₦airaland Forum

Welcome, Guest: Join Nairaland / LOGIN! / Trending / Recent / New
Stats: 2,163,305 members, 4,713,604 topics. Date: Wednesday, 23 January 2019 at 10:29 AM

Contra Bibliolatreia II -the Septuagint - Religion (2) - Nairaland

Nairaland Forum / Nairaland / General / Religion / Contra Bibliolatreia II -the Septuagint (3080 Views)

The Secret Letters Of Pope John Paul II; The Romantic Side Of Him. / Contra Bibliolatreia I Mark 10:5 / Was Pope John Paul Ii The Last Good Pope (2) (3) (4)

(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (Reply) (Go Down)

Re: Contra Bibliolatreia II -the Septuagint by JMAN05: 4:25am On Oct 21, 2018
Ubenedictus:
now be careful, don't misinform us.
Jerome could read understand and translate, hebrew, greek and latin, while he relied on one language over the other, he did well to compare both and make up for what was missing, macabees wasnt in d mosoretic text but Jerome had the wisdom to translate it to latin from d greek. He translated the deuterocanonical books, the rejection of those books didnt come from Jerome, it came frome the rabis and ultimately d protestant reformer Luther.

Jerome never viewed those books are canonical. He in fact used the word "Apocrypha" for those books to denote its lack of inspiration. There other latter "church fathers" that viewed those writings as not authoritative.
Re: Contra Bibliolatreia II -the Septuagint by JMAN05: 4:29am On Oct 21, 2018
PastorAIO:
I find it interesting to discover that there are 'christians' (such as the Jehovah's Witnesses) that would readily reject the LXX regardless of the fact that Early Christianity was itself based on the LXX.

We do not reject the Septuagint. But keep researching, you will discover things I hope will help you. If I tell you, you may not believe until you do your own personal digging. So its good. Keep it up.

You can check the other thread, I wrote something there.
Re: Contra Bibliolatreia II -the Septuagint by OneJ: 8:00am On Oct 21, 2018
[quote
Re: Contra Bibliolatreia II -the Septuagint by OneJ: 8:00am On Oct 21, 2018
[quote
Re: Contra Bibliolatreia II -the Septuagint by OneJ: 8:12am On Oct 21, 2018
PastorAIO:


Since you were one of the two persons that I had the disagreement with, the other being OneJ, are you about to declare that your position in that disagreement is Not the accepted position of the JW anisation?

If you were not representing the JW position then I might accept that I made a generalisation about JW, BUT if you were accurately representing the JW lies then any rebuttal of your lies is also a rebuttal of the lies of the JW Organisation.

For those who don't know the 'disagreement' stems from this thread: https://www.nairaland.com/3753404/hebrew-monotheistic-belief-product-religious/12#69128895

I connect both threads with links because they are pertinent to each other.
JMAN05:


We do not reject the Septuagint. But keep researching, you will discover things I hope will help you. If I tell you, you may not believe until you do your own personal digging. So its good. Keep it up.

You can check the other thread, I wrote something there.




My bro, in your other thread, ("syncretism & monotheism", u know the topic U originated) PastorAI0 is making such claims simply because I pointed out that contrary to his opinion, "ego himi " in John 8:58 is NOT the same as "I am" in Exodus 3:14.

Whenever JW present the truth about a subject matter, it is often twisted & distorted by the opposition.
Jah bless.
Shalom

1 Like

Re: Contra Bibliolatreia II -the Septuagint by JMAN05: 2:23am On Oct 22, 2018
OneJ:




My bro, in your other thread, ("syncretism & monotheism", u know the topic U originated) PastorAI0 is making such claims simply because I pointed out that contrary to his opinion, "ego himi " in John 8:58 is NOT the same as "I am" in Exodus 3:14.

Whenever JW present the truth about a subject matter, it is often twisted & distorted by the opposition.
Jah bless.
Shalom

They are not the same person for sure. john 8:58 wasn't talking about name, the grammatical structure is not for that.

1 Like

Re: Contra Bibliolatreia II -the Septuagint by Ubenedictus(m): 9:35am On Oct 25, 2018
JMAN05:


Jerome never viewed those books are canonical. He in fact used the word "Apocrypha" for those books to denote its lack of inspiration. There other latter "church fathers" that viewed those writings as not authoritative.
not exactly, Jerome lived a great deal in Palestine, of course the Jews didn't use the dueterocanonical books and he adopted that position, he called the Hebrew canon the list of canonical books. But he did not exactly put the dueterocanonical books as apocryphal... Nope, he put them in a class of their own, the became the ecclesiastical books which are read in the churches for edification but not for doctrine.

Jerome had two list, the canonical books comprising of the Hebrew Bible alone and then the ecclesiastical books comprising of the deuterocanonical books.

Here is what Jerome says



These instances have been just touched upon by me (the limits of a letter forbid a more discursive treatment of them) to convince you that in the holy scriptures you can make no progress unless you have a guide to shew you the way...Genesis ... Exodus ... Leviticus ... Numbers ... Deuteronomy ... Job ... Jesus the son of Nave ... Judges ... Ruth ... Samuel ... The third and fourth books of Kings ... The twelve prophets whose writings are compressed within the narrow limits of a single volume: Hosea ... Joel ... Amos ... Obadiah ... Jonah ... Micah ... Nahum ... Habakkuk ... Zephaniah ... Haggai ... Zechariah ... Malachi ... Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, and Daniel ... Jeremiah also goes four times through the alphabet in different metres (Lamentations)... David...sings of Christ to his lyre; and on a psaltry with ten strings (Psalms) ... Solomon, a lover of peace and of the Lord, corrects morals, teaches nature (Proverbs and Ecclesiastes), unites Christ and the church, and sings a sweet marriage song to celebrate that holy bridal (Song of Songs) ... Esther ... Ezra and Nehemiah. (Philip Schaff and Henry Wace, Nicene and Post Nicene Fathers (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1953, Volume VI, St. Jerome, Letter LIII.6-8, pp. 98-101).

As, then, the Church reads Judith, Tobit, and the books of Maccabees, but does not admit them among the canonical Scriptures, so let it also read these two volumes (Wisdom of Solomon and Ecclesiasticus) for the edification of the people, not to give authority to doctrines of the Church...I say this to show you how hard it is to master the book of Daniel, which in Hebrew contains neither the history of Susanna, nor the hymn of the three youths, nor the fables of Bel and the Dragon... (Ibid., Volume VI, Jerome, Prefaces to Jerome's Works, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes and the Song of Songs; Daniel, pp. 492-493).

He never claimed the dueterocanonical books are uninspired, in fact he denies saying that the deuterocaononical books are uninspired.

After he translated the vulgate with the deuteron canonical he was immediately accused by fellow Christians that he wrote dismissively about the deuterocanon, he IMMEDIATELY DENIED IT, he claimed all he meant to write was that the Jews didn't agree with the deuteron canonical books but that he personally submit himself to the judgment of the churches that adopted the non Hebrew canon.

Here is Jerome making a u-turn and submitting to the churches on the theodian long Greek canon.




We have four versions to choose from: those of Aquila, Symmachus, the Seventy, and Theodotion. The churches choose to read Daniel in the version of Theodotion. What sin have I committed in following the judgment of the churches? But when I repeat what the Jews say against the Story of Susanna and the Hymn of the Three Children, and the fables of Bel and the Dragon, which are not contained in the Hebrew Bible, the man who makes this a charge against me proves himself to be a fool and a slanderer; for I explained not what I thought but what they commonly say against us. I did not reply to their opinion in the Preface, because I was studying brevity, and feared that I should seem to he writing not a Preface but a book. I said therefore, “As to which this is not the time to enter into discussion.” […] Still, I wonder that a man should read the version of Theodotion the heretic and judaizer, and should scorn that of a Christian, simple and sinful though he may be. Letter to ruffinus.

So Jerome translated the book of Daniel according to the Greek deuterocanon and says that is the judgement of the church and that he submit himself to that judgment and that any harsh things he wrote about the deuterocanon is just a report of what the Jews used to say about it.


It becomes even more interesting after Jerome submit to the church because he went all out and called the deuterocanon SCRIPTURE and uses them in defending doctrines.



Does not the SCRIPTURE say: 'Burden not thyself above thy power' [SIRACH 13:2] Jerome, To Eustochium, Epistle 108 (A.D. 404), in NPNF2, VI:207

not, my dearest brother, estimate my worth by the number of my years. Gray hairs are not wisdom; it is wisdom which is as good as gray hairs At least that is what Solomon says: "wisdom is the gray hair unto men.’ [Wisdom 4:9]" Moses too in choosing the seventy elders is told to take those whom he knows to be elders indeed, and to select them not for their years but for their discretion (Num. 11:16)? And, as a boy, Daniel judges old men and in the flower of youth condemns the incontinence of age (Daniel 13:55-59, or Story of Susannah 55-59, only found in the Catholic Bibles) Jerome, To Paulinus, Epistle 58 (A.D. 395), in NPNF2, VI:119

Here St. Jerome mixes use of the Book of Wisdom with Moses’ writing. In the midst of referring to Moses, he also refers to the Story of Susanna to establish a point. He makes no distinction in practice from the writing of Moses, from the two Deuterocanonical books.

