempt by Antiochus Epiphanes to suppress the Jewish religion and the consequent rising of the Hasmonaean family and establishment of their dynasty; it carries the story down to the reign of John Hyrcanus (134-104 B.C.), and is written with a pronounced pro-Hasmonaean bias. It was written either towards the end of the second century B.C. or in the earlier part of the first century, and although it is no longer extant in any earlier form than the Greek version, it was certainly written originally in Hebrew. The Greek text bears several marks of translation from a Hebrew original, and we have a statement by Jerome that he found this book in Hebrew.

2 Maccabees is not an original work; it is an abridgment of a longer history written in Greek some time about the middle of the first century B.C. by a Jew of Cyrene named Jason. The bookrelates certain incidents from the persecution under Antiochus and the Hasmonaean revolt from a Pharisaic point of view, with marked emphasis on such things as the sanctity of the Temple, the observance of the Sabbath and the certainty of a blessed resurrection for the martyrs. Its moralizing tendency is indulged at the expense of historical reality; as a source-book of the history of the period it is of much inferior value of 1 Maccabees." (The Books and the Parchments, pages, 156)

Book of Baruch

From Encyclopaedia Britannica (on date written)

"A brief introduction reports that Baruch wrote the book five years after the destruction of Jerusalem by Babylonia in 586 bc. A long prayer (1:15–3:8) is a national confession of sins similar to the lamentation in chapter nine of the Old Testament Book of Daniel. The original Hebrew text perhaps dates from the late 2nd century bc. In the next section, a poem identifies God with universal wisdom and names the Judaic Law as God’s gift of wisdom to men (3:9–4:4). In poems of lamentation and consolation that follow (4:5–5:9), Jerusalem is personified as a widow who weeps for her lost children, and God speaks words of comfort to the Jews. These latter poems may date from the 1st century bc." (https://www.britannica.com/topic/Book-of-Baruch)

From The Catholic Encyclopaedia

Scholarship has shown that this books is not genuine

"It is certain that this sixth chapter of Baruch is truly distinct from the rest of the work. Not only its special title, "The Epistle of Jeremiah", but also its style and contents clearly prove that it is a writing wholly independent of the Prophecy of Baruch. Again, while some Greek manuscripts that have Baruch have not the "Epistle", others, among the best, have it separate from the Book of Baruch and immediately before the Lamentations of Jeremiah. The fact that the sixth chapter of Baruch bears the title, "The Epistle of Jeremiah", has been, and is still in the eyes of many, a decisive reason for holding the time-honoured view that the great prophet is its author. It is also urged that the vivid and accurate description of the splendid, but infamous, worship of the Babylonian gods in Baruch, vi, makes for the traditional authorship, since Jer. 13:5, 6, probably speaks of the twofold journey of Jeremiah to the Euphrates. Finally it is affirmed that a certain number of Hebraisms can be traced back to a Hebrew original point in the same direction. Over against this traditional view, most contemporary critics argue that the Greek style of Baruch, vi, proves that it was originally written not in Hebrew, but in Greek, and that consequently Jeremiah is not the author of the Epistle ascribed to him. For this and for other reasons suggested by the study of the contents of Baruch, vi, they think that St. Jerome was decidedly correct when he called this writing pseudepigraphos, that is, inscribed with a false name. However this may be, an important study of the Canon of Holy Writ proves that, despite the assertions of Protestants to the contrary, Baruch 6 has always been recognized by the Church as an inspired work." (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02319c.htm)

From Professor F F Bruce

"Baruch purports to be the work of Jeremiah's friend of that name, but actually belongs to a much later date, shortly before or shortly after the beginning of the Christian era. It contains a confession of national sin, a homily on wisdom, which is identified with the law, and a promise of deliverance and restoration. An independent composition appended to Baruch is the 'Epistle of Jeremiah', which contains a warning against idolatry." (The Books and the Parchments, pages, 160)

THE BOOK OF WISDOM
From United States Conference of Catholic Bishops

"The Book of Wisdom was written about fifty years before the coming of Christ" (http://www.usccb.org/bible/wisdom/0)

From The Jewish Encyclopaedia

"This places the date of the book, or at least that of the first part, with certainty in the first century B.C." (http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/14951-wisdom-of-solomon-book-of-the#anchor6)

