Protestant 'weak' in church history prior the reformation?

[Athanasius377]

Your error (and apparently the authors as well) is that there was one agreed upon OT among Jews. In fact, different Jewish sects considered different books as Holy Scripture. For example, Sadducees and Samaritans viewed only the five books of Moses as Holy Scripture whereas Pharissees viewed more. Josephus was a Pharissee and to this day there are arguments as to which books were included in the statement from Josephus. The Catholic Church chose OT books from the Greek Septuagint according to what books the Apostles used.

Your error (and apparently the authors as well) is that there was one agreed upon OT among Jews. In fact, different Jewish sects considered different books as Holy Scripture. For example, Sadducees and Samaritans viewed only the five books of Moses as Holy Scripture whereas Pharissees viewed more. Josephus was a Pharissee and to this day there are arguments as to which books were included in the statement from Josephus. The Catholic Church chose OT books from the Greek Septuagint according to what books the Apostles used.

You have no evidence for this assertion. Sadducees denied the Oral Torah or the Tradition of the Elders, but there is no evidence that the denied the other books in the traditional list of 22. Do not confuse the term "written Torah" with just the first five books because that is not what is meant. Samaritans are not Jews and have never been considered part of the conversation when it comes to the issue of canon. There are no known differences that can be proven in canon between the pharisees and the Essenes.
You are free to post the various canon lists that would have differed from those laid up in the Temple. Do make sure you give proper citation so we can read the source directly.

Since the Temple was the center of Jewish religious life it does not follow that groups claiming the same religious heritage to have different books of scripture that would differ from those laid up in the Temple.

Roger Beckwith observes:
It seems, therefore, that for as long as the Temple stood there was no essential disagreement among the different Jewish schools about the canon. And if that was so, the very rivalry between the schools must have been one of the main factors responsible. This rivalry, between Pharisees, Sadducees and Essenes, had first become important around the time of the high-priesthood of Jonathan Maccabaeus (152–142 bc), as a statement to that effect by Josephus (Ant. 13.5.9, or 13.171–3) and other evidence indicates. From then onwards it is likely, in view of the intensity of the rivalry, that the canon remained unaltered until after the suppression of the first Jewish revolt and the destruction of the Temple in ad 70, as a result of which events the Essenes and Sadducees lost most of their influence, and the Temple Scriptures were dispersed. Any literature, consequently, which is referred to as canonical by Pharisaic or Essene writers, or both, during the period of just over two centuries preceding the destruction, was probably canonical throughout the period for all three schools; and though, when the period had ended, it would have been possible for the triumphant Pharisees to have added further books to the canon, they would hardly have thought such action appropriate after the canon had remained unchanged for so long. Both their traditionalism and their continuing veneration for the Temple would have restrained them. Certainly, they are not likely to have celebrated their triumph by making concessions to Essenism, and it follows that any book included in the later form of the Pharisaic canon, which is also reckoned canonical by Essene writers of the Temple period, is a probable part of the common heritage of both schools, dating back to the time before their longstanding rivalry began.132

Beckwith, R. T. (1985). The Old Testament Canon of the New Testament Church and Its Background in Early Judaism (pp. 90–91). London: SPCK.

 

[Valletta]

You have no evidence for this assertion. Sadducees denied the Oral Torah or the Tradition of the Elders, but there is no evidence that the denied the other books in the traditional list of 22. Do not confuse the term "written Torah" with just the first five books because that is not what is meant. Samaritans are not Jews and have never been considered part of the conversation when it comes to the issue of canon. There are no known differences that can be proven in canon between the pharisees and the Essenes.
You are free to post the various canon lists that would have differed from those laid up in the Temple. Do make sure you give proper citation so we can read the source directly.

Since the Temple was the center of Jewish religious life it does not follow that groups claiming the same religious heritage to have different books of scripture that would differ from those laid up in the Temple.

Roger Beckwith observes:
It seems, therefore, that for as long as the Temple stood there was no essential disagreement among the different Jewish schools about the canon. And if that was so, the very rivalry between the schools must have been one of the main factors responsible. This rivalry, between Pharisees, Sadducees and Essenes, had first become important around the time of the high-priesthood of Jonathan Maccabaeus (152–142 bc), as a statement to that effect by Josephus (Ant. 13.5.9, or 13.171–3) and other evidence indicates. From then onwards it is likely, in view of the intensity of the rivalry, that the canon remained unaltered until after the suppression of the first Jewish revolt and the destruction of the Temple in ad 70, as a result of which events the Essenes and Sadducees lost most of their influence, and the Temple Scriptures were dispersed. Any literature, consequently, which is referred to as canonical by Pharisaic or Essene writers, or both, during the period of just over two centuries preceding the destruction, was probably canonical throughout the period for all three schools; and though, when the period had ended, it would have been possible for the triumphant Pharisees to have added further books to the canon, they would hardly have thought such action appropriate after the canon had remained unchanged for so long. Both their traditionalism and their continuing veneration for the Temple would have restrained them. Certainly, they are not likely to have celebrated their triumph by making concessions to Essenism, and it follows that any book included in the later form of the Pharisaic canon, which is also reckoned canonical by Essene writers of the Temple period, is a probable part of the common heritage of both schools, dating back to the time before their longstanding rivalry began.132

Beckwith, R. T. (1985). The Old Testament Canon of the New Testament Church and Its Background in Early Judaism (pp. 90–91). London: SPCK.