"I would cite the words of the psalmist: 'the sacrifices of God are a broken spirit,’ [Ps 51:17] and those of Ezekiel 'I prefer the repentance of a sinner rather than his death,’ [Ez 18:23] AND THOSE OF BARUCH,'Arise, arise, O Jerusalem,’ [Baruch 5:5] AND MANY OTHER PROCLAMATIONS MADE BY THE TRUMPETS OF THE PROPHETS." Jerome, To Oceanus, Epistle 77:4 (A.D. 399), in NPNF2, VI:159

Notice how Jerome makes no distinction at all between the Psalmist, Ezekiel, and Baruch. They are all Scripture, God's Word. Jerome himself calls Baruch a prophet, thus according his writing Scriptural status. According to Jerome, Baruch thus authoritatively spoke God's Word. He uses Baruch in tandem with these prophets to prove David in Psalm 51 correct.

still our merriment must not forget the limit set by Scripture, and we must not stray too far from the boundary of our wrestling-ground. Your presents, indeed, remind me of the sacred volume, for in it Ezekiel decks Jerusalem with bracelets, (Eze. 16:11) Baruch receives letters from Jeremiah,(Jer. 36, Bar. 6) and the Holy Spirit descends in the form of a dove at the baptism of Christ.(Mt. 3:16) Jerome, To Eustochium, Epistle 31:2 (A.D. 384), in NPNF2, VI:45

Notice that St. Jerome quotes in reference to Scriptures, and the Sacred Volumes. Then he refers to 3 passages. Ezekiel, Baruch, and Matthew. Now, Jerome here refers to Jeremiah giving letters (plural) to Baruch. One time in Jeremiah 36, and another time in Baruch 6, as the Protestant Schaff editor indicates. Thus, Baruch is clearly Scripture, and he is clearly an author of the Sacred Volume, the Bible.

As in good works it is God who brings them to perfection, for it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that pitieth and gives us help that we may be able to reach the goal: so in things wicked and sinful, the seeds within us give the impulse, and these are brought to maturity by the devil. When he sees that we are building upon the foundation of Christ, hay, wood, stubble, then he applies the match. Let us then build gold, silver, costly stones, and he will not venture to tempt us: although even thus there is not sure and safe possession. For the lion lurks in ambush to slay the innocent. [Sir. 27:5] "Potters' vessels are proved by the furnace, and just men by the trial of tribulation." And in another place it is written: [Sir. 2:1] "My son, when thou comest to serve the Lord, prepare thyself for temptation." Again, the same James says: [James 3:22]"Be ye doers of the word, and not hearers only. For if any one is a hearer of the word, and not a doer, he is like unto a man beholding his natural face in a mirror: for he beholdeth himself, and goeth away, and straightway forgetteth what manner of man he was." It was useless to warn them to add works to faith, if they could not sin after baptism. Jerome, Against Jovinianus,, Book 2, 3 NPNF2, VI:390

As we have seen, "It is written" is a phrase that both the authors of Scripture, and the Church Fathers use only in reference to Scripture. Jerome uses the phrase identifying the quote to come as Scripture. The quote he uses comes from the book of Sirach. Thus, Sirach is Scripture. He then quotes James interchangeably as just another Scripture as of the same level of authority as Sirach.

"Yet the Holy Spirit in the thirty-ninth(9) psalm, while lamenting that all men walk in a vain show, and that they are subject to sins, speaks thus: "For all that every man walketh in the image."(Psalm 39:6) Also after David's time, in the reign of Solomon his son, we read a somewhat similar reference to the divine likeness. For in the book of Wisdom, which is inscribed with his name, Solomon says: "God created man to be immortal, and made him to be an image of his own eternity."(Wisdom 2:23) And again, about eleven hundred and eleven years afterwards, we read in the New Testament that men have not lost the image of God. For James, an apostle and brother of the Lord, whom I have mentioned above--that we may not be entangled in the snares of Origen--teaches us that man does possess God's image and likeness. For, after a somewhat discursive account of the human tongue, he has gone on to say of it: "It is an unruly evil ... therewith bless we God, even the Father and therewith curse we men, which are made after the similitude of God."(James 3:8-9) Paul, too, the "chosen vessel,"(Acts 9:15) who in his preaching has fully maintained the doctrine of the gospel, instructs us that man is made in the image and after the likeness of God. "A man," he says, "ought not to wear long hair, forasmuch as he is the image and glory of God."(1 Cor. 11:7) He speaks of "the image" simply, but explains the nature of the likeness by the word "glory."

7. Instead of THE THREE PROOFS FROM HOLY SCRIPTURE which you said would satisfy you if I could produce them, BEHOLD I HAVE GIVEN YOU SEVEN"--- Jerome, Letter 51, 6, 7, NPNF2, VI:87-8

St. Jerome himself had written that the Deuterocanonicals are not used to establish doctrine. However, with the larger context given, on this occasion speaking of how we are made in God's image, a doctrine, he specifically uses the Book of Wisdom to establish that. St. Jerome doesn't make any distinctions between the other Scriptural books that he uses to speak on doctrine. The Book of Wisdom is one of Seven Scriptural proofs to establish the meaning of the image of God.

A. "Your argument is ingenious, but you do not see THAT IT GOES AGAINST HOLY SCRIPTURE, which declares that even ignorance is not without sin. Hence it was that Job offered sacrifices for his sons, test, perchance, they had unwittingly sinned in thought. And if, when one is cutting wood, the axe-head flies from the handle and kills a man, the owner is[Num. 35:8] commanded to go to one of the cities of refuge and stay there until the high priest dies; that is to say, until he is redeemed by the Saviour's blood, either in the baptistery, or in penitence which is a copy of the grace of baptism, through the ineffable mercy of the Saviour, who[Ezek. 18:23] would not have any one perish, nor delights in the death of sinners, but would rather that they should be converted and live. C. It is surely strange justice to hold me guilty of a sin of error of which my conscience does not accuse itself. I am not aware that I have sinned, and am I to pay the penalty for an offence of which I am ignorant? What more can I do, if I sin voluntarily?

A. DO YOU EXPECT ME TO EXPLAIN THE PURPOSES AND PLANS OF GOD? THE BOOK OF WISDOM GIVES AN ANSWER TO YOUR FOOLISH QUESTION: [Sir 3:21] "LOOK NOT INTO THINGS ABOVE THEE, AND SEARCH NOT THINGS TOO MIGHTY FOR THEE." AND ELSEWHERE,[5] "Make not thyself overwise, and argue not more than is fitting." And in the same place, "In wisdom and simplicity of heart seek God." You will perhaps deny the authority of this book;" "Jerome, "Against the Pelagians, NPNF2, VI:464-5"

Notice at the beginning of his statement he speaks how he is going to prove his point by using Holy Scripture. Then he gives a series of Scriptures to prove the folly of his opponent. Part of those Scriptures that he uses to prove his point is the book of Sirach. The books of Wisdom and Sirach, according to Jerome, explain the plan and purpose of God, which refutes his opponents doctrine. Actually, although he says it is from Wisdom the quotation is actually from Sirach 3:21. Thus, both books are Scripture in Jerome’s eyes. They are quoted by Jerome to prove doctrine!. He says that maybe his opponent will deny the authority of the book, but not St. Jerome. He thus affirms its authority. The rest of the paragraph he actually quotes other Scriptures to support his quotation of Sirach.

"And in the proverbs Solomon tells us that as "the north wind driveth away rain, so doth an angry countenance a backbiting tongue.(Prov. 25:23)" It sometimes happens that an arrow when it is aimed at a hard object rebounds upon the bowman, wounding the would-bewounder, and thus, the words are fulfilled, "they were turned aside like a deceitful bow," (Psalm 128:57) and in another passage: "whoso casteth a stone on high casteth it on his own head." (Sir. 27:25) Jerome, To Rusticus, Epistle 125, 19 (A.D. 404), in NPNF2, VI:251



So Jerome isn't a firm witness against the deuterocanon, he earlier classed them separately as ecclesiastical books but he submitted to the churches which didn't place them in a different category and he later quotes the deuterocanon as scripture just like other scripture.
Re: Contra Bibliolatreia II -the Septuagint by Ubenedictus(m): 9:45am On Oct 25, 2018
JMAN05:


Jerome never viewed those books are canonical. He in fact used the word "Apocrypha" for those books to denote its lack of inspiration. There other latter "church fathers" that viewed those writings as not authoritative.
of course you would find church fathers who were skeptical of the deuterocanon, just as you would find that there were early Christians and whole Christian churches that didn't accept the book of revelation, 1 and 2 peter, the letters of John etc, but ultimately the decider of these things in the early church isn't a single church father on his own but the church in a council, and in councils the deuterocanon was accepted and every church father that was skeptical comes back and quotes the deuterocanon as scripture.

1 Like

Re: Contra Bibliolatreia II -the Septuagint by PastorAIO: 12:43pm On Oct 25, 2018
Ihedinobi3:


The part in blue seems to be a flat out falsehood and in my thinking it is the single most important falsehood in this argument:

"Masoretic text, (from Hebrew masoreth, “tradition”), traditional Hebrew text of the Jewish Bible, meticulously assembled and codified, and supplied with diacritical marks to enable correct pronunciation. This monumental work was begun around the 6th century AD and completed in the 10th by scholars at Talmudic academies in Babylonia and Palestine, in an effort to reproduce, as far as possible, the original text of the Hebrew Old Testament. Their intention was not to interpret the meaning of the Scriptures but to transmit to future generations the authentic Word of God. To this end they gathered manuscripts and whatever oral traditions were available to them."

Source: https://www.britannica.com/topic/Masoretic-text


I do not remember where I got the information that there was some translating back from the Septuagint so I'll concede that point. Also, for sure, there were still some of the ancient hebrew texts around. The earliest Hebrew text that we have today are from the 2nd century bc, found amongst the Dead Sea Scrolls, I believe.

Right from those earliest days we find that there were already marked distinctions between these different copies of the earliest extant hebrew texts. There is even a Talmudic story that claimed that there were 3 copies of the Hebrew bible in the Temple that were at odds with each other and needed to be resolved. We must consider any claims of Authenticity in light of these facts.