From Early Jewish Writings

"Several factors point to Alexandria in Egypt as the place of composition: the use of Greek, the philosophical concepts, the focus on the exodus, the polemic against Egyptian animal-worship, and so on. A date in the first century B.C.E. seems most likely, though any time from the second century B.C.E. to the first century C.E. is possible. Efforts to link it with a specific crisis in the history of the Jewish community at Alexandria such as the threat posed by the cult of the Roman emperor Caligula (37-41 C.E.; see 14:17) have not won much support." (Daniel J. Harrington, Invitation to the Apocrypha, pp. 55-56)" (http://www.earlyjewishwritings.com/wisdom.html)

THE LATIN CANON

From Global Catholic Network

"It is true that Jerome, and a few other isolated writers, did not accept most of the deuterocanonicals as Scripture. However, Jerome was persuaded, against his original inclination, to include the deuterocanonicals in his Vulgate edition of the Scriptures—testimony to the fact that the books were commonly accepted and were expected to be included in any edition of the Scriptures.

Furthermore, it can be documented that in his later years Jerome did accept certain deuterocanonical parts of the Bible. In his reply to Rufinus, he stoutly defended the deuterocanonical portions of Daniel even though the Jews of his day did not." (https://www.ewtn.com/library/ANSWERS/DEUTEROS.HTM)

The author of this article, James Akin, quotes from Dr J N D Kelly, but not when he does not agree with him.

Dr Kelly wrote of Jerome, "Jerome, too, influenced by his long residence in Palestine as well as by purely scholarly considerations, declared about 391 that anything not in the Hebrew was 'to be classed among the apocrypha', and did not belong to the canon; somewhat later, in 398, he conceded that the Church read some of the books for edification, but not to support doctrine" (Early Christian Doctrines, page 55)

From Catholic Culture

"Our modern Vulgate text is therefore composed of the following parts:

1. The New Testament.
   1. Gospels revised according to the original Greek.
   2. The other books of the New Testament, which also were probably revised, but this is by no means certain.
   
   
2. The Old Testament.
   1. The protocanonical books, excepting the Psalter, are directly from the Hebrew (the Gallican Psalter is according to the Hexapla).
   2. The deuterocanonical books.
      1. Tobias and Judith are from the Aramaic.
      2. Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, Baruch and Machabees I and II were not revised by Jerome, but taken from the Old Latin, which is based upon the Septuagint.
      3. Additions in Daniel from Theodotian and those of Esther from the Septuagint. " (https://www.catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?recnum=7470)

From The Later Christian Fathers

"Jerome

I. Scripture Apocrypha

[The Canon of Scripture: Five books of Closes (Gen., Ex., Lev., Num., Deut.); the Prophets: Joshua, Judges, Ruth, Kingdoms (2), Kings (2), Isa., Jer., Ezek., the Twelve Prophets; Hagiographa: Job, Ps., Solomon (Prov., Eccl., Song of Songs), Dan., Chron. (2), Ezr. (2), Esther.]

This prologue can be attached, as a kind of helmeted introduction, to all the books which we have translated from Hebrew into Latin, so that we can be sure that anything outside this list is to be classed among the apocrypha. Thus Wisdom, generally entitled Of Solomon', the book of Jesus son of Sirach, Judith, Tobias [sic], and the Shepherd, are not in the Canon. I found the first book of Maccabees in Hebrew. The second is in Greek, a fact which can also be deduced from the style. prolog, in Sam. et Mai.

We have the authentic book of Jesus son of Sirach, and another pseud-epigraphic work, entitled the Wisdom of Solomon. I found the first in Hebrew, with the title, 'Parables', not Ecclesiasticus, as in Latin versions. ... The second finds no place in Hebrew texts, and its style is redolent of Greek eloquence: a number of ancient writers assert that it is a work of Philo Judaeus. Therefore, just as the Church reads Judith, Tobit, and the books of Maccabees, but does not admit them to the canon of Scripture; so let the Church read these two volumes for the edification of the people, but not to support the authority of ecclesiastical doctrines. praef. in lib. Sal." (Henry Bettenson, page 187)

 

[PeaceB]