Mr. Beckwith is in error. There were different canons among Jews in the first century A.D. As a matter of fact Ethiopian Jews, who recognized the deuterocanonicals as Holy Scripture, still retain those OT books as Holy Scripture to this day. The mainline Jews of today do follow those of their predecessors who removed those books of Scripture and who rejected the four Gospels. You can imagine how they felt not only about the four Gospels, but about one of my favorite passages in 2 Macc where one after one members of a family endure torture to death for their belief in resurrection. 2 Macc also documents the history of Jews praying for the dead, which went against Luther's new religion, so you can understand why Luther wanted it dropped as well. Remember the first Catholics were Jews. Although the matter was brought up by Jerome, the Catholic Church decided that the Church was under no obligation to follow those Jews who rejected Jesus.

 

[Athanasius377]

Mr. Beckwith is in error. There were different canons among Jews in the first century A.D. As a matter of fact Ethiopian Jews, who recognized the deuterocanonicals as Holy Scripture, still retain those OT books as Holy Scripture to this day. The mainline Jews of today do follow those of their predecessors who removed those books of Scripture and who rejected the four Gospels. You can imagine how they felt not only about the four Gospels, but about one of my favorite passages in 2 Macc where one after one members of a family endure torture to death for their belief in resurrection. 2 Macc also documents the history of Jews praying for the dead, which went against Luther's new religion, so you can understand why Luther wanted it dropped as well. Remember the first Catholics were Jews. Although the matter was brought up by Jerome, the Catholic Church decided that the Church was under no obligation to follow those Jews who rejected Jesus.

Again, another assertion with nothing to back it up. And yes 2 Maccabees describes prayer for the dead that had been judged by God:

39 On the next day, as by that time it had become necessary, Judas and his men went to take up the bodies of the fallen and to bring them back to lie with their kinsmen in the sepulchers of their fathers. 40 Then under the tunic of every one of the dead they found sacred tokens of the idols of Jamnia, which the law forbids the Jews to wear. And it became clear to all that this was why these men had fallen. 41 So they all blessed the ways of the Lord, the righteous Judge, who reveals the things that are hidden; 42 and they turned to prayer, imploring that the sin that had been committed might be wholly blotted out. And the noble Judas exhorted the people to keep themselves free from sin, for they had seen with their own eyes what had happened because of the sin of those who had fallen. 43 He also took up a collection, man by man, to the amount of 2,000 drachmas of silver and sent it to Jerusalem to provide for a sin offering. In doing this he acted very well and honorably, taking account of the resurrection. 44 For if he were not expecting that those who had fallen would rise again, it would have been superfluous and foolish to pray for the dead. 45 But if he was looking to the splendid reward that is laid up for those who fall asleep in godliness, it was a holy and pious thought. Therefore he made atonement for the dead, that they might be delivered from their sin.

Engelbrecht, E. A. (Ed.). (2012). The Apocrypha: The Lutheran Edition: Text (2 Mac 12:39–45). Saint Louis, MO: Concordia Publishing House.

Which is a violation of Numbers 15:27-31:

If one person sins unintentionally, he shall offer a female goat a year old for a sin offering. 28 And the priest shall make atonement before the Lord for the person who makes a mistake, when he sins unintentionally, to make atonement for him, and he shall be forgiven. 29 You shall have one law for him who does anything unintentionally, for him who is native among the people of Israel and for the stranger who sojourns among them. 30 But the person who does anything with a high hand, whether he is native or a sojourner, reviles the Lord, and that person shall be cut off from among his people. 31 Because he has despised the word of the Lord and has broken his commandment, that person shall be utterly cut off; his iniquity shall be on him.”

The Holy Bible: English Standard Version. (2016). (Nu 15:27–31). Wheaton, IL: Crossway Bibles.

Again, it was Rome that created the new religion not Luther.

 

[Valletta]

Again, another assertion with nothing to back it up. And yes 2 Maccabees describes prayer for the dead that had been judged by God:

39 On the next day, as by that time it had become necessary, Judas and his men went to take up the bodies of the fallen and to bring them back to lie with their kinsmen in the sepulchers of their fathers. 40 Then under the tunic of every one of the dead they found sacred tokens of the idols of Jamnia, which the law forbids the Jews to wear. And it became clear to all that this was why these men had fallen. 41 So they all blessed the ways of the Lord, the righteous Judge, who reveals the things that are hidden; 42 and they turned to prayer, imploring that the sin that had been committed might be wholly blotted out. And the noble Judas exhorted the people to keep themselves free from sin, for they had seen with their own eyes what had happened because of the sin of those who had fallen. 43 He also took up a collection, man by man, to the amount of 2,000 drachmas of silver and sent it to Jerusalem to provide for a sin offering. In doing this he acted very well and honorably, taking account of the resurrection. 44 For if he were not expecting that those who had fallen would rise again, it would have been superfluous and foolish to pray for the dead. 45 But if he was looking to the splendid reward that is laid up for those who fall asleep in godliness, it was a holy and pious thought. Therefore he made atonement for the dead, that they might be delivered from their sin.