What I perceive to be the real aim of this argument is to call the Bible into question on the basis of cleverly twisted historical events woven to disguise the major falsehood it seeks to perpetrate, namely, that the Bible we have today may not be quite the same as what existed before the Septuagint but is rather the product of different schemes/agenda/beliefs held by different groups.

I'm terribly sorry but you don't get any points for that Sherlock Holmes. Right from the title it is clear that I'm questioning the worship and elevation of the bible to divine status that we often witness. I've been doing ever since I've joined Nairaland and you're well enough acquainted with me to know this.

I can state categorically that the bibles (note the plural) that we have today are not the same as what existed before the Septuagint and is rather a product of schemes, agendas, and beliefs of different groups. It is a process that continues till today. Right before our eyes we see the Jehovah's witnesses reinventing their own bibles, Martin Luther changing words and trying to scrap books like James... etc

The fact is that there are discrepancies between the earliest copies of the OT. Furthermore Christianity is rooted in one of those versions that, The LXX, and that version is at odds with all the other Hebrew texts including the masoretic. Never mind that the hebrew texts are often at odds with themselves.

And we are not just talking about slight unimportant variations, but variations upon which whole doctrines have been based upon. For example, The Virgin Birth. Virgin Birth is not a trifling issue in Christianity. Yet it is at odds with the Hebrew bible which doesn't mention anything about a Virgin giving Birth.


Regardless whether the legend about the creation of the Septuagint is true or not, the Septuagint was known to have problems in translation. Scholars tended to use existing Hebrew texts to correct it a lot. This was during the 3rd Century AD (see the link) which was a long time after the destruction of the Temple. That means that contrary to your argument, Hebrew manuscripts survived from which a more correct translation of the Hebrew Bible could be made.

Those were the source of the Masoretic Text. And till date, it has proved completely reliable in preserving the truths of the Old Testament.

Would one of those problems in it's translation include where it says that a Virgin has bear a Child? It is only Septuagint that says that.

Or perhaps you consider it a problem that Septuagint has Yahweh confess his name as 'Ego Eimi', i.e I Am, upon which so much of christianity's claim to Christ's divinity is based on. What do you think of LXX's translation of Exodus 3:14

14 God said to Moses, “I am who I am.[c] This is what you are to say to the Israelites: ‘I am has sent me to you.’”

Would you consider this an error in Translation?

And when Jesus supposedly references it in John 8:58 was Jesus misguided?
Re: Contra Bibliolatreia II -the Septuagint by PastorAIO: 1:19pm On Oct 25, 2018
Ihedinobi3:
Some points of departure in Britannica from your deposition, PastorAIO:

1. "The name Septuagint (from the Latin septuaginta, “70”) was derived later from the legend that there were 72 translators, 6 from each of the 12 tribes of Israel, who worked independently to translate the whole and ultimately produced identical versions. Another legend holds that the translators were sent to Alexandria by Eleazar, the chief priest at Jerusalem, at the request of Ptolemy II Philadelphus (285–246 BCE), though its source, the Letter of Aristeas, is unreliable. Despite the tradition that it was perfectly translated, there are large differences in style and usage between the Septuagint’s translation of the Torah and its translations of the later books in the Old Testament. In the 3rd century CE Origen attempted to clear up copyists’ errors that had crept into the text of the Septuagint, which by then varied widely from copy to copy, and a number of other scholars consulted the Hebrew texts in order to make the Septuagint more accurate."
Source: https://www.britannica.com/topic/Septuagint

So, your version of the legend is weird and your later assertion that the Septuagint was the original Scripture of Christianity perhaps on the strength of this legend is problematic. Also, it is clear that the Septuagint had problems and scholars used Hebrew texts to compensate. Origen, incidentally, is a church father.

My general view of legends is that they are not factual. That's why we call them legends and not History. However I'm curious as to where 'my' version of the legend is 'weird' or even where it contradicts your version. I don't recall saying anything in my telling of the legend that contradicts your version of the legend above.
About being the original scripture of Christianity, the fact is that the LXX is the version most quoted in the New Testament and it is used also as the basis of some Christian doctrines. For example, the Virgin Birth, and the identification of Jesus with divinity via the use of the phrase 'I Am'/Ego Eimi.
This is the basis of my saying that LXX is a fundamental scripture of Christianity. Nothing to do with the Legend which is a story, that it may or may not surprise you to realise but, I don't believe it happened.



2. "In addition to all the books of the Hebrew canon, the Septuagint under Christian auspices separated the minor prophets and some other books and added the extra books known to Protestants and Jews as apocryphal and to Roman Catholics as deuterocanonical."
Source: https://www.britannica.com/topic/Septuagint

So, it's not like the Septuagint always had those extra books. It was at the hands of men of the Church visible that they were added.

You continue to miss one of my main points that I've made over and over again on NL. The entire thing is the product of 'the hands of men of the Church visible' and of other people too, ALL MEN, and All very very very VISIBLE. From Genesis to Revelation. All the different versions only tell us that humans are a diverse bunch.



3. "The Christian church received its Bible from Greek-speaking Jews and found the majority of its early converts in the Hellenistic world. The Greek Bible of Alexandria thus became the official Bible of the Christian community, and the overwhelming number of quotations from the Hebrew Scriptures in the New Testament are derived from it. Whatever the origin of the apocryphal books in the canon of Alexandria, these became part of the Christian Scriptures, but there seems to have been no unanimity as to their exact canonical status. The New Testament itself does not cite the Apocryphal books directly, but occasional traces of a knowledge of them are to be found. The Apostolic Fathers (late 1st–early 2nd century) show extensive familiarity with this literature, but a list of the Old Testament books by Melito, bishop of Sardis in Asia Minor (2nd century), does not include the additional writings of the Greek Bible, and Origen (c. 185–c. 254) explicitly describes the Old Testament canon as comprising only 22 books."
Source: https://www.britannica.com/topic/biblical-literature/The-Christian-canon

So, there was a more complex situation than you represent in your argument.

Thank you for filling out the details, however nothing you say above contradicts anything I said previously.



4. "The story of the Greek translation of the Pentateuch is told in the Letter of Aristeas, which purports to be a contemporary document written by Aristeas, a Greek official at the Egyptian court of Ptolemy II Philadelphus (285–246 BCE). It recounts how the law of the Jews was translated into Greek by Jewish scholars sent from Jerusalem at the request of the king.

This narrative, repeated in one form or another by Philo and rabbinic sources, is full of inaccuracies that prove that the author was an Alexandrian Jew writing well after the events he described had taken place. The Septuagint Pentateuch, which is all that is discussed, does, however, constitute an independent corpus within the Greek Bible, and it was probably first translated as a unit by a company of scholars in Alexandria about the middle of the 3rd century BCE.

The Septuagint, as the entire Greek Bible came to be called, has a long and complex history and took well over a century to be completed. It is for this reason not a unified or consistent translation. The Septuagint became the instrument whereby the basic teachings of Judaism were mediated to the pagan world, and it became an indispensable factor in the spread of Christianity.

The adoption of the Septuagint as the Bible of the Christians naturally engendered suspicion on the part of Jews. In addition, the emergence of a single authoritative text type after the destruction of the Temple made the great differences between it and the Septuagint increasingly intolerable, and the need was felt for a Greek translation based upon the current Hebrew text in circulation."


Source: https://www.britannica.com/topic/biblical-literature/Early-versions

A clearer picture of the issue.
Okay, however nothing you've said above contradicts anything I've said previously. Remember you said that the OP was a 'false argument'. I'm waiting for a refutation.




5. "Jerome produced three revisions of the Psalms, all extant. The first was based on the Septuagint and is known as the Roman Psalter because it was incorporated into the liturgy at Rome. The second, produced in Palestine from the Hexaplaric Septuagint, tended to bring the Latin closer to the Hebrew. Its popularity in Gaul was such that it came to be known as the Gallican Psalter. This version was later adopted into the Vulgate. The third revision, actually a fresh translation, was made directly from the Hebrew, but it never enjoyed wide circulation. In the course of preparing the latter, Jerome realized the futility of revising the Old Latin solely on the basis of the Greek and apparently left that task unfinished. By the end of 405 he had executed his own Latin translation of the entire Old Testament based on the “Hebrew truth” (Hebraica veritas).

Because of the canonical status of the Greek version within the church, Jerome’s version was received at first with much suspicion, for it seemed to cast doubt on the authenticity of the Septuagint and exhibited divergences from the Old Latin that sounded discordant to those familiar with the traditional renderings. St. Augustine feared a consequent split between the Greek and Latin churches. The innate superiority of Jerome’s version, however, assured its ultimate victory, and by the 8th century it had become the Latin Vulgate (“the common version”) throughout the churches of Western Christendom, where it remained the chief Bible until the Reformation."


Source: https://www.britannica.com/topic/biblical-literature/Versions-after-the-4th-century

Perhaps there were riots. Perhaps Jerome and Augustine had words. But I wonder if you exaggerated the actual events.

Perhaps perhaps perhaps.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GUVT1NZtZPo

The words between Jerome and Augustine are well documented.

Augustine to Jerome. Written about A.D. 394

... I beseech you not to devote your labour to the work of translating into Latin the sacred canonical books, unless you follow the method in which you have translated Job, viz. with the addition of notes, to let it be seen plainly what differences there are between this version of yours and that of the Septuagint,

http://www.bible-researcher.com/vulgate2.html

Perhaps I over-exaggerated, but perhaps you just want to seem like you're rebutting me when in fact you are not actually presenting anything that rebuts what I've written. I wonder why you would wonder so much that I was exaggerating. Have you heard contrary reports? Or are you just predisposed to resist anything I say whether you know it to be true or not.




I think I'll stop at this point. Other duties call. If it is necessary, I may continue this examination and comparison in the future.

Cheers.