A Study I did on The Canon of the Old Testament Books

THE CANON OF THE OLD TESTAMENT BOOKS

• The so called "Protestant" Canon of the Old Testament has 39 Books, which are the same that the Hebrew Bible Canon has, which is 22 Books. Though there are different number of Books, there is no difference in the content, as it is only the way the Books have been grouped, in the Canons. The Hebrew Canon has not changed from the time when the Books of the Old Testament were complied into one Book. There is no evidence to show that at any time the Hebrew Canon ever had more, or less Books. Any such suggestions are not based on facts, but conjecture, and must be rejected. The evidence below shows the exact number of the Books in the Hebrew Canon. The early evidence of the Jewish historian, Josephus, who lived between 37-100 A.D., during the life-time of the Apostles, is that of only 22 Books. This in itself is conclusive.
• The next "Canon" of the Old Testament Books, is from the Greek translation of the Hebrew Old Testament, known as the Septuagint, which was the work of Jewish scholars, and completed in about 150 B.C. There are additional books in this translation of the Greek Old Testament, which some argue to be the original "Canon" of the Old Testament Books, as do the Roman Catholic church. It is wrongly assumed, that as the Septuagint was based on Hebrew manuscripts, and it differs from the Hebrew Canon of today, which is said to be of a later date, that the Septuagint books have to be right. It is admitted that the Septuagint does have additional books, which are not found in the Hebrew Bible at any time. However, what we are not told by those who prefer the Septuagint Old Testament, is that what we have today, is not the same as what the original Septuagint had, as its books. The Septuagint has over the centuries. been through a great number of "revisions", starting from the 2nd century A.D. The scholar Origen, who lived between 185-254 A.D., said that there were so many different "readings" to some of the text of the Septuagint, when he was working on a Greek translation. As the evidence below shows, there are some "books" that are included in the Septuagint we have today, which could not have formed part of the original work, which was completed by 150 B.C.. 1 and 2 Maccabees, Baruch, and Wisdom, were written after the Septuagint was completed, by between 50-100 years, which can only mean that they could not have been in the original Septuagint, but included in one of its "revisions". This in itself shows beyond any doubt, that the "books" in the Septuagint that we have today, and what Jerome, and later the Roman Catholic church, used, are not part of any original "canon", either Hebrew, or Greek, and therefore cannot be included with the Books of the Old Testament that are established in the Hebrew Canon.
• We next have the Latin "canon" of the Old Testament Books, which is from the translation known as the "Latin Vulgate", which is the work of the scholar, Jerome, who lived between 347-420 A.D. Jerome's work was originally based on only the Hebrew Canon Books of the Old Testament, as he rejected the Septuagint, with its additional books. He based his version on the Hebrew manuscripts of his time, and also, in his original work, has the same number of Books, as does the Hebrew Canon. His objection and reasons can be seen below. Because of the fact that the Old Latin version of the Old Testament, which was from a century before Jerome, did include the additional books, being based on the Septuagint, and was read by some in the Church, that Jerome translated these books into Latin, but stressed that they were not for the purpose of "doctrine", but could be read for edification. Like the Septuagint, Jerome's Latin Bible went through a great number of "revisions", and it was then that these additional books were included into the Latin Old Testament. Even though the Old Latin version was based on the Septuagint, the inclusion of these additional books, could not have been from the original Septuagint, as it did not contain these books, as their dates excludes them.

THE HEBREW CANON

From the Jewish Encyclopaedia

"The Jewish canon comprises twenty-four books, the five of the Pentateuch, eight books of the Prophets (Joshua, Judges, Samuel, Kings, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, the Minor Prophets), and eleven Hagiographa (Psalms, Proverbs, Job, Song of Solomon, Ruth, Lamentations, Ecclesiastes, Esther,Daniel, Ezra, and Chronicles). Samuel and Kings form but a single book each, as is seen in Aquila's Greek translation. The "twelve" prophets were known to Ecclus. (Sirach) as one book (xlix. 10), and the separation of Ezra from Nehemiah is not indicated in either the Talmud or the Masorah. A Bible codex written in Spain in 1448 divides Samuel, Kings, and Ezra into two books each (Ginsburg, l.c. p. 586). These books are classified and arranged into three subdivisions, "Torah," "Prophets," and "Hagiographa"; " (BIBLE CANON - JewishEncyclopedia.com)

Josephus - Jewish Historian. 1st Century A.D (against Apion I.7-8)

"And if any of these have been transgressors of these rules, they are prohibited to present themselves at the altar, or to be partakers of any other of our purifications. And this is justly, or rather necessarily done: because every one is not permitted of his own accord to be a writer; nor is there any disagreement in what is written. They being only prophets that have written the original and eldest accounts of things, as they learned them of God himself, by inspiration: and others have written what hath happened in their own times, and that in a very distinct manner also.

