If Protestants believe that TaNaKh is the right canon, why don't they use it?

[Abrahamist]

BTW, Luther did not translate anything into English.

That's not what I actually meant. I kind of got sloppy.

But it turns out I was wrong about Luther's source for translation.

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

The Catholic Bible does not contain any Apocrypha. The correct term is Deuterocanonical.

I was referring to the fact that the Protestant Old Testament is the Septuagint with the Deuterocanonical books edited.

Luther didn't take a TaNaKh and translate that into English. Instead, he took the Septuagint and took out the books that were not also in the TaNaKh.

Both the TaNaKh and the Septuagint was widely used by Jewish world during Jesus' lifetime and the Septuagint was the canon adopted by the early Church. In 90 AD, a counsel of rabbis decided to abandon the Septuagint in favor of the TaNaKh. This was done for two reasons; Although most of the New Testament had been written by this time, it had not yet been collected and canonized. The only thing that separated the Christians from the Jews was the oral traditio and so they abandoned the Septuagint to further distinguish themselves from the early Church. Also, the Deuterocanonical books had proved to be an effective tool for converting Jews to Christianity.

And so the Church has used the Septuagint all the way up to the present day.

When Luther began the Protestant reformation, he didn't abandon the Septuagint in favor of the TaNaKh. Instead, he edited the Septuagint.

Wrong.



1. Luther's German translation of the OT is from the Hebrew, not the Greek.


2. Luther lived BEFORE the RC Denomination (for it itself exclusively) declared what books it itself alone (and uniquely) accepts as canonical. In Luther's day, some Catholics embraced the Book of Leodiceans, for example, as a 28th NT book, some didn't. It was not the "closed" issue we tend to see today. Luther PERSONALLY and INDIVIDUALLY accepted that there were 66 books that all embraced, plus some others that seem disputed. Luther PERSONALLY and INDIVIDUALLY believed that any definitive "action" here required a Ecumenical Church Council but such was unlikely (there hadn't been one in over 700 years). Luther PERSONALLY and INDIVIDUALLY placed the 66 ecumenically embraced books first, then INCLUDED several others that the RCC, EOC and OOC all tended to embrace variously, books then referred to as "DEUTERO" - books that from early days on were seen as secondary or under the others. Luther PERSONALLY and INDIVIDUALLY felt they were lesser and questioned their inspiration. Such was Luther's personal, individual opinion.


3. Lutheranism didn't add or subtract any books.... in fact, it did NOTHING. Again, Luther's view was that the Bible belonged to the whole church - not to Luther or Lutheranism - and that any official action on this needed an Ecumenical Church Council. Thus, Lutherans do not state what is and is not Scripture. The Lutheran Confessions are SILENT on this. Lutheran Bibles (until the mid 20th century) included the same books as RCC tomes from the 16th century on, but often with the ecumenically embraced OT books placed together, then the disputed DEUTERO books together (the ones accepted by the OOC, EOC and RCC only, however), then the ecumenically embraced NT ones (never including the Book to the Leodiceans; the RCC tended to not include that either after the 16th century).


4. The ORDER of the books has NEVER been determined or required. And as far as I know, the only denomination that mandates an order is the RCC. The order and names of the various books of the Bible are all a matter of historic custom ONLY, and only since the Reformation has it been widely embraced (and still is not by many Oriental and Eastern Orthodox).







.

 

[MarkRohfrietsch]

Wrong.



1. Luther's German translation of the OT is from the Hebrew, not the Greek.


2. Luther lived BEFORE the RC Denomination (for it itself exclusively) declared what books it itself alone (and uniquely) accepts as canonical. In Luther's day, some Catholics embraced the Book of Leodiceans, for example, as a 28th NT book, some didn't. It was not the "closed" issue we tend to see today. Luther PERSONALLY and INDIVIDUALLY accepted that there were 66 books that all embraced, plus some others that seem disputed. Luther PERSONALLY and INDIVIDUALLY believed that any definitive "action" here required a Ecumenical Church Council but such was unlikely (there hadn't been one in over 700 years). Luther PERSONALLY and INDIVIDUALLY placed the 66 ecumenically embraced books first, then INCLUDED several others that the RCC, EOC and OOC all tended to embrace variously, books then referred to as "DEUTERO" - books that from early days on were seen as secondary or under the others. Luther PERSONALLY and INDIVIDUALLY felt they were lesser and questioned their inspiration. Such was Luther's personal, individual opinion.


3. Lutheranism didn't add or subtract any books.... in fact, it did NOTHING. Again, Luther's view was that the Bible belonged to the whole church - not to Luther or Lutheranism - and that any official action on this needed an Ecumenical Church Council. Thus, Lutherans do not state what is and is not Scripture. The Lutheran Confessions are SILENT on this. Lutheran Bibles (until the mid 20th century) included the same books as RCC tomes from the 16th century on, but often with the ecumenically embraced OT books placed together, then the disputed DEUTERO books together (the ones accepted by the OOC, EOC and RCC only, however), then the ecumenically embraced NT ones (never including the Book to the Leodiceans; the RCC tended to not include that either after the 16th century).


4. The ORDER of the books has NEVER been determined or required. And as far as I know, the only denomination that mandates an order is the RCC. The order and names of the various books of the Bible are all a matter of historic custom ONLY, and only since the Reformation has it been widely embraced (and still is not by many Oriental and Eastern Orthodox).







.

Thank you Josiah, well and accurately stated!

Here, in North America, Lutherans "lost" the "Deutero" books for a time when, out of nessisity, the Church transitioned to "English". The only widely available published translation in English was the KJV (without the DC books).

While the Bibles in use did not contain these books, certain seasonal Propers (graduals etc.) used in the Liturgy and the Mass were, and still are drawn from these books.

Recognizing both the historic and traditional value that the Church has placed on these writings, Concordia Publishing House had published these books in, English translation, in a separate volume in the past. I, personally, have a NAB Catholic Edition, which I bought so that I could read and study these books.

Concordia had initially intended to include these books in their recent "Lutheran Study Bible", however, with all of its notes and commentaries, it was already a "huge" book, with over 2300 pages. As a result, Concordia is again publishing these books in an annotated supplement to the LSB, based on the ESV translation of these books. (The Apocrypha: The Lutheran Edition with Notes)

I will be ordering one soon BTW!

 

[Kalevalatar]

Another Lutheran here. And yes, our Bible comes with the Apocrypha. For a time, the Apocrypha was not included, but the exclusion was not for theological reasons but for purely economic one, to cut the costs. As a poor country, adding more thickness to the Bible would have made it too expensive for most people.

 

[miamited]

The last sentence is where you lost me. "We" didn't rearrange some of the writings. The Greek Septuagint was a different canonization and the one used by the Church from the beginning.

Luther didn't translate a TaNaKh but rearrange the book order. He translated a Septuagint and edited out the Deuterocanonical books.

Hi Abrahamist,

Well, I take encouragement that you were able to see the truth up to that point. My further encouragement would be for you to take what you believe are the true and proper books of the old covenant and those that you dismiss as libelous and set down on paper a list of all the differences that they bring about in the understanding of the truth of God. Once you have that list of how the one causes a different truth to be believed over another, then go before the throne and ask of God, though His Spirit, to give you understanding of the truth in these things.

Friend, it is His delight to answer the sincere prayer of His children.

God bless you.
In Christ, Ted