Okay, but a few rebuttals would be quite nice. Thanks

1 Like 1 Share

Re: Contra Bibliolatreia II -the Septuagint by PastorAIO: 12:21pm On Oct 26, 2018
JMAN05:


We do not reject the Septuagint.
But keep researching, you will discover things I hope will help you. If I tell you, you may not believe until you do your own personal digging. So its good. Keep it up.

You can check the other thread, I wrote something there.

OneJ:

Oga Pastor said "it doesn't matter whether this (Septuagint ) is an accurate translation or not for the student of Christianity..... & that is what they built their theology on".
For example, if U wrote a book in Yoruba & U gave permission to a Greek translator to publish a Greek version of your book. After the work is done, U later found out that in chapter 3 ,the content & meaning is very different & contradicts your original book, would U accept that & praise the work & recommend it to the general public ?
Any deviation from the Hebrew texts (the original source) ,God says it's Unacceptable.1Thes5:20,21. Rev22:18,19
Nairalanders, PastorA10 doesn't mind to propagate the theology built on falsehood & man made fallacy (trinity).

IF you say the 'content and meaning is very different and contradicts your original work' that sounds like a rejection to me.

When you say that God says it is Unacceptable then that sounds like a rejection to me.

So you have been caught in a lie here. Do you consider it 'unacceptable' or not? Because everything you've written so far has been a rejection of the LXX.
Re: Contra Bibliolatreia II -the Septuagint by PastorAIO: 12:27pm On Oct 26, 2018
OneJ:




My bro, in your other thread, ("syncretism & monotheism", u know the topic U originated) PastorAI0 is making such claims simply because I pointed out that contrary to his opinion, "ego himi " in John 8:58 is NOT the same as "I am" in Exodus 3:14.

Whenever JW present the truth about a subject matter, it is often twisted & distorted by the opposition.
Jah bless.
Shalom

and this is another example of you rejecting the LXX. LXX translates Exodus 3:14 as Ego Eimi, so you are saying that the LXX is wrong.

Whenever JW are faced with the truth about a subject matter, they often twist & distort it.
Re: Contra Bibliolatreia II -the Septuagint by Ihedinobi3: 5:48pm On Oct 27, 2018
PastorAIO:


I do not remember where I got the information that there was some translating back from the Septuagint so I'll concede that point. Also, for sure, there were still some of the ancient hebrew texts around. The earliest Hebrew text that we have today are from the 2nd century bc, found amongst the Dead Sea Scrolls, I believe.

Right from those earliest days we find that there were already marked distinctions between these different copies of the earliest extant hebrew texts. There is even a Talmudic story that claimed that there were 3 copies of the Hebrew bible in the Temple that were at odds with each other and needed to be resolved. We must consider any claims of Authenticity in light of these facts.
As I said, this is yet another example of how delightfully challenging it is to discuss with some antichristians. Thank you for the concession.

Now, there is one thing that you are ignoring. It is that the Bible claims to be the Very Word, the Very Truth of God. That is a very big claim for any bit of literature to make. And the only way one can know for sure who wrote what is to look for signs of that person's personality and character in what is attributed to them. The fact that different versions of a literature are attributed to anyone does not mean that one or other of them was really written by them. Nor does that confusion mean that none of them were written by them.

That is one important thing to note. There is another. It is that if any witness or communication was given by God to all human beings in order to provide them with all the information they need to fulfill the purpose of their existence, then it would only follow that God would also preserve that witness or communication to make sure that all human beings who ever want it can get access to it.

For this reason, all questions of authenticity will always be settled by an appeal to spiritual discernment since God is Spirit and any witness such as the Bible must necessarily be spiritual in nature. The history makes for an interesting intellectual exercise but in the end, however old manuscripts may be and however preserved the contents of a given manuscript or the other may be, the question will always be a spiritual one:

"does this witness - whatever it is - say what God would reasonably be expected to say?"


PastorAIO:
I'm terribly sorry but you don't get any points for that Sherlock Holmes. Right from the title it is clear that I'm questioning the worship and elevation of the bible to divine status that we often witness. I've been doing ever since I've joined Nairaland and you're well enough acquainted with me to know this.

I can state categorically that the bibles (note the plural) that we have today are not the same as what existed before the Septuagint and is rather a product of schemes, agendas, and beliefs of different groups. It is a process that continues till today. Right before our eyes we see the Jehovah's witnesses reinventing their own bibles, Martin Luther changing words and trying to scrap books like James... etc

The fact is that there are discrepancies between the earliest copies of the OT. Furthermore Christianity is rooted in one of those versions that, The LXX, and that version is at odds with all the other Hebrew texts including the masoretic. Never mind that the hebrew texts are often at odds with themselves.

And we are not just talking about slight unimportant variations, but variations upon which whole doctrines have been based upon. For example, The Virgin Birth. Virgin Birth is not a trifling issue in Christianity. Yet it is at odds with the Hebrew bible which doesn't mention anything about a Virgin giving Birth.
I only just started learning ancient Greek and Hebrew, PastorAIO. I have neither reason nor interest in Latin - which I think is the language the title was written in - so I can't say with much confidence that I know what your title means. I had a guess and you have confirmed it but I couldn't have categorically said that you were clear about anything. So, it may really take a Sherlock Holmes to know what your thread was really about.

Additionally, throughout the time I have known you on Nairaland, I have never been sure what your deal is. I just know that you attack Christianity a lot. That's why I call you an antichristian. I don't know if you're an atheist, a deist or an agnostic. From something you wrote years ago which I read recently, it seems that you reject all labels and simply attack Christianity for the behavior of Christians and for the things about the Bible that you don't find acceptable. But from your words right now, you clearly don't accept the Virgin Birth or at least you question it. So, I assume that you don't accept that Jesus is God Who became Man to die for our sins. That leads me to think that whatever else you may claim to be, you do not claim to follow Jesus Christ even if you have issues with the behaviors of Christians and with the Bible.

So, no, clarity is not something I have ever associated you with.

I disagree with your categorical statement. I already stated the major reason in my statement above. God has preserved His Word by Himself through free will choices made by different men through the ages and in spite of schemes and agenda and preferences of different groups.

One way to appreciate this is to consider the production of Jehovah's Witnesses. I have already done this. Their Bible was created to attack the Doctrine of the Trinity and the Deity of the Lord Jesus but the production ended up a contradiction and an absurdity because it taught both that the Lord Jesus is Deity and that He is not. Consistency with its own self is an important test of the Bible. Any version of the Bible that contradicts itself is questionable already unless it can present an explanation within itself for the apparent contradiction. Even modern mainstream translations of the Bible other than those produced by cults like the JW have problems which are discernible to the diligent student. But those problems would not even be discernible unless the student knows God in a way that enables Him to identify things that aren't consistent.

I can't speak to what Martin Luther did since I am not a historian but it does not "smell right" judging by what I do know of the Reformation. I may try to find more information on that.

Differences in the different versions of the OT is to be expected given that this world is a warzone and the issue is the Truth. What is truth? That's the question every human activity is concerned with. The Bible is God's Answer to the question. So, of course, it will be attacked with forgeries at least.

As for the argument that Christianity is rooted in the Septuagint, that is false. The Lord Jesus and the apostles quoted the Septuagint because the known world of that time was steeped in Greek culture and language. That some people decided to make that much more out of the Septuagint does not mean that Christianity is rooted in the Septuagint. It just means that some people decided to make more of it than they should. Those who have followed Christ have always sought to know the Truth wherever it could be found. That is why you could mention someone like Jerome. And before Jerome there was Origen. That too is why even with so many versions of the Bible today, there are still people who sift through the traditions and errors to find the Truth.

Regarding the Virgin Birth, what I have learned is that the passage in Isaiah used the Hebrew word for young woman, not the one for virgin, but the use of that word does not exclude the possibility of virgin. This makes sense if the prophecy had more than one application (as the context and other Bible passages confirm). Isaiah was speaking first of a young woman who was contemporary to him and may or may not have been a virgin (the context does limit the interpretation to "virgin" ) but he was also speaking of another young woman who would be a virgin and exist much later.


PastorAIO:
Would one of those problems in it's translation include where it says that a Virgin has bear a Child? It is only Septuagint that says that.

Or perhaps you consider it a problem that Septuagint has Yahweh confess his name as 'Ego Eimi', i.e I Am, upon which so much of christianity's claim to Christ's divinity is based on. What do you think of LXX's translation of Exodus 3:14

14 God said to Moses, “I am who I am.[c] This is what you are to say to the Israelites: ‘I am has sent me to you.’”

Would you consider this an error in Translation?

And when Jesus supposedly references it in John 8:58 was Jesus misguided?

See above for the Virgin Birth. I don't really know the history so I don't know how the Septuagint presents the passage in Isaiah.

I also don't know about any problems with the Exodus passage. But the whole Bible does hold that the Man Jesus Christ was God too. So, if Exodus 3:14 had a problem, it wasn't in saying that God is the "IS".
Re: Contra Bibliolatreia II -the Septuagint by Ubenedictus(m): 7:00pm On Oct 27, 2018
PastorAIO:

My general view of legends is that they are not factual. That's why we call them legends and not History. However I'm curious as to where 'my' version of the legend is 'weird' or even where it contradicts your version. I don't recall saying anything in my telling of the legend that contradicts your version of the legend above.
About being the original scripture of Christianity, the fact is that the LXX is the version most quoted in the New Testament and it is used also as the basis of some Christian doctrines. For example, the Virgin Birth, and the identification of Jesus with divinity via the use of the phrase 'I Am'/Ego Eimi.
This is the basis of my saying that LXX is a fundamental scripture of Christianity. Nothing to do with the Legend which is a story, that it may or may not surprise you to realise but, I don't believe it happened.