For we have not an innumerable multitude of books among us, disagreeing from, and contradicting one another: [as the Greeks have:] but only twenty two books: which contain the records of all the past times: which are justly believed to be divine. And of them five belong to Moses: which contain his laws, and the traditions of the origin of mankind, till his death. This interval of time was little short of three thousand years. But as to the time from the death of Moses, till the reign of Artaxerxes, King of Persia, who reigned after Xerxes, the Prophets, who were after Moses, wrote down what was done in their times, in thirteen books. The remaining four books contain hymns to God; and precepts for the conduct of human life. ’Tis true, our history hath been written since Artaxerxes very particularly; but hath not been esteemed of the like authority with the former by our forefathers; because there hath not been an exact succession of Prophets since that time. And how firmly we have given credit to these books of our own nation, is evident by what we do. For during so many ages as have already passed, no one has been so bold, as either to add any thing to them; to take any thing from them; or to make any change in them. But it is become natural to all Jews, immediately, and from their very birth, to esteem these books to contain divine doctrines; and to persist in them: and, if occasion be, willingly to die for them. For ’tis no new thing for our captives, many of them in number, and frequently in time, to be seen to endure wracks, and deaths of all kinds, upon the theatres; that they may not be obliged to say one word against our laws, and the records that contain them. Whereas there are none at all among the Greeks who would undergo the least harm on that account: no nor in case all the writings that are among them were to be destroyed. For they take them to be such discourses as are framed agreeably to the inclinations of those that write them. And they have justly the same opinion of the elder writers: since they see some of the present generation bold enough to write about such affairs, wherein they were not present; nor had concern enough to inform themselves about them from those that knew them. Examples of which may be had in this late war of ours: where some persons have written histories, and published them, without having been in the places concerned; or having been near them when the actions were done: but these men put a few things together, by hearsay; and insolently abuse the world; and call these writings by the name of Histories. (Josephus: Against Apion I)

From Catholic Faith and Reason

"Toward the end of the first century A.D. at Jamnia, they decided that their Bible consisted only of books written up to the time of Ezra, when prophecy was deemed to have ceased; and this criterion, though not applied uniformly, excluded the books of more recent origin which were on the whole less in accord with the Pharisaic outlook. the need for a decision was forced upon the Jews because of the growing controversies with Christians; and besides delimiting the Canon of Scripture they also not long afterward condemned the Greek Septuagint translation as inaccurate" (Jerome Bible Commentary, Introduction, http://www.catholicfaithandreason.org/the-canon-of-the-old-testament.html)

From The Catholic Encyclopaedia

"The so-called Council of Jamnia (c. A.D. 90) has reasonably been taken as having terminated the disputes between rival rabbinic schools concerning the canonicity of Canticles. So while the intuitive sense and increasingly reverent consciousness of the faithful element of Israel could, and presumably did, give a general impulse and direction to authority, we must conclude that it was the word of official authority which actually fixed the limits of the Hebrew Canon, and here, broadly speaking, the advanced and conservative exegetes meet on common ground." (CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: Canon of the Old Testament)

From The Catholic Encyclopaedia

The canon among the Palestinian Jews (protocanonical books). It has already been intimated that there is a smaller, or incomplete, and larger, or complete, Old Testament. Both of these were handed down by the Jews; the former by the Palestinian, the latter by the Alexandrian, Hellenist, Jews. The Jewish Bible of today is composed of three divisions, whose titles combined form the current Hebrew name for the complete Scriptures of Judaism: Hat-Torah, Nebiim, wa-Kéthubim, i.e. The Law, the Prophets, and the Writings. This triplication is ancient; it is supposed as long-established in the Mishnah, the Jewish code of unwritten sacred laws reduced to writing, c. A.D. 200. A grouping closely akin to it occurs in the New Testament in Christ's own words, Luke 24:44: "All things must needs be fulfilled, which are written in the law of Moses, and in the prophets, and in the psalms concerning me". Going back to the prologue of Ecclesiasticus, prefixed to it about 132 B.C., we find mentioned "the Law, and the Prophets, and others that have followed them". The Torah, or Law, consists of the five Mosaic books, Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy. The Prophets were subdivided by the Jews into the Former Prophets [i.e. the prophetico-historical books: Josue, Judges, 1 and 2 Samuel (I and II Kings), and 1 and 2 Kings (III and IV Kings)] and the Latter Prophets (Isaias, Jeremias, Ezechiel, and the twelve minor Prophets, counted by the Hebrews as one book). The Writings, more generally known by a title borrowed from the Greek Fathers, Hagiographa (holy writings), embrace all the remaining books of the Hebrew Bible. Named in the order in which they stand in the current Hebrew text, these are: Psalms, Proverbs, Job, Canticle of Canticles, Ruth, Lamentations, Ecclesiastes, Esther, Daniel, Esdras, Nehemias, or II Esdras, Paralipomenon." (CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: Canon of the Old Testament)
From Global Catholic Network