Engelbrecht, E. A. (Ed.). (2012). The Apocrypha: The Lutheran Edition: Text (2 Mac 12:39–45). Saint Louis, MO: Concordia Publishing House.

Which is a violation of Numbers 15:27-31:

If one person sins unintentionally, he shall offer a female goat a year old for a sin offering. 28 And the priest shall make atonement before the Lord for the person who makes a mistake, when he sins unintentionally, to make atonement for him, and he shall be forgiven. 29 You shall have one law for him who does anything unintentionally, for him who is native among the people of Israel and for the stranger who sojourns among them. 30 But the person who does anything with a high hand, whether he is native or a sojourner, reviles the Lord, and that person shall be cut off from among his people. 31 Because he has despised the word of the Lord and has broken his commandment, that person shall be utterly cut off; his iniquity shall be on him.”

The Holy Bible: English Standard Version. (2016). (Nu 15:27–31). Wheaton, IL: Crossway Bibles.

Again, it was Rome that created the new religion not Luther.

As I said, Mr. Beckwith was in error--it's not a secret that the Ethiopian Jews have kept a different canon than other Jews. The Ethiopian Jews are also known as the Beta Israel, Wikipedia says the following:
Deuterocanonical books that also make up part of the canon are Sirach, Judith, Esdras 1 and 2, Meqabyan, Jubilees, Baruch 1 and 4, Tobit, Enoch, and the testaments of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.[6][7][8]
As to Luther, he was a disgruntled and ex-communicated Catholic priest, some but not all of the changes he wanted ended up in Protestant Bibles. The books he wanted dropped had been in Christian Bibles for over a thousand years.

 

[Athanasius377]

As I said, Mr. Beckwith was in error--it's not a secret that the Ethiopian Jews have kept a different canon than other Jews. The Ethiopian Jews are also known as the Beta Israel, Wikipedia says the following:
Deuterocanonical books that also make up part of the canon are Sirach, Judith, Esdras 1 and 2, Meqabyan, Jubilees, Baruch 1 and 4, Tobit, Enoch, and the testaments of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.[6][7][8]
As to Luther, he was a disgruntled and ex-communicated Catholic priest, some but not all of the changes he wanted ended up in Protestant Bibles. The books he wanted dropped had been in Christian Bibles for over a thousand years.

So you want me to believe that an isolated hetrodox group who was not even known at the time of the formation of the Jewish canon since they were so isolated had an effect on the Jewish canon?

Name one reputable scholar that agrees with that this is the case.

I await your answer.

 

[Valletta]

So you want me to believe that an isolated hetrodox group who was not even known at the time of the formation of the Jewish canon since they were so isolated had an effect on the Jewish canon?

Name one reputable scholar that agrees with that this is the case.

I await your answer.

If the Protestant authors you cited did not know that Jews, after Christ, recognized different books of Scripture then I doubt they would care about supposedly non-existent Holy Scripture being passed down to anyone. Thus no mention of the Ethiopian Jews is not a surprise. As I said, the Catholic Church chose the Septuagint because that's what the Apostles taught from, about two thirds of the references to the OT in the NT are from the Septuagint. There were some variations of the Septuagint that the Church had to decide upon. The Septuagint was likely translated into Greek in Alexandria, Jews in that area, call them Alexandrian Jews or Helinistic Jews, used books for their canon of Holy Scripture that were translated into the Greek Septuagint. As I explained the predecessors of mainstream Jews of today dropped those books from Holy Scripture. From my readings I believe this took place around the first half of the 100s A.D., I know Justin Martyr, who died in 165 A.D. wrote about this (see below). As to books, "Sacred Scripture: A Catholic Study of God's Word" by Smith-Christopher and Mullen provides information about the differing Jewish canons and may have a mention of the Ethiopian Jews using the same books that the Alexandrian Jews used roughly 2000 years before. Alexandria and Ethiopia are both in the northern part of Africa.

"Dialogue with Trypho"AD 155-160.
Chapter 71. The Jews reject the interpretation of the Septuagint, from which, moreover, they have taken away some passages
Justin: But I am far from putting reliance in your teachers, who refuse to admit that the interpretation made by the seventy elders who were with Ptolemy [king] of the Egyptians is a correct one; and they attempt to frame another. And I wish you to observe, that they have altogether taken away many Scriptures from the translations effected by those seventy elders who were with Ptolemy, and by which this very man who was crucified is proved to have been set forth expressly as God, and man, and as being crucified, and as dying; but since I am aware that this is denied by all of your nation, I do not address myself to these points, but I proceed to carry on my discussions by means of those passages which are still admitted by you. For you assent to those which I have brought before your attention, except that you contradict the statement, 'Behold, the virgin shall conceive,' and say it ought to be read, 'Behold, the young woman shall conceive.' And I promised to prove that the prophecy referred, not, as you were taught, to Hezekiah, but to this Christ of mine: and now I shall go to the proof.