You continue to miss one of my main points that I've made over and over again on NL. The entire thing is the product of 'the hands of men of the Church visible' and of other people too, ALL MEN, and All very very very VISIBLE. From Genesis to Revelation. All the different versions only tell us that humans are a diverse bunch.



Thank you for filling out the details, however nothing you say above contradicts anything I said previously.



Okay, however nothing you've said above contradicts anything I've said previously. Remember you said that the OP was a 'false argument'. I'm waiting for a refutation.



Perhaps perhaps perhaps.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GUVT1NZtZPo

The words between Jerome and Augustine are well documented.

Augustine to Jerome. Written about A.D. 394

... I beseech you not to devote your labour to the work of translating into Latin the sacred canonical books, unless you follow the method in which you have translated Job, viz. with the addition of notes, to let it be seen plainly what differences there are between this version of yours and that of the Septuagint,

http://www.bible-researcher.com/vulgate2.html

Perhaps I over-exaggerated, but perhaps you just want to seem like you're rebutting me when in fact you are not actually presenting anything that rebuts what I've written. I wonder why you would wonder so much that I was exaggerating. Have you heard contrary reports? Or are you just predisposed to resist anything I say whether you know it to be true or not.




Okay, but a few rebuttals would be quite nice. Thanks
on the issue of riots, you are actually correct I believe, Augustine I think records a riot based on Jerome and his translation, the word that caused the riot was pretty inconsequential but it was enough to cause a riots and Jerome and Augustine weren't exactly charitable about the issue... Add that to Jerome's temper.


Anyway I am preparing a response to ihedonobi, his sources were simplistic in their rendering of events.
Re: Contra Bibliolatreia II -the Septuagint by Ihedinobi3: 8:16pm On Oct 27, 2018
PastorAIO:

My general view of legends is that they are not factual. That's why we call them legends and not History. However I'm curious as to where 'my' version of the legend is 'weird' or even where it contradicts your version. I don't recall saying anything in my telling of the legend that contradicts your version of the legend above.
About being the original scripture of Christianity, the fact is that the LXX is the version most quoted in the New Testament and it is used also as the basis of some Christian doctrines. For example, the Virgin Birth, and the identification of Jesus with divinity via the use of the phrase 'I Am'/Ego Eimi.
This is the basis of my saying that LXX is a fundamental scripture of Christianity. Nothing to do with the Legend which is a story, that it may or may not surprise you to realise but, I don't believe it happened.
'Locked up until they finished' is rather weird. The whole thing was also presented as some sort of possible reason why the Septuagint must have been so special to "the Church".


PastorAIO:
You continue to miss one of my main points that I've made over and over again on NL. The entire thing is the product of 'the hands of men of the Church visible' and of other people too, ALL MEN, and All very very very VISIBLE. From Genesis to Revelation. All the different versions only tell us that humans are a diverse bunch.
What's the alternative? The Bible just magically appears on all mantelpieces and shelves with an angel standing right next to it to make sure we all know it came from God?


PastorAIO:
Thank you for filling out the details, however nothing you say above contradicts anything I said previously.
It contradicts the idea that the Septuagint was as big an authority for the Church as you represented in your argument.


PastorAIO:
Okay, however nothing you've said above contradicts anything I've said previously. Remember you said that the OP was a 'false argument'. I'm waiting for a refutation.
It certainly clarifies the issue. The Septuagint had problems and was no miracle. Chances are that those who cared then knew that the Septuagint was no miracle and therefore used it carefully. So, while the emerging monolithic Roman tradition at the time may have made an idol out of it contending with Jews too for their own reasons, that was not necessarily the story of the Christian Church.


PastorAIO:
Perhaps perhaps perhaps.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GUVT1NZtZPo

The words between Jerome and Augustine are well documented.

Augustine to Jerome. Written about A.D. 394

... I beseech you not to devote your labour to the work of translating into Latin the sacred canonical books, unless you follow the method in which you have translated Job, viz. with the addition of notes, to let it be seen plainly what differences there are between this version of yours and that of the Septuagint,

http://www.bible-researcher.com/vulgate2.html

Perhaps I over-exaggerated, but perhaps you just want to seem like you're rebutting me when in fact you are not actually presenting anything that rebuts what I've written. I wonder why you would wonder so much that I was exaggerating. Have you heard contrary reports? Or are you just predisposed to resist anything I say whether you know it to be true or not.




Okay, but a few rebuttals would be quite nice. Thanks
I don't think you and I have enough history on this forum to warrant the thought. The reason I pointed it out is that small exaggerations and inflections and minor overstatements and understatements in an argument tend to add up to a very convincing but false argument. In this case, you are attacking the reliability of the Bible as the true Word of God and you did it so cleverly that an unprepared believer could be significantly damaged by your efforts.
Re: Contra Bibliolatreia II -the Septuagint by Ihedinobi3: 8:23pm On Oct 27, 2018
Ubenedictus:
on the issue of riots, you are actually correct I believe, Augustine I think records a riot based on Jerome and his translation, the word that caused the riot was pretty inconsequential but it was enough to cause a riots and Jerome and Augustine weren't exactly charitable about the issue... Add that to Jerome's temper.


Anyway I am preparing a response to ihedonobi, his sources were simplistic in their rendering of events.
I'll admit the possibility of such a riot, not because I think that it really happened but because I'm not a historian and cannot have an opinion on specific historical events without some getting into.

Yes, my source was simplistic but not unreliable.

I must beg your indulgence: I will probably be taking a while with my answers because I may get too busy. I am not entirely certain that I will be able to carry on for the long term either. Please bear with me either way.
Re: Contra Bibliolatreia II -the Septuagint by Ubenedictus(m): 10:35pm On Oct 27, 2018
Ihedinobi3:


The part in blue seems to be a flat out falsehood and in my thinking it is the single most important falsehood in this argument:

"Masoretic text, (from Hebrew masoreth, “tradition”), traditional Hebrew text of the Jewish Bible, meticulously assembled and codified, and supplied with diacritical marks to enable correct pronunciation. This monumental work was begun around the 6th century AD and completed in the 10th by scholars at Talmudic academies in Babylonia and Palestine, in an effort to reproduce, as far as possible, the original text of the Hebrew Old Testament. Their intention was not to interpret the meaning of the Scriptures but to transmit to future generations the authentic Word of God. To this end they gathered manuscripts and whatever oral traditions were available to them."

Source: https://www.britannica.com/topic/Masoretic-text

What I perceive to be the real aim of this argument is to call the Bible into question on the basis of cleverly twisted historical events woven to disguise the major falsehood it seeks to perpetrate, namely, that the Bible we have today may not be quite the same as what existed before the Septuagint but is rather the product of different schemes/agenda/beliefs held by different groups.

Regardless whether the legend about the creation of the Septuagint is true or not, the Septuagint was known to have problems in translation. Scholars tended to use existing Hebrew texts to correct it a lot. This was during the 3rd Century AD (see the link) which was a long time after the destruction of the Temple. That means that contrary to your argument, Hebrew manuscripts survived from which a more correct translation of the Hebrew Bible could be made.

Those were the source of the Masoretic Text. And till date, it has proved completely reliable in preserving the truths of the Old Testament.
this is rather simplistic dear....

For over 400 years the Jewish leaders were busy editing the masoretic text abi over 4 centuries, moreso it was edited not only from existing manuscripts but also from Jewish tradition... What does that tell you?

The issue gets interesting if you read the story from the writings of the early Christians, they accuse the Jews of constantly editing their scripture to rid it of allusion to Jesus. Justin's dialogue with typho is a good place to start and it is dated pretty early, so that the early church adopts the Septuagint very early. The only exception to this in the early church was Jerome who loved the Hebrew Bible and lived in Palestine.

So yes if the early Christian writing is anything to go by then pastoraio is right, the Hebrew edited Bible is religiously motivated to promote Judaism, the Septuagint on the otherhand gives the churches what they wanted... The choice of what version depends on what is been promoted.


Now let me give an example, in the first century the early Christian st Stephen was killed by the Jews, his account is found in act of the apostles, stepping is recorded to have quoted scripture at the time


Yea, ye took up the tabernacle of Moloch, and the star of your god Remphan, figures which ye made to worship them (Acts 7:43 KJV).


He was quoting the book of AmosAmos 5:26 in most translations, you will find that the quotation doesn’t match:

You also carried Sikkuth your king and Chiun, your idols, the star of your gods, which you made for yourselves (NKJV). Aka masoretic text

Compare the above with the Latin Vulgate:

But you carried a tabernacle for your Moloch, and the image of your idols, the star of your god, which you made to yourselves (Douay-Rheims translation of the Vulgate).

And then with the Septuagint:

Yea, ye took up the tabernacle of Moloch, and the star of your god Raephan, the images of them which ye made for yourselves (Sir Lancelot Brenton translation of the Septuagint).


What did you notice.

The masoretic text is different from what the early Christian st Stephen quoted, the Septuagint is actually much closer, and the Vulgate which Jerome translated from the "Hebrew" is closer to what Stephen quoted.

So how come the Septuagint is aligned, the Vulgate translated from the Hebrew is aligned but the masoretic text is off... Remember the Septuagint was standardized in the 1st century, the Vulgate in the 4th century, the masoretic text in the 10 century... Guess which one is off?


Even the dead sea Hebrew scrolls are sometimes closer to the Septuagint than the masoretic text....


To be continued

1 Like

Re: Contra Bibliolatreia II -the Septuagint by Ubenedictus(m): 11:17pm On Oct 27, 2018
Ihedinobi3:

'Locked up until they finished' is rather weird. The whole thing was also presented as some sort of possible reason why the Septuagint must have been so special to "the Church".
pastoraio relates the story exactly as it is passed on...added to that the Septuagint I believe was approved by the sahendrin and the high priest at the time unlike the masoretic text which was made after the fall of Jerusalem without high priest or sahendrin.