"During the first century, the Jews disagreed as to what constituted the canon of Scripture. In fact, there were a large number of different canons in use, including the growing canon used by Christians. In order to combat the spreading Christian cult, rabbis met at the city of Jamnia or Javneh in A.D. 90 to determine which books were truly the Word of God. They pronounced many books, including the Gospels, to be unfit as scriptures. This canon also excluded seven books (Baruch, Sirach, 1 and 2 Maccabees, Tobit, Judith, and the Wisdom of Solomon, plus portions of Esther and Daniel) that Christians considered part of the Old Testament.

The group of Jews which met at Javneh became the dominant group for later Jewish history, and today most Jews accept the canon of Javneh. However, some Jews, such as those from Ethiopia, follow a different canon which is identical to the Catholic Old Testament and includes the seven deuterocanonical books (cf. Encyclopedia Judaica, vol. 6, p. 1147)." (James Akin)

THE GREEK CANON

From Sir Frederic Kenyon

"This, however, is merely an exaggeration of the original story, which is in itself mostly legendary, though containing a substratum of truth. First it should be noticed that Aristeas is speaking of the Greek Pentateuch, and properly the term 'Septuagint' should be confined to this, though following early Christian usage it is applied to the Greek Bible as a whole. Again, it may be accepted that a Greek translation of the Law was already in existence by about 250 b.c., or even earlier, and that it was sponsored by Jewish authorities at Alexandria. But whether this official version was promulgated at that time, or nearer to that of Aristeas himself (c. 130-100 b.c.) is a question which will be referred to later. On the other hand, it is clear that the translation was made by Hellenistic Jews, not Palestinian as the Letter of Aristeas states, and in the first instance for Jews, either for use in the synagogue in public worship or for private study. The other books were added later, by different translators at different times; the Prophets by c. 150, the Hagiographa by the beginning of the Christian era. As we have seen, the grandson of ben Sira found not only the Law, but the Prophets and "the rest of the books" in Greek c. 132 b.c., and he also notes that they "have no small difference when they are spoken in their own language "-i.e. that they differed to some extent from the Hebrew. Indeed the style of the translation differs so markedly in different books as to prove that the whole Old Testament cannot have been the work of a single group of translators. The Pentateuch itself bears evidence of different hands. The prophetic books are much freer, and this is especially noticeable in the case of Isaiah, which often defeated the translators, who took refuge in paraphrase. The 'Septuagint' text of Daniel, on the other hand, was replaced in nearly all Christian copies by the version of Theodotion (or that later revised by Theodotion) because of its divergence from the Hebrew" (Our Bible and the Ancient Manuscripts, p.99)

From Encyclopaedia Britannica (on date written)

"Septuagint, abbreviation LXX, the earliest extant Greek translation of the Old Testament from the original Hebrew. The Septuagint was presumably made for the Jewish community in Egypt when Greek was the common language throughout the region. Analysis of the language has established that the Torah, or Pentateuch (the first five books of the Old Testament), was translated near the middle of the 3rd century bce and that the rest of the Old Testament was translated in the 2nd century bce." (Septuagint | biblical literature)

From Bible Odyssey (on date written)

"Old Greek (OG) or Septuagint

The earliest translation of the Hebrew Bible is the Old Greek (OG), the translation made in Alexandria, Egypt, for the use of the Greek-speaking Jewish community there. At first, just the Torah was translated, in the third century B.C.E.; the rest of the biblical books were translated later. The whole Hebrew Bible was likely translated into ancient Greek by the middle of the second century B.C.E." (What Are the Earliest Versions and Translations of the Bible?)

From Global Catholic Network (for books in LXX)

"The version of the Bible in use at the time of Jesus was the Septuagint (abbreviated LXX, for the 70 men who translated it from Hebrew into Greek by the beginning of the first century B.C.). This version of the Bible included the seven Deuterocanonical books. This was the version of the Old Testament used by the New Testament authors and by Christians during the first century A.D." (EWTN.com - The 7 books removed by Martin Luther.)