Trypho: We ask you first of all to tell us some of the Scriptures which you allege have been completely cancelled.

Chapter 72. Passages have been removed by the Jews from Esdras and Jeremiah
Justin: I shall do as you please. From the statements, then, which Esdras made in reference to the law of the passover, they have taken away the following: 'And Esdras said to the people, This passover is our Saviour and our refuge. And if you have understood, and your heart has taken it in, that we shall humble Him on a standard, and thereafter hope in Him, then this place shall not be forsaken for ever, says the God of hosts. But if you will not believe Him, and will not listen to His declaration, you shall be a laughing-stock to the nations.' And from the sayings of Jeremiah they have cut out the following: 'I [was] like a lamb that is brought to the slaughter: they devised a device against me, saying, Come, let us lay on wood on His bread, and let us blot Him out from the land of the living; and His name shall no more be remembered.' Jeremiah 11:19 And since this passage from the sayings of Jeremiah is still written in some copies [of the Scriptures] in the synagogues of the Jews (for it is only a short time since they were cut out), and since from these words it is demonstrated that the Jews deliberated about the Christ Himself, to crucify and put Him to death, He Himself is both declared to be led as a sheep to the slaughter, as was predicted by Isaiah, and is here represented as a harmless lamb; but being in a difficulty about them, they give themselves over to blasphemy. And again, from the sayings of the same Jeremiah these have been cut out: 'The Lord God remembered His dead people of Israel who lay in the graves; and He descended to preach to them His own salvation.'

 

[Athanasius377]

If the Protestant authors you cited did not know that Jews, after Christ, recognized different books of Scripture then I doubt they would care about supposedly non-existent Holy Scripture being passed down to anyone. Thus no mention of the Ethiopian Jews is not a surprise.

Actually they acknowledge that's a theory thats been debunked but was treated as gospel truth for much of the 20th century. If you are referring to the so called council of Jamnia know then that there is zero evidence for such a council. There was however an academy of Jamnia which debated the canonicity of Esther. That's all. The fact is the OT canon was established by the Jews a couple centuries before this academy met. The Temple already had its copies of Scripture laid up in the Temple, and were not accepting any new copies let alone new books. And of course you can't anyone whose reputable who says the Ethiopian Jews had an effect on the Jewish canon because no one whose reputable would say such a thing.

As I said, the Catholic Church chose the Septuagint because that's what the Apostles taught from, about two thirds of the references to the OT in the NT are from the Septuagint. There were some variations of the Septuagint that the Church had to decide upon. The Septuagint was likely translated into Greek in Alexandria, Jews in that area, call them Alexandrian Jews or Hellenistic Jews, used books for their canon of Holy Scripture that were translated into the Greek Septuagint.

This is precisely what did not happen. Jerome translated the OT into Latin from the Hebrew, not the Greek. Pope Damasus (not Damascus) commissioned Jerome for the translation because the Old Latin text was notoriously unreliable. So no the Catholic Church did not chose the septuagint (LXX) but rather chose to translate directly from the Hebrew. Which is where Jerome's exception comes in. It was mistaken that the apocrypha was part of of Hebrew scriptures. The only book in the Apocrypha (If I recall correctly) that had an extant copy in Hebrew was Baruch. The rest were in Greek only.


Yes, the LXX is the version of the OT quoted by the Apostles the most. No one denies this. I happen to believe that the LXX points towards an even older textual line than does the Masoratic text (dating from around 9th to 11th century AD) that most modern bibles use. But be careful when you say The Septuagint because there is not one unified text. I have on my bookshelf a multi-volume set that contains the variant readings in Greek from the different texts that make up the LXX. So for example the LXX translation of the Pentateuch is very tight and high quality. Other parts of the LXX, not so much. Books can be of varying length also yet are still considered part of the LXX. Job comes to mind here.

As to books, "Sacred Scripture: A Catholic Study of God's Word" by Smith-Christopher and Mullen provides information about the differing Jewish canons and may have a mention of the Ethiopian Jews using the same books that the Alexandrian Jews used roughly 2000 years before. Alexandria and Ethiopia are both in the northern part of Africa.

This is not a serious scholarly work. It looks like something that would be useful for RCIA, nothing more. And no there is no mention of the Ethiopian Jewish canon in the text. And yes I do have a copy. And I must say I didn’t know that catholic scripture studies contain so much theological liberalism such as the YEPD theory about the composition of the Torah (Pg 46). That stuff is battery acid and I would stay as far away from it as possible. It's always dangerous to have a different view of scripture than what Jesus had.

"Dialogue with Trypho"AD 155-160.

