- Nov 27, 2003
- 9,310
- 411
- 36
- Faith
- Anglican
- Marital Status
- Single
- Politics
- US-Others
I'm an odd protestant in that I'm very sympathetic to arguments in favor to the canonicity of the apocrypha/deuterocanon (I'm an Anglican, we have an interesting history with those books).
However when Roman Catholic apologists defend their Canon against the protestant Canon, they almost always appeal to the Septuagint, correctly stating that this was the "bible" of Jesus, the apostles and the earliest church fathers and contained books not found in the Hebrew Canon. However the Canon defined at Trent is smaller than the Septuagint, not including 3rd/4th maccabees, 1st/2nd esdras (as found in the kjv apocrypha, not Ezra/Neh) And the 151st psalm. I know Trent referred primarily to the vulgate not the Septuagint, but it still begs the question what about the bible of Jesus and the apostles?
It seems the Orthodox/protestants have a more consistent Canon (pinning their canons to the septuagint/masoretic) and Rome seems to have a bit of a hybrid bible, neither the old testament of the first church nor of modern Judaism. What led to this?
(I am looking for a history of the Catholic old testament, I know most posters here are probably believers in the smaller protestant Canon, but I ask if possible can we avoid making this a pro/anti apocrypha debate?)
However when Roman Catholic apologists defend their Canon against the protestant Canon, they almost always appeal to the Septuagint, correctly stating that this was the "bible" of Jesus, the apostles and the earliest church fathers and contained books not found in the Hebrew Canon. However the Canon defined at Trent is smaller than the Septuagint, not including 3rd/4th maccabees, 1st/2nd esdras (as found in the kjv apocrypha, not Ezra/Neh) And the 151st psalm. I know Trent referred primarily to the vulgate not the Septuagint, but it still begs the question what about the bible of Jesus and the apostles?
It seems the Orthodox/protestants have a more consistent Canon (pinning their canons to the septuagint/masoretic) and Rome seems to have a bit of a hybrid bible, neither the old testament of the first church nor of modern Judaism. What led to this?
(I am looking for a history of the Catholic old testament, I know most posters here are probably believers in the smaller protestant Canon, but I ask if possible can we avoid making this a pro/anti apocrypha debate?)