From Catholic Education (for books in LXX)

"The Septuagint version of Scripture, from which Christ quoted, includes the Deuterocanonical books, books that were supposedly "added" by Rome in the 16th century. And this is by no means the only citation of the Septuagint in the New Testament. In fact, fully two thirds of the Old Testament passages that are quoted in the New Testament are from the Septuagint. So why aren't the deuterocanonical books in today's Jewish Bible, anyway? Because the Jews who formulated the modern Jewish canon were a) not interested in apostolic teaching and, b) driven by a very different set of concerns from those motivating the apostolic community." (5 Myths about 7 Books)

From The Catholic Encyclopaedia

The most explicit definition of the Catholic Canon is that given by the Council of Trent, Session IV, 1546. For the Old Testament its catalogue reads as follows:

The five books of Moses (Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy), Josue, Judges, Ruth, the four books of Kings, two of Paralipomenon, the first and second of Esdras (which latter is called Nehemias), Tobias, Judith, Esther, Job, the Davidic Psalter (in number one hundred and fifty Psalms), Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, the Canticle of Canticles, Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, Isaias, Jeremias, with Baruch, Ezechiel, Daniel, the twelve minor Prophets (Osee, Joel, Amos, Abdias, Jonas, Micheas, Nahum, Habacuc, Sophonias, Aggeus, Zacharias, Malachias), two books of Machabees, the first and second.

The order of books copies that of the Council of Florence, 1442, and in its general plan is that of the Septuagint. The divergence of titles from those found in the Protestant versions is due to the fact that the official Latin Vulgate retained the forms of the Septuagint. (CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: Canon of the Old Testament)

Books of Maccabees (dates written)

From United States Conference of Catholic Bishops

"First Maccabees was written about 100 B.C., in Hebrew, but the original has not come down to us. Instead, we have an early, pre-Christian, Greek translation full of Hebrew idioms" (scripture)

From Catholic News Agency

“I Maccabees. Author: Unknown, Date Written: c. 100 BC, Date of Narrative: (323-104 BC) - (I Maccabees :: Catholic News Agency)

II Maccabees. Author: Unknown, Date Written: c. 100 BC, Date of Narrative: 180-161 BC - (II Maccabees :: Catholic News Agency)

From Catholic Answers

"As far as the dates of composition are concerned, these can be taken as approximately 100 B.C. for the first and 124 B.C. for the second, on the basis of the information given in the first letter they refer to (2 Mace. 1:9)." (1 & 2 Maccabees | Catholic Answers)

From Encyclopaedia Biblica
On I Maccabees. "The book must, therefore, have been completed before the year 63 B.C." (vol. III. 2859)

On I Maccabees "It seems therefore most probable, on the whole, that the epitomist put forth his work near the close of the last century B.C." (vol. III. 2744)

From Professor F F Bruce

"1 Maccabees is our principal source for the attempt by Antiochus Epiphanes to suppress the Jewish religion and the consequent rising of the Hasmonaean family and establishment of their dynasty; it carries the story down to the reign of John Hyrcanus (134-104 B.C.), and is written with a pronounced pro-Hasmonaean bias. It was written either towards the end of the second century B.C. or in the earlier part of the first century, and although it is no longer extant in any earlier form than the Greek version, it was certainly written originally in Hebrew. The Greek text bears several marks of translation from a Hebrew original, and we have a statement by Jerome that he found this book in Hebrew.

2 Maccabees is not an original work; it is an abridgment of a longer history written in Greek some time about the middle of the first century B.C. by a Jew of Cyrene named Jason. The bookrelates certain incidents from the persecution under Antiochus and the Hasmonaean revolt from a Pharisaic point of view, with marked emphasis on such things as the sanctity of the Temple, the observance of the Sabbath and the certainty of a blessed resurrection for the martyrs. Its moralizing tendency is indulged at the expense of historical reality; as a source-book of the history of the period it is of much inferior value of 1 Maccabees." (The Books and the Parchments, pages, 156)

Book of Baruch

From Encyclopaedia Britannica (on date written)