Chapter 71. The Jews reject the interpretation of the Septuagint, from which, moreover, they have taken away some passages

Justin: But I am far from putting reliance in your teachers, who refuse to admit that the interpretation made by the seventy elders who were with Ptolemy [king] of the Egyptians is a correct one; and they attempt to frame another. And I wish you to observe, that they have altogether taken away many Scriptures from the translations effected by those seventy elders who were with Ptolemy, and by which this very man who was crucified is proved to have been set forth expressly as God, and man, and as being crucified, and as dying; but since I am aware that this is denied by all of your nation, I do not address myself to these points, but I proceed to carry on my discussions by means of those passages which are still admitted by you. For you assent to those which I have brought before your attention, except that you contradict the statement, 'Behold, the virgin shall conceive,' and say it ought to be read, 'Behold, the young woman shall conceive.' And I promised to prove that the prophecy referred, not, as you were taught, to Hezekiah, but to this Christ of mine: and now I shall go to the proof.

Yes, Justin is among the first to notice the difference in Isa 7:14 between the Hebrew Text (at that time) and the Greek text. The Hebrew word is עַלְמָה or Almah which means a young marriageable woman. Where as the LXX has the word παρθένος or parthenos which means virgin. I think this is a tempest in a teacup because I don't know how a young woman of marriage age would not be a virgin in Jewish culture. Oddly enough the Catholic New American Bible gives the reading as young woman.



Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign; the young woman, pregnant and about to bear a son, shall name him Emmanuel.



New American Bible. (2011). (Revised Edition, Is 7:14). Washington, DC: The United States Conference of Catholic Bishops.

Chapter 72. Passages have been removed by the Jews from Esdras and Jeremiah

Justin: I shall do as you please. From the statements, then, which Esdras made in reference to the law of the passover, they have taken away the following: 'And Esdras said to the people, This passover is our Saviour and our refuge. And if you have understood, and your heart has taken it in, that we shall humble Him on a standard, and thereafter hope in Him, then this place shall not be forsaken for ever, says the God of hosts. But if you will not believe Him, and will not listen to His declaration, you shall be a laughing-stock to the nations.' And from the sayings of Jeremiah they have cut out the following: 'I [was] like a lamb that is brought to the slaughter: they devised a device against me, saying, Come, let us lay on wood on His bread, and let us blot Him out from the land of the living; and His name shall no more be remembered.' Jeremiah 11:19 And since this passage from the sayings of Jeremiah is still written in some copies [of the Scriptures] in the synagogues of the Jews (for it is only a short time since they were cut out), and since from these words it is demonstrated that the Jews deliberated about the Christ Himself, to crucify and put Him to death, He Himself is both declared to be led as a sheep to the slaughter, as was predicted by Isaiah, and is here represented as a harmless lamb; but being in a difficulty about them, they give themselves over to blasphemy. And again, from the sayings of the same Jeremiah these have been cut out: 'The Lord God remembered His dead people of Israel who lay in the graves; and He descended to preach to them His own salvation.'

Yes, there are differences between the LXX and the Hebrew text. Although it is not known where Justin got his first passage form, the second one is clearly from the LXX. Though the passage also appears in the Masoratic text so we are not sure what is meant by cut out or if that had happened.

 

[Valletta]

Actually they acknowledge that's a theory thats been debunked but was treated as gospel truth for much of the 20th century. If you are referring to the so called council of Jamnia know then that there is zero evidence for such a council. There was however an academy of Jamnia which debated the canonicity of Esther. That's all. The fact is the OT canon was established by the Jews a couple centuries before this academy met. The Temple already had its copies of Scripture laid up in the Temple, and were not accepting any new copies let alone new books. And of course you can't anyone whose reputable who says the Ethiopian Jews had an effect on the Jewish canon because no one whose reputable would say such a thing.




This is precisely what did not happen. Jerome translated the OT into Latin from the Hebrew, not the Greek. Pope Damasus (not Damascus) commissioned Jerome for the translation because the Old Latin text was notoriously unreliable. So no the Catholic Church did not chose the septuagint (LXX) but rather chose to translate directly from the Hebrew. Which is where Jerome's exception comes in. It was mistaken that the apocrypha was part of of Hebrew scriptures. The only book in the Apocrypha (If I recall correctly) that had an extant copy in Hebrew was Baruch. The rest were in Greek only.

Yes, Justin is among the first to notice the difference in Isa 7:14 between the Hebrew Text (at that time) and the Greek text. The Hebrew word is עַלְמָה or Almah which means a young marriageable woman. Where as the LXX has the word παρθένος or parthenos which means virgin. I think this is a tempest in a teacup because I don't know how a young woman of marriage age would not be a virgin in Jewish culture. Oddly enough the Catholic New American Bible gives the reading as young woman.



Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign; the young woman, pregnant and about to bear a son, shall name him Emmanuel.



New American Bible. (2011). (Revised Edition, Is 7:14). Washington, DC: The United States Conference of Catholic Bishops.

Yes, there are differences between the LXX and the Hebrew text. Although it is not known where Justin got his first passage form, the second one is clearly from the LXX. Though the passage also appears in the Masoratic text so we are not sure what is meant by cut out or if that had happened.