What's the alternative? The Bible just magically appears on all mantelpieces and shelves with an angel standing right next to it to make sure we all know it came from God?



It contradicts the idea that the Septuagint was as big an authority for the Church as you represented in your argument.
it was! If you would take the time to read up the early Christians, they just like the apostles adopted the Septuagint.



It certainly clarifies the issue. The Septuagint had problems and was no miracle. Chances are that those who cared then knew that the Septuagint was no miracle and therefore used it carefully. So, while the emerging monolithic Roman tradition at the time may have made an idol out of it contending with Jews too for their own reasons, that was not necessarily the story of the Christian Church.



I don't think you and I have enough history on this forum to warrant the thought. The reason I pointed it out is that small exaggerations and inflections and minor overstatements and understatements in an argument tend to add up to a very convincing but false argument. In this case, you are attacking the reliability of the Bible as the true Word of God and you did it so cleverly that an unprepared believer could be significantly damaged by your efforts.
the Septuagint does have its issues... Every translation does but it is the old testament scripture of the early church except the church of Rome that later adopted the Vulgate... But that doesn't detract from the fact that the early Christians had serious problems with the Hebrew text.

Here is 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 [Septuagint] 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” (~150 A.D., Justin Martyr, Dialogue with Trypho the Jew, Chapter LXXI)



He is not for from the truth, several prophesies about Jesus just disappear in the masoretic text, what happened?


https://theorthodoxlife.files.wordpress.com/2012/03/lxx_vs_mt3.jpg




I unlike pastoraio believe the Bible is reliable and is the word of God, but sincerely I do so because I believe God has preserved his word in his church, because sincerely all we have are copies of copies of copies of copies of copies, that have been edited and corrected and emended, and the masoretic text which the Protestant churches adopted against the advice of Christian antiquity is sadly even more recent than the Septuagint and seems to has Jewish bias and prejudice against Christ. In that point I agree with aio it is politically motivated, lastly an unprepared believer should go and study, there is no point hiding in a cocoon.

2 Likes

Re: Contra Bibliolatreia II -the Septuagint by Ubenedictus(m): 11:46pm On Oct 27, 2018
Ihedinobi3:
Some points of departure in Britannica from your deposition, PastorAIO:

1. "The name Septuagint (from the Latin septuaginta, “70”) was derived later from the legend that there were 72 translators, 6 from each of the 12 tribes of Israel, who worked independently to translate the whole and ultimately produced identical versions. Another legend holds that the translators were sent to Alexandria by Eleazar, the chief priest at Jerusalem, at the request of Ptolemy II Philadelphus (285–246 BCE), though its source, the Letter of Aristeas, is unreliable. Despite the tradition that it was perfectly translated, there are large differences in style and usage between the Septuagint’s translation of the Torah and its translations of the later books in the Old Testament. In the 3rd century CE Origen attempted to clear up copyists’ errors that had crept into the text of the Septuagint, which by then varied widely from copy to copy, and a number of other scholars consulted the Hebrew texts in order to make the Septuagint more accurate."
Source: https://www.britannica.com/topic/Septuagint

So, your version of the legend is weird and your later assertion that the Septuagint was the original Scripture of Christianity perhaps on the strength of this legend is problematic. Also, it is clear that the Septuagint had problems and scholars used Hebrew texts to compensate. Origen, incidentally, is a church father.
this doesn't touch aio's argument, of course after years of copying by hand copyist errors will creep in needing correction and Origen a Christian scholar is credited for attempting to clear up such copyist errors, even the Hebrew scripture suffers from the same copyist errors as did the Vulgate and they are corrected by comparing different copies and translations.

2. "In addition to all the books of the Hebrew canon, the Septuagint under Christian auspices separated the minor prophets and some other books and added the extra books known to Protestants and Jews as apocryphal and to Roman Catholics as deuterocanonical."
Source: https://www.britannica.com/topic/Septuagint

So, it's not like the Septuagint always had those extra books. It was at the hands of men of the Church visible that they were added.
here the Britannica is either simplistic or just incorrect, the quram cave discovery showed us that the canon read by certain Jews were much bigger than the Hebrew canon, in fact the Hebrew Canon was not set until after the apostles had died, both the Ethiopians Jews, the Alexandrian Jews and even certain Jews in Palestine even some in the Talmud used an extended canon including the deuterocanonical books. On this the Britannica is incorrect. The church didn't manufacture those books and add to the Septuagint, they were part of it and was already in use by the Jews.

3. "The Christian church received its Bible from Greek-speaking Jews and found the majority of its early converts in the Hellenistic world. The Greek Bible of Alexandria thus became the official Bible of the Christian community, and the overwhelming number of quotations from the Hebrew Scriptures in the New Testament are derived from it. Whatever the origin of the apocryphal books in the canon of Alexandria, these became part of the Christian Scriptures, but there seems to have been no unanimity as to their exact canonical status. The New Testament itself does not cite the Apocryphal books directly, but occasional traces of a knowledge of them are to be found. The Apostolic Fathers (late 1st–early 2nd century) show extensive familiarity with this literature, but a list of the Old Testament books by Melito, bishop of Sardis in Asia Minor (2nd century), does not include the additional writings of the Greek Bible, and Origen (c. 185–c. 254) explicitly describes the Old Testament canon as comprising only 22 books."
Source: https://www.britannica.com/topic/biblical-literature/The-Christian-canon

So, there was a more complex situation than you represent in your argument.
it isn't exactly complex when you realise that whole churches also rejected certain new testament books and to them they weren't canonical but the decider in the early church was usually a council and the councils upheld all the new testament books in our current bible and the deuterocanonical books too. That is how you know what the decision is on any issue.

4. "The story of the Greek translation of the Pentateuch is told in the Letter of Aristeas, which purports to be a contemporary document written by Aristeas, a Greek official at the Egyptian court of Ptolemy II Philadelphus (285–246 BCE). It recounts how the law of the Jews was translated into Greek by Jewish scholars sent from Jerusalem at the request of the king.

This narrative, repeated in one form or another by Philo and rabbinic sources, is full of inaccuracies that prove that the author was an Alexandrian Jew writing well after the events he described had taken place. The Septuagint Pentateuch, which is all that is discussed, does, however, constitute an independent corpus within the Greek Bible, and it was probably first translated as a unit by a company of scholars in Alexandria about the middle of the 3rd century BCE.

The Septuagint, as the entire Greek Bible came to be called, has a long and complex history and took well over a century to be completed. It is for this reason not a unified or consistent translation. The Septuagint became the instrument whereby the basic teachings of Judaism were mediated to the pagan world, and it became an indispensable factor in the spread of Christianity.

The adoption of the Septuagint as the Bible of the Christians naturally engendered suspicion on the part of Jews. In addition, the emergence of a single authoritative text type after the destruction of the Temple made the great differences between it and the Septuagint increasingly intolerable, and the need was felt for a Greek translation based upon the current Hebrew text in circulation."


Source: https://www.britannica.com/topic/biblical-literature/Early-versions

A clearer picture of the issue.

5. "Jerome produced three revisions of the Psalms, all extant. The first was based on the Septuagint and is known as the Roman Psalter because it was incorporated into the liturgy at Rome. The second, produced in Palestine from the Hexaplaric Septuagint, tended to bring the Latin closer to the Hebrew. Its popularity in Gaul was such that it came to be known as the Gallican Psalter. This version was later adopted into the Vulgate. The third revision, actually a fresh translation, was made directly from the Hebrew, but it never enjoyed wide circulation. In the course of preparing the latter, Jerome realized the futility of revising the Old Latin solely on the basis of the Greek and apparently left that task unfinished. By the end of 405 he had executed his own Latin translation of the entire Old Testament based on the “Hebrew truth” (Hebraica veritas).

Because of the canonical status of the Greek version within the church, Jerome’s version was received at first with much suspicion, for it seemed to cast doubt on the authenticity of the Septuagint and exhibited divergences from the Old Latin that sounded discordant to those familiar with the traditional renderings. St. Augustine feared a consequent split between the Greek and Latin churches. The innate superiority of Jerome’s version, however, assured its ultimate victory, and by the 8th century it had become the Latin Vulgate (“the common version”) throughout the churches of Western Christendom, where it remained the chief Bible until the Reformation."


Source: https://www.britannica.com/topic/biblical-literature/Versions-after-the-4th-century

Perhaps there were riots. Perhaps Jerome and Augustine had words. But I wonder if you exaggerated the actual events.



I think I'll stop at this point. Other duties call. If it is necessary, I may continue this examination and comparison in the future.

Cheers.

1 Like

Re: Contra Bibliolatreia II -the Septuagint by Ubenedictus(m): 12:07am On Oct 28, 2018
Ihedinobi3:

I'll admit the possibility of such a riot, not because I think that it really happened but because I'm not a historian and cannot have an opinion on specific historical events without some getting into.

Yes, my source was simplistic but not unreliable.

I must beg your indulgence: I will probably be taking a while with my answers because I may get too busy. I am not entirely certain that I will be able to carry on for the long term either. Please bear with me either way.


You can read about it




Augustine to Jerome. Written in A.D. 403

To my venerable lord Jerome, my esteemed and holy brother and fellow presbyter: Augustine sends greetings in the Lord.

Never since I began to write to you, and to long for your writing in return, have I met with a better opportunity for our exchanging communications than now, when my letter is to be carried to you by a most faithful servant and minister of God, who is also a very dear friend of mine, namely, our son Cyprian, deacon. Through him I expect to receive a letter from you with all the certainty which is in a matter of this kind possible. For the son whom I have named will not be found wanting in respect of zeal in asking, or persuasive influence in obtaining a reply from you; nor will he fail in diligently keeping, promptly bearing, and faithfully delivering the same. I only pray that if I be in any way worthy of this, the Lord may give His help and favour to your heart and to my desire, so that no higher will may hinder that which your brotherly goodwill inclines you to do.