"A brief introduction reports that Baruch wrote the book five years after the destruction of Jerusalem by Babylonia in 586 bc. A long prayer (1:15–3:8) is a national confession of sins similar to the lamentation in chapter nine of the Old Testament Book of Daniel. The original Hebrew text perhaps dates from the late 2nd century bc. In the next section, a poem identifies God with universal wisdom and names the Judaic Law as God’s gift of wisdom to men (3:9–4:4). In poems of lamentation and consolation that follow (4:5–5:9), Jerusalem is personified as a widow who weeps for her lost children, and God speaks words of comfort to the Jews. These latter poems may date from the 1st century bc." (Book of Baruch | ancient text)

From The Catholic Encyclopaedia

Scholarship has shown that this books is not genuine

"It is certain that this sixth chapter of Baruch is truly distinct from the rest of the work. Not only its special title, "The Epistle of Jeremiah", but also its style and contents clearly prove that it is a writing wholly independent of the Prophecy of Baruch. Again, while some Greek manuscripts that have Baruch have not the "Epistle", others, among the best, have it separate from the Book of Baruch and immediately before the Lamentations of Jeremiah. The fact that the sixth chapter of Baruch bears the title, "The Epistle of Jeremiah", has been, and is still in the eyes of many, a decisive reason for holding the time-honoured view that the great prophet is its author. It is also urged that the vivid and accurate description of the splendid, but infamous, worship of the Babylonian gods in Baruch, vi, makes for the traditional authorship, since Jer. 13:5, 6, probably speaks of the twofold journey of Jeremiah to the Euphrates. Finally it is affirmed that a certain number of Hebraisms can be traced back to a Hebrew original point in the same direction. Over against this traditional view, most contemporary critics argue that the Greek style of Baruch, vi, proves that it was originally written not in Hebrew, but in Greek, and that consequently Jeremiah is not the author of the Epistle ascribed to him. For this and for other reasons suggested by the study of the contents of Baruch, vi, they think that St. Jerome was decidedly correct when he called this writing pseudepigraphos, that is, inscribed with a false name. However this may be, an important study of the Canon of Holy Writ proves that, despite the assertions of Protestants to the contrary, Baruch 6 has always been recognized by the Church as an inspired work." (CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: Baruch)

From Professor F F Bruce

"Baruch purports to be the work of Jeremiah's friend of that name, but actually belongs to a much later date, shortly before or shortly after the beginning of the Christian era. It contains a confession of national sin, a homily on wisdom, which is identified with the law, and a promise of deliverance and restoration. An independent composition appended to Baruch is the 'Epistle of Jeremiah', which contains a warning against idolatry." (The Books and the Parchments, pages, 160)

THE BOOK OF WISDOM
From United States Conference of Catholic Bishops

"The Book of Wisdom was written about fifty years before the coming of Christ" (scripture)

From The Jewish Encyclopaedia

"This places the date of the book, or at least that of the first part, with certainty in the first century B.C." (WISDOM OF SOLOMON, BOOK OF THE - JewishEncyclopedia.com)

From Early Jewish Writings

"Several factors point to Alexandria in Egypt as the place of composition: the use of Greek, the philosophical concepts, the focus on the exodus, the polemic against Egyptian animal-worship, and so on. A date in the first century B.C.E. seems most likely, though any time from the second century B.C.E. to the first century C.E. is possible. Efforts to link it with a specific crisis in the history of the Jewish community at Alexandria such as the threat posed by the cult of the Roman emperor Caligula (37-41 C.E.; see 14:17) have not won much support." (Daniel J. Harrington, Invitation to the Apocrypha, pp. 55-56)" (Wisdom of Solomon)

THE LATIN CANON

From Global Catholic Network

"It is true that Jerome, and a few other isolated writers, did not accept most of the deuterocanonicals as Scripture. However, Jerome was persuaded, against his original inclination, to include the deuterocanonicals in his Vulgate edition of the Scriptures—testimony to the fact that the books were commonly accepted and were expected to be included in any edition of the Scriptures.

Furthermore, it can be documented that in his later years Jerome did accept certain deuterocanonical parts of the Bible. In his reply to Rufinus, he stoutly defended the deuterocanonical portions of Daniel even though the Jews of his day did not." (James Akin)

The author of this article, James Akin, quotes from Dr J N D Kelly, but not when he does not agree with him.