The Apostles taught from the Septuagint, thus the Catholic Church chose the Septuagint for the OT books. Understand that the Hebrews lost their language, that is why the Hebrew books were translated into the Greek. The whole process of choosing the 73 books of the Bible spanned centuries, as I've said, there were different readings a masses from region to region and the Church determined to make sure all texts were God-breathed. Translations are a whole different story, while Greek was popular at the time of the Apostles, by the time of Jerome essentially if you could read and write you knew Latin. Thus Jerome was tasked to do a Latin translation. The Catholic Church translated Biblical text into many common tongues and preserved the Bible over all of these centuries.

Actually they acknowledge that's a theory thats been debunked but was treated as gospel truth for much of the 20th century. If you are referring to the so called council of Jamnia know then that there is zero evidence for such a council. There was however an academy of Jamnia which debated the canonicity of Esther. That's all. The fact is the OT canon was established by the Jews a couple centuries before this academy met. The Temple already had its copies of Scripture laid up in the Temple, and were not accepting any new copies let alone new books. And of course you can't anyone whose reputable who says the Ethiopian Jews had an effect on the Jewish canon because no one whose reputable would say such a thing.




This is precisely what did not happen. Jerome translated the OT into Latin from the Hebrew, not the Greek. Pope Damasus (not Damascus) commissioned Jerome for the translation because the Old Latin text was notoriously unreliable. So no the Catholic Church did not chose the septuagint (LXX) but rather chose to translate directly from the Hebrew. Which is where Jerome's exception comes in. It was mistaken that the apocrypha was part of of Hebrew scriptures. The only book in the Apocrypha (If I recall correctly) that had an extant copy in Hebrew was Baruch. The rest were in Greek only.


Yes, the LXX is the version of the OT quoted by the Apostles the most. No one denies this. I happen to believe that the LXX points towards an even older textual line than does the Masoratic text (dating from around 9th to 11th century AD) that most modern bibles use. But be careful when you say The Septuagint because there is not one unified text. I have on my bookshelf a multi-volume set that contains the variant readings in Greek from the different texts that make up the LXX. So for example the LXX translation of the Pentateuch is very tight and high quality. Other parts of the LXX, not so much. Books can be of varying length also yet are still considered part of the LXX. Job comes to mind here.




This is not a serious scholarly work. It looks like something that would be useful for RCIA, nothing more. And no there is no mention of the Ethiopian Jewish canon in the text. And yes I do have a copy. And I must say I didn’t know that catholic scripture studies contain so much theological liberalism such as the YEPD theory about the composition of the Torah (Pg 46). That stuff is battery acid and I would stay as far away from it as possible. It's always dangerous to have a different view of scripture than what Jesus had.





Yes, Justin is among the first to notice the difference in Isa 7:14 between the Hebrew Text (at that time) and the Greek text. The Hebrew word is עַלְמָה or Almah which means a young marriageable woman. Where as the LXX has the word παρθένος or parthenos which means virgin. I think this is a tempest in a teacup because I don't know how a young woman of marriage age would not be a virgin in Jewish culture. Oddly enough the Catholic New American Bible gives the reading as young woman.



Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign; the young woman, pregnant and about to bear a son, shall name him Emmanuel.



New American Bible. (2011). (Revised Edition, Is 7:14). Washington, DC: The United States Conference of Catholic Bishops.

I never brought up Jamnia, I am quite aware but not having seen good documentation I deliberately did not mention it.

The Catholic Church chose the Greek Septuagint because that's what the Apostles taught from. Remember the Church is over 2000 years old and language changes. Understand that over the years the Hebrews lost their language, and thus Hebrew was translated into Greek and thus the Greek Septuagint. Translations are a different subject from what books are chosen. Jerome was tasked to create a Latin version of the Bible, because by Jerome's time if you could read and write in the European world you spoke Latin. As to OT books, Jerome translated the Psalms from Latin but chose the original Hebrew (logically) to translate into Latin for the rest of the OT books.

That change in the New American Bible drew national news coverage. Last I know of it was not approved for the liturgy.

 

[MarkRohfrietsch]

As I said, Mr. Beckwith was in error--it's not a secret that the Ethiopian Jews have kept a different canon than other Jews. The Ethiopian Jews are also known as the Beta Israel, Wikipedia says the following:
Deuterocanonical books that also make up part of the canon are Sirach, Judith, Esdras 1 and 2, Meqabyan, Jubilees, Baruch 1 and 4, Tobit, Enoch, and the testaments of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.[6][7][8]
As to Luther, he was a disgruntled and ex-communicated Catholic priest, some but not all of the changes he wanted ended up in Protestant Bibles. The books he wanted dropped had been in Christian Bibles for over a thousand years.

Many of the changes he sought were also came to fruition in the counter reformation, and later in Vatican II; of which many things in our opinion went to far. Be mindful that many Lutherans (My parish included) use Liturgies that are translated and adapted from the Pre-Trent Roman Rite. Divine Service III from Lutheran Service Book looks, sounds, and has way more in common with the Extraordinary Tridentine Mass than it does the Novis Ordo.

The assertion in the original post that Protestants don't know history is a very biased statement; it is very clear that most Catholics are generally no better informed.