As I have sent you two letters already to which I have received no reply, I have resolved to send you at this time copies of both of them, for I suppose that they never reached you. If they did reach you, and your replies have failed, as may be the case, to reach me, send me a second time the same as you sent before, if you have copies of them preserved: if you have not, dictate again what I may read, and do not refuse to send to these former letters the answer for which I have been waiting so long. My first letter to you, which I had prepared while I was a presbyter, was to be delivered to you by a brother of ours, Profuturus, who afterwards became my colleague in the episcopate, and has since then departed from this life; but he could not then bear it to you in person, because at the very time when he intended to begin his journey, he was prevented by his ordination to the weighty office of bishop, and shortly afterwards he died. This letter I have resolved also to send at this time, that you may know how long I have cherished a burning desire for conversation with you, and with what reluctance I submit to the remote separation which prevents my mind from having access to yours through our bodily senses, my brother, most amiable and honoured among the members of the Lord.

In this letter I have further to say, that I have since heard that you have translated Job out of the original Hebrew, although in your own translation of the same prophet from the Greek tongue we had already a version of that book. In that earlier version you marked with asterisks the words found in the Hebrew but wanting in the Greek, and with obelisks the words found in the Greek but wanting in the Hebrew; and this was done with such astonishing exactness, that in some places we have every word distinguished by a separate asterisk, as a sign that these words are in the Hebrew, but not in the Greek. Now, however, in this more recent version from the Hebrew, there is not the same scrupulous fidelity as to the words; and it perplexes any thoughtful reader to understand either what was the reason for marking the asterisks in the former version with so much care that they indicate the absence from the Greek version of even the smallest grammatical particles which have not been rendered from the Hebrew, or what is the reason for so much less care having been taken in this recent version from the Hebrew to secure that these same particles be found in their own places. I would have put down here an extract or two in illustration of this criticism; but at present I have not access to the manuscript of the translation from the Hebrew. Since, however, your quick discernment anticipates and goes beyond not only what I have said, but also what I meant to say, you already understand, I think, enough to be able, by giving the reason for the plan which you have adopted, to explain what perplexes me.

For my part, I would much rather that you would furnish us with a translation of the Greek version of the canonical Scriptures known as the work of the Seventy translators. For if your translation begins to be more generally read in many churches, it will be a grievous thing that, in the reading of Scripture, differences must arise between the Latin Churches and the Greek Churches, especially seeing that the discrepancy is easily condemned in a Latin version by the production of the original in Greek, which is a language very widely known; whereas, if any one has been disturbed by the occurrence of something to which he was not accustomed in the translation taken from the Hebrew, and alleges that the new translation is wrong, it will be found difficult, if not impossible, to get at the Hebrew documents by which the version to which exception is taken may be defended. And when they are obtained, who will submit, to have so many Latin and Greek authorities pronounced to be in the wrong? Besides all this, Jews, if consulted as to the meaning of the Hebrew text, may give a different opinion from yours: in which case it will seem as if your presence were indispensable, as being the only one who could refute their view; and it would be a miracle if one could be found capable of acting as arbiter between you and them.

[b]A certain bishop, one of our brethren, having introduced in the church over which he presides the reading of your version, came upon a word in the book of the prophet Jonah, of which you have given a very different rendering from that which had been of old familiar to the senses and memory of all the worshippers, and had been chanted for so many generations in the church. Thereupon arose such a tumult in the congregation, especially among the Greeks, correcting what had been read, and denouncing the translation as false, that the bishop was compelled to ask the testimony of the Jewish residents (it was in the town of Oea). These, whether from ignorance or from spite, answered that the words in the Hebrew manuscripts were correctly rendered in the Greek version, and in the Latin one taken from it. What further need I say? The man was compelled to correct your version in that passage as if it had been falsely translated, as he desired not to be left without a congregation -- a calamity which he narrowly escaped. From this case we also are led to think that you may be occasionally mistaken. You will also observe how great must have been the difficulty if this had occurred in those writings which cannot be explained by comparing the testimony of languages now in use.[/b]

At the same time, we are in no small measure thankful to God for the work in which you have translated the Gospels from the original Greek, because in almost every passage we have found nothing to object to, when we compared it with the Greek Scriptures. By this work, any disputant who supports an old false translation is either convinced or confuted with the utmost ease by the production and collation of manuscripts. And if, as indeed very rarely happens, something be found to which exception may be taken, who would be so unreasonable as not to excuse it readily in a work so useful that it cannot be too highly praised? I wish you would have the kindness to open up to me what you think to be the reason of the frequent discrepancies between the text supported by the Hebrew codices and the Greek Septuagint version. For the latter has no mean authority, seeing that it has obtained so wide circulation, and was the one which the apostles used, as is not only proved by looking to the text itself, but has also been, as I remember, affirmed by yourself. You would therefore confer upon us a much greater boon if you gave an exact Latin translation of the Greek Septuagint version: for the variations found in the different codices of the Latin text are intolerably numerous; and it is so justly open to suspicion as possibly different from what is to be found in the Greek, that one has no confidence in either quoting it or proving anything by its help.

I thought that this letter was to be a short one, but it has somehow been as pleasant to me to go on with it as if I were talking with you. I conclude with entreating you by the Lord kindly to send me a full reply, and thus give me, so far as is in your power, the pleasure of your presence.

1 Like

Re: Contra Bibliolatreia II -the Septuagint by JMAN05: 4:16pm On Oct 29, 2018
Ubenedictus:
not exactly, Jerome lived a great deal in Palestine, of course the Jews didn't use the dueterocanonical books and he adopted that position, he called the Hebrew canon the list of canonical books. But he did not exactly put the dueterocanonical books as apocryphal... Nope, he put them in a class of their own, the became the ecclesiastical books which are read in the churches for edification but not for doctrine.

Jerome had two list, the canonical books comprising of the Hebrew Bible alone and then the ecclesiastical books comprising of the deuterocanonical books.

Here is what Jerome says



These instances have been just touched upon by me (the limits of a letter forbid a more discursive treatment of them) to convince you that in the holy scriptures you can make no progress unless you have a guide to shew you the way...Genesis ... Exodus ... Leviticus ... Numbers ... Deuteronomy ... Job ... Jesus the son of Nave ... Judges ... Ruth ... Samuel ... The third and fourth books of Kings ... The twelve prophets whose writings are compressed within the narrow limits of a single volume: Hosea ... Joel ... Amos ... Obadiah ... Jonah ... Micah ... Nahum ... Habakkuk ... Zephaniah ... Haggai ... Zechariah ... Malachi ... Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, and Daniel ... Jeremiah also goes four times through the alphabet in different metres (Lamentations)... David...sings of Christ to his lyre; and on a psaltry with ten strings (Psalms) ... Solomon, a lover of peace and of the Lord, corrects morals, teaches nature (Proverbs and Ecclesiastes), unites Christ and the church, and sings a sweet marriage song to celebrate that holy bridal (Song of Songs) ... Esther ... Ezra and Nehemiah. (Philip Schaff and Henry Wace, Nicene and Post Nicene Fathers (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1953, Volume VI, St. Jerome, Letter LIII.6-8, pp. 98-101).

As, then, the Church reads Judith, Tobit, and the books of Maccabees, but does not admit them among the canonical Scriptures, so let it also read these two volumes (Wisdom of Solomon and Ecclesiasticus) for the edification of the people, not to give authority to doctrines of the Church...I say this to show you how hard it is to master the book of Daniel, which in Hebrew contains neither the history of Susanna, nor the hymn of the three youths, nor the fables of Bel and the Dragon... (Ibid., Volume VI, Jerome, Prefaces to Jerome's Works, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes and the Song of Songs; Daniel, pp. 492-493).

He never claimed the dueterocanonical books are uninspired, in fact he denies saying that the deuterocaononical books are uninspired.

After he translated the vulgate with the deuteron canonical he was immediately accused by fellow Christians that he wrote dismissively about the deuterocanon, he IMMEDIATELY DENIED IT, he claimed all he meant to write was that the Jews didn't agree with the deuteron canonical books but that he personally submit himself to the judgment of the churches that adopted the non Hebrew canon.

Here is Jerome making a u-turn and submitting to the churches on the theodian long Greek canon.




We have four versions to choose from: those of Aquila, Symmachus, the Seventy, and Theodotion. The churches choose to read Daniel in the version of Theodotion. What sin have I committed in following the judgment of the churches? But when I repeat what the Jews say against the Story of Susanna and the Hymn of the Three Children, and the fables of Bel and the Dragon, which are not contained in the Hebrew Bible, the man who makes this a charge against me proves himself to be a fool and a slanderer; for I explained not what I thought but what they commonly say against us. I did not reply to their opinion in the Preface, because I was studying brevity, and feared that I should seem to he writing not a Preface but a book. I said therefore, “As to which this is not the time to enter into discussion.” […] Still, I wonder that a man should read the version of Theodotion the heretic and judaizer, and should scorn that of a Christian, simple and sinful though he may be. Letter to ruffinus.

So Jerome translated the book of Daniel according to the Greek deuterocanon and says that is the judgement of the church and that he submit himself to that judgment and that any harsh things he wrote about the deuterocanon is just a report of what the Jews used to say about it.


It becomes even more interesting after Jerome submit to the church because he went all out and called the deuterocanon SCRIPTURE and uses them in defending doctrines.