Dr Kelly wrote of Jerome, "Jerome, too, influenced by his long residence in Palestine as well as by purely scholarly considerations, declared about 391 that anything not in the Hebrew was 'to be classed among the apocrypha', and did not belong to the canon; somewhat later, in 398, he conceded that the Church read some of the books for edification, but not to support doctrine" (Early Christian Doctrines, page 55)

From Catholic Culture

"Our modern Vulgate text is therefore composed of the following parts:

1. The New Testament.
   1. Gospels revised according to the original Greek.
   2. The other books of the New Testament, which also were probably revised, but this is by no means certain.
2. The Old Testament.
   1. The protocanonical books, excepting the Psalter, are directly from the Hebrew (the Gallican Psalter is according to the Hexapla).
   2. The deuterocanonical books.
      1. Tobias and Judith are from the Aramaic.
      2. Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, Baruch and Machabees I and II were not revised by Jerome, but taken from the Old Latin, which is based upon the Septuagint.
      3. Additions in Daniel from Theodotian and those of Esther from the Septuagint. " (Library : The History of the Latin Vulgate)

From The Later Christian Fathers

"Jerome

I. Scripture Apocrypha

[The Canon of Scripture: Five books of Closes (Gen., Ex., Lev., Num., Deut.); the Prophets: Joshua, Judges, Ruth, Kingdoms (2), Kings (2), Isa., Jer., Ezek., the Twelve Prophets; Hagiographa: Job, Ps., Solomon (Prov., Eccl., Song of Songs), Dan., Chron. (2), Ezr. (2), Esther.]

This prologue can be attached, as a kind of helmeted introduction, to all the books which we have translated from Hebrew into Latin, so that we can be sure that anything outside this list is to be classed among the apocrypha. Thus Wisdom, generally entitled Of Solomon', the book of Jesus son of Sirach, Judith, Tobias [sic], and the Shepherd, are not in the Canon. I found the first book of Maccabees in Hebrew. The second is in Greek, a fact which can also be deduced from the style. prolog, in Sam. et Mai.

We have the authentic book of Jesus son of Sirach, and another pseud-epigraphic work, entitled the Wisdom of Solomon. I found the first in Hebrew, with the title, 'Parables', not Ecclesiasticus, as in Latin versions. ... The second finds no place in Hebrew texts, and its style is redolent of Greek eloquence: a number of ancient writers assert that it is a work of Philo Judaeus. Therefore, just as the Church reads Judith, Tobit, and the books of Maccabees, but does not admit them to the canon of Scripture; so let the Church read these two volumes for the edification of the people, but not to support the authority of ecclesiastical doctrines. praef. in lib. Sal." (Henry Bettenson, page 187)

That's nice. But you still reject at least 7 books of the inspired word of God. Shameful.

 

[TheBibleIsTruth]

That's nice. But you still reject at least 7 books of the inspired word of God. Shameful.

If you even care to read at least some of what I have written, you will see exactly why these books were rejected. Jesus Christ Himself only accepted the Books as in the Hebrew Canon, which can be seen from His words in Luke 24:44, "He said to them, “This is what I told you while I was still with you: Everything must be fulfilled that is written about me in the Law of Moses, the Prophets and the Psalms.”. This three-fold division of the Books of the Old Testament, is what the Jews before Christ, and after used as the Divine Word of God. None of the 7 books are found in this Canon, and therefore not inspired! The canon of the RC bible, is based on the Old Testament Greek Septuagint, which used a "four-fold" division, which Jesus does not use. His Authority is the Highest!

 

[Antig]

I has answered another place, to show the blasphemies that are taught by the RC church, which are NOT from the Holy Bible, and yet there are those who still follow these LIES!

I feel sorry for you. You are lost in your dislike of Catholic doctrine. Seems like it is eating away at you.

Be at peace my friend. Embrace the true church of Our Lord. Dont fight against it.

Blessings

 

[Antig]

It is very sad indeed, that I have clearly shown teaching from the "church" that you proudly belong to, that are so against what the Holy Bible teaches, that they are blasphemous, and yet all you can do is come back with some rather foolish comments? Are you first and foremost a Bible-believing Christian, or a Roman Catholic, who cares less what God says in His Word, and more for church "dogma", which might or might not be Biblically correct? If the latter, than you guys are no better than the likes of the Jehovah's Witnesses, Mormons, etc, etc. May the Lord indeed have mercy!

Scripture and Catholicism go hand in hand. Obviously you see it but refuse to believe it. Instead, you take every opprtunity to attack Catholicism.

Blessings

 

[SolomonVII]

YHWH made everything simple.
....
man came up with many devices.

Did God make DNA simple?