A statement that most reformed protestants disregard history; proof being the rejection of the historic lectionairys, traditional feasts, festivals and commemorations; more self centered and decision oriented doctrine, due to a narrow focus and understanding of Scripture through an historic critical interpretation of the Bible, might be more on the mark.

 

[MarkRohfrietsch]

The Apostles taught from the Septuagint, thus the Catholic Church chose the Septuagint for the OT books. Understand that the Hebrews lost their language, that is why the Hebrew books were translated into the Greek. The whole process of choosing the 73 books of the Bible spanned centuries, as I've said, there were different readings a masses from region to region and the Church determined to make sure all texts were God-breathed. Translations are a whole different story, while Greek was popular at the time of the Apostles, by the time of Jerome essentially if you could read and write you knew Latin. Thus Jerome was tasked to do a Latin translation. The Catholic Church translated Biblical text into many common tongues and preserved the Bible over all of these centuries.


I never brought up Jamnia, I am quite aware but not having seen good documentation I deliberately did not mention it.

The Catholic Church chose the Greek Septuagint because that's what the Apostles taught from. Remember the Church is over 2000 years old and language changes. Understand that over the years the Hebrews lost their language, and thus Hebrew was translated into Greek and thus the Greek Septuagint. Translations are a different subject from what books are chosen. Jerome was tasked to create a Latin version of the Bible, because by Jerome's time if you could read and write in the European world you spoke Latin. As to OT books, Jerome translated the Psalms from Latin but chose the original Hebrew (logically) to translate into Latin for the rest of the OT books.

That change in the New American Bible drew national news coverage. Last I know of it was not approved for the liturgy.

Luther had the same texts as Jerome when he translated the Old Testament, same goes for the new testament BTW. Also Jerome felt, for the same reasons as Luther did, that the Apocrypha should have been placed separately in the bound versions of the Bible; so in Luther's Bible, they were placed between the Old and New Testament. In our Lutheran Service Book, we continue to commemorate St. Jerome on his feast day.

The English Standard Version is the most recent translation adopted by the Lutheran Church Missouri Synod/Lutheran Church Canada. It is also the most recently approved English translations within the Catholic Church, being adopted by the Catholic Church in India, and has Vatican approval as well.

The Augustine edition (exact same edition as the one pictured in the article linked below) is the one both my Lutheran Pastor and myself are currently using. The amendments that are spoken of in the article, are already incorporated into the notes of the Lutheran Study Edition:

What’s the ESV-CE? — FAITH & CULTURE

 

[Valletta]

Luther had the same texts as Jerome when he translated the Old Testament, same goes for the new testament BTW. Also Jerome felt, for the same reasons as Luther did, that the Apocrypha should have been placed separately in the bound versions of the Bible; so in Luther's Bible, they were placed between the Old and New Testament. In our Lutheran Service Book, we continue to commemorate St. Jerome on his feast day.

The English Standard Version is the most recent translation adopted by the Lutheran Church Missouri Synod/Lutheran Church Canada. It is also the most recently approved English translations within the Catholic Church, being adopted by the Catholic Church in India, and has Vatican approval as well.

The Augustine edition (exact same edition as the one pictured in the article linked below) is the one both my Lutheran Pastor and myself are currently using. The amendments that are spoken of in the article, are already incorporated into the notes of the Lutheran Study Edition:

What’s the ESV-CE? — FAITH & CULTURE

Actually Jerome brought up the fact the a group of Jews, who had rejected the Gospels, had dropped the Deuterocanonicals from the Bible. But the Church ruled that Christians were under no obligation to accept
the teachings of those who had rejected Jesus, and Jerome concurred stating:

"What sin have I committed if I followed the judgment of the churches? But he who brings charges against me for relating the objections that the Hebrews are wont to raise against the Story of Susanna, the Song of the Three Children, and the story of Bel and the Dragon, which are not found in the Hebrew volume, proves that he is just a foolish sycophant. For I was not relating my own personal views, but rather the remarks that they [the Jews] are wont to make against us." (Jerome, Against Rufinus, 11:33 [AD 402]).

Luther was unsuccessful in his attempt to drop Revelation (which has so much in common with the Catholic mass) from all Protestant Bibles. As to the ESV I think it is wonderful that Lutherans and Catholics can share so much common text.

 

[tz620q]

This is precisely what did not happen. Jerome translated the OT into Latin from the Hebrew, not the Greek. Pope Damasus (not Damascus) commissioned Jerome for the translation because the Old Latin text was notoriously unreliable. So no the Catholic Church did not chose the septuagint (LXX) but rather chose to translate directly from the Hebrew. Which is where Jerome's exception comes in. It was mistaken that the apocrypha was part of of Hebrew scriptures. The only book in the Apocrypha (If I recall correctly) that had an extant copy in Hebrew was Baruch. The rest were in Greek only.

Partially correct. Pope Damasus felt that the time was right for one of the top scholars of the time, Jerome, to make a definitive translation that could be used by the whole church. Jerome was an excellent Greek linguist; but was poor in Hebrew and even poorer in Aramaic. So Jerome's first translation was done before he traveled to Palestine and was from Greek. Translation is not merely a linguistic process of finding words in one language to express thoughts from another. It is also a process of collecting the known versions of texts and deciding on which is the most correct to the originals. Jerome had done his Greek translation using the Old Latin works and known Greek works. So Jerome thought and the Pope concurred that Jerome should travel to Palestine and work with Hebrew scholars to improve his knowledge of the Hebrew language and to collect Hebrew versions of the texts and work to translate these and decide on any contradictions to the Greek. This took nearly thirty years and it seems that Jerome became very frustrated when the only extant versions were in Aramaic. It is my contention that during this time Jerome became influenced by the Jewish scholars and adopted their view of the OT. So in the preface to the deuterocanonical books he expressed the Jewish opinion that this was a lesser canon. Later in life, after moving back to Europe, he wrote a retraction to that view. So to me, the only thing I glean from this about the canon was that the Jewish scholars had already decided to emphasis the Hebrew texts and denigrate the Septuagint in the late 4th century AD.

I do find it odd that Lutherans who accept that the deuterocanonical books as canonical, albeit a lesser canon, often downplay Luther's efforts to remove books as being solely one man's opinion and allow the Lutheran church to have the final say in what is in their Bibles. Then they use Jerome's opinion as proof that the deuterocanonical books are a lesser canon, even though, like Luther, Jerome listened to his Church and left the deuterocanonical books in the Bible and in the greater canon.

All of this is worthy of study and debate; but it is a complex subject. I am sorry if my first paragraph seems like I am talking down to you. I assure you, I respect your knowledge and your opinion. I just felt I needed to cover briefly what I have learned to get to my point. God be with you.

 

[ViaCrucis]

All of those Serial Killers were baptized as Catholic infants ... is being a mass murderer one of the Fruit of the Spirit that I missed?

God saves people.
Water Baptism makes babies (and adults) wet.
One should never confuse the work of God for the work of men.

It is precisely because we shouldn't confuse the work of God (Baptism) with the work of men (our own good works) that we must confess God's own indelible promises to us through His word on this matter.

That these men abandoned their faith through murder and all other manner of wickedness doesn't negate God's work and promises in the Gospel.

It is not God who is to blame when men turn away and reject His mercy.

Yes, those people you mentioned were born again, because God's word and promises are true. When He says that we are born again by water and the Spirit, He means what He says. Should we sin a thousand times a day does not negate God's word--but that doesn't mean that we can continue in faith and in such a state of wickedness. And someone who makes shipwreck of their faith is someone who has abandoned their baptism, they have abandoned and turned away from Christ.

But if we are going to make God's grace conditional on human ability and merit then we are undermining the very Gospel itself, that is nothing less than a thorough rejection of grace.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Valletta]

You have no evidence for this assertion. Sadducees denied the Oral Torah or the Tradition of the Elders, but there is no evidence that the denied the other books in the traditional list of 22. Do not confuse the term "written Torah" with just the first five books because that is not what is meant. Samaritans are not Jews and have never been considered part of the conversation when it comes to the issue of canon. There are no known differences that can be proven in canon between the pharisees and the Essenes.
You are free to post the various canon lists that would have differed from those laid up in the Temple. Do make sure you give proper citation so we can read the source directly.

Since the Temple was the center of Jewish religious life it does not follow that groups claiming the same religious heritage to have different books of scripture that would differ from those laid up in the Temple.

Roger Beckwith observes:
It seems, therefore, that for as long as the Temple stood there was no essential disagreement among the different Jewish schools about the canon. And if that was so, the very rivalry between the schools must have been one of the main factors responsible. This rivalry, between Pharisees, Sadducees and Essenes, had first become important around the time of the high-priesthood of Jonathan Maccabaeus (152–142 bc), as a statement to that effect by Josephus (Ant. 13.5.9, or 13.171–3) and other evidence indicates. From then onwards it is likely, in view of the intensity of the rivalry, that the canon remained unaltered until after the suppression of the first Jewish revolt and the destruction of the Temple in ad 70, as a result of which events the Essenes and Sadducees lost most of their influence, and the Temple Scriptures were dispersed. Any literature, consequently, which is referred to as canonical by Pharisaic or Essene writers, or both, during the period of just over two centuries preceding the destruction, was probably canonical throughout the period for all three schools; and though, when the period had ended, it would have been possible for the triumphant Pharisees to have added further books to the canon, they would hardly have thought such action appropriate after the canon had remained unchanged for so long. Both their traditionalism and their continuing veneration for the Temple would have restrained them. Certainly, they are not likely to have celebrated their triumph by making concessions to Essenism, and it follows that any book included in the later form of the Pharisaic canon, which is also reckoned canonical by Essene writers of the Temple period, is a probable part of the common heritage of both schools, dating back to the time before their longstanding rivalry began.132

Beckwith, R. T. (1985). The Old Testament Canon of the New Testament Church and Its Background in Early Judaism (pp. 90–91). London: SPCK.

I am not a follower of Beckwith, these are his speculations, he includes the the word "probably" and "And if that was so" and mentions the Sadducees when discussing the "Jewish schools." I wonder what actual facts he supplies to support his proposals.