Does not the SCRIPTURE say: 'Burden not thyself above thy power' [SIRACH 13:2] Jerome, To Eustochium, Epistle 108 (A.D. 404), in NPNF2, VI:207

not, my dearest brother, estimate my worth by the number of my years. Gray hairs are not wisdom; it is wisdom which is as good as gray hairs At least that is what Solomon says: "wisdom is the gray hair unto men.’ [Wisdom 4:9]" Moses too in choosing the seventy elders is told to take those whom he knows to be elders indeed, and to select them not for their years but for their discretion (Num. 11:16)? And, as a boy, Daniel judges old men and in the flower of youth condemns the incontinence of age (Daniel 13:55-59, or Story of Susannah 55-59, only found in the Catholic Bibles) Jerome, To Paulinus, Epistle 58 (A.D. 395), in NPNF2, VI:119

Here St. Jerome mixes use of the Book of Wisdom with Moses’ writing. In the midst of referring to Moses, he also refers to the Story of Susanna to establish a point. He makes no distinction in practice from the writing of Moses, from the two Deuterocanonical books.

"I would cite the words of the psalmist: 'the sacrifices of God are a broken spirit,’ [Ps 51:17] and those of Ezekiel 'I prefer the repentance of a sinner rather than his death,’ [Ez 18:23] AND THOSE OF BARUCH,'Arise, arise, O Jerusalem,’ [Baruch 5:5] AND MANY OTHER PROCLAMATIONS MADE BY THE TRUMPETS OF THE PROPHETS." Jerome, To Oceanus, Epistle 77:4 (A.D. 399), in NPNF2, VI:159

Notice how Jerome makes no distinction at all between the Psalmist, Ezekiel, and Baruch. They are all Scripture, God's Word. Jerome himself calls Baruch a prophet, thus according his writing Scriptural status. According to Jerome, Baruch thus authoritatively spoke God's Word. He uses Baruch in tandem with these prophets to prove David in Psalm 51 correct.

still our merriment must not forget the limit set by Scripture, and we must not stray too far from the boundary of our wrestling-ground. Your presents, indeed, remind me of the sacred volume, for in it Ezekiel decks Jerusalem with bracelets, (Eze. 16:11) Baruch receives letters from Jeremiah,(Jer. 36, Bar. 6) and the Holy Spirit descends in the form of a dove at the baptism of Christ.(Mt. 3:16) Jerome, To Eustochium, Epistle 31:2 (A.D. 384), in NPNF2, VI:45

Notice that St. Jerome quotes in reference to Scriptures, and the Sacred Volumes. Then he refers to 3 passages. Ezekiel, Baruch, and Matthew. Now, Jerome here refers to Jeremiah giving letters (plural) to Baruch. One time in Jeremiah 36, and another time in Baruch 6, as the Protestant Schaff editor indicates. Thus, Baruch is clearly Scripture, and he is clearly an author of the Sacred Volume, the Bible.

As in good works it is God who brings them to perfection, for it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that pitieth and gives us help that we may be able to reach the goal: so in things wicked and sinful, the seeds within us give the impulse, and these are brought to maturity by the devil. When he sees that we are building upon the foundation of Christ, hay, wood, stubble, then he applies the match. Let us then build gold, silver, costly stones, and he will not venture to tempt us: although even thus there is not sure and safe possession. For the lion lurks in ambush to slay the innocent. [Sir. 27:5] "Potters' vessels are proved by the furnace, and just men by the trial of tribulation." And in another place it is written: [Sir. 2:1] "My son, when thou comest to serve the Lord, prepare thyself for temptation." Again, the same James says: [James 3:22]"Be ye doers of the word, and not hearers only. For if any one is a hearer of the word, and not a doer, he is like unto a man beholding his natural face in a mirror: for he beholdeth himself, and goeth away, and straightway forgetteth what manner of man he was." It was useless to warn them to add works to faith, if they could not sin after baptism. Jerome, Against Jovinianus,, Book 2, 3 NPNF2, VI:390

As we have seen, "It is written" is a phrase that both the authors of Scripture, and the Church Fathers use only in reference to Scripture. Jerome uses the phrase identifying the quote to come as Scripture. The quote he uses comes from the book of Sirach. Thus, Sirach is Scripture. He then quotes James interchangeably as just another Scripture as of the same level of authority as Sirach.

"Yet the Holy Spirit in the thirty-ninth(9) psalm, while lamenting that all men walk in a vain show, and that they are subject to sins, speaks thus: "For all that every man walketh in the image."(Psalm 39:6) Also after David's time, in the reign of Solomon his son, we read a somewhat similar reference to the divine likeness. For in the book of Wisdom, which is inscribed with his name, Solomon says: "God created man to be immortal, and made him to be an image of his own eternity."(Wisdom 2:23) And again, about eleven hundred and eleven years afterwards, we read in the New Testament that men have not lost the image of God. For James, an apostle and brother of the Lord, whom I have mentioned above--that we may not be entangled in the snares of Origen--teaches us that man does possess God's image and likeness. For, after a somewhat discursive account of the human tongue, he has gone on to say of it: "It is an unruly evil ... therewith bless we God, even the Father and therewith curse we men, which are made after the similitude of God."(James 3:8-9) Paul, too, the "chosen vessel,"(Acts 9:15) who in his preaching has fully maintained the doctrine of the gospel, instructs us that man is made in the image and after the likeness of God. "A man," he says, "ought not to wear long hair, forasmuch as he is the image and glory of God."(1 Cor. 11:7) He speaks of "the image" simply, but explains the nature of the likeness by the word "glory."

7. Instead of THE THREE PROOFS FROM HOLY SCRIPTURE which you said would satisfy you if I could produce them, BEHOLD I HAVE GIVEN YOU SEVEN"--- Jerome, Letter 51, 6, 7, NPNF2, VI:87-8

St. Jerome himself had written that the Deuterocanonicals are not used to establish doctrine. However, with the larger context given, on this occasion speaking of how we are made in God's image, a doctrine, he specifically uses the Book of Wisdom to establish that. St. Jerome doesn't make any distinctions between the other Scriptural books that he uses to speak on doctrine. The Book of Wisdom is one of Seven Scriptural proofs to establish the meaning of the image of God.

A. "Your argument is ingenious, but you do not see THAT IT GOES AGAINST HOLY SCRIPTURE, which declares that even ignorance is not without sin. Hence it was that Job offered sacrifices for his sons, test, perchance, they had unwittingly sinned in thought. And if, when one is cutting wood, the axe-head flies from the handle and kills a man, the owner is[Num. 35:8] commanded to go to one of the cities of refuge and stay there until the high priest dies; that is to say, until he is redeemed by the Saviour's blood, either in the baptistery, or in penitence which is a copy of the grace of baptism, through the ineffable mercy of the Saviour, who[Ezek. 18:23] would not have any one perish, nor delights in the death of sinners, but would rather that they should be converted and live. C. It is surely strange justice to hold me guilty of a sin of error of which my conscience does not accuse itself. I am not aware that I have sinned, and am I to pay the penalty for an offence of which I am ignorant? What more can I do, if I sin voluntarily?

A. DO YOU EXPECT ME TO EXPLAIN THE PURPOSES AND PLANS OF GOD? THE BOOK OF WISDOM GIVES AN ANSWER TO YOUR FOOLISH QUESTION: [Sir 3:21] "LOOK NOT INTO THINGS ABOVE THEE, AND SEARCH NOT THINGS TOO MIGHTY FOR THEE." AND ELSEWHERE,[5] "Make not thyself overwise, and argue not more than is fitting." And in the same place, "In wisdom and simplicity of heart seek God." You will perhaps deny the authority of this book;" "Jerome, "Against the Pelagians, NPNF2, VI:464-5"

Notice at the beginning of his statement he speaks how he is going to prove his point by using Holy Scripture. Then he gives a series of Scriptures to prove the folly of his opponent. Part of those Scriptures that he uses to prove his point is the book of Sirach. The books of Wisdom and Sirach, according to Jerome, explain the plan and purpose of God, which refutes his opponents doctrine. Actually, although he says it is from Wisdom the quotation is actually from Sirach 3:21. Thus, both books are Scripture in Jerome’s eyes. They are quoted by Jerome to prove doctrine!. He says that maybe his opponent will deny the authority of the book, but not St. Jerome. He thus affirms its authority. The rest of the paragraph he actually quotes other Scriptures to support his quotation of Sirach.

"And in the proverbs Solomon tells us that as "the north wind driveth away rain, so doth an angry countenance a backbiting tongue.(Prov. 25:23)" It sometimes happens that an arrow when it is aimed at a hard object rebounds upon the bowman, wounding the would-bewounder, and thus, the words are fulfilled, "they were turned aside like a deceitful bow," (Psalm 128:57) and in another passage: "whoso casteth a stone on high casteth it on his own head." (Sir. 27:25) Jerome, To Rusticus, Epistle 125, 19 (A.D. 404), in NPNF2, VI:251



So Jerome isn't a firm witness against the deuterocanon, he earlier classed them separately as ecclesiastical books but he submitted to the churches which didn't place them in a different category and he later quotes the deuterocanon as scripture just like other scripture.

OK, thanks for the detail proof. I will do more research on that. I never knew he made a change. I ll check it out.
Re: Contra Bibliolatreia II -the Septuagint by Ubenedictus(m): 8:13pm On Oct 29, 2018
JMAN05:


OK, thanks for the detail proof. I will do more research on that. I never knew he made a change. I ll check it out.
please do.
Re: Contra Bibliolatreia II -the Septuagint by Ubenedictus(m): 10:34am On Oct 30, 2018
JMAN05:


Jerome never viewed those books are canonical. He in fact used the word "Apocrypha" for those books to denote its lack of inspiration. There other latter "church fathers" that viewed those writings as not authoritative.
lastly, not canonical does NOT mean not scripture, a book can be not canonical and still be scripture, the canon sometimes simply refers to the books used in the liturgy.


For example in the Russian Orthodox church the book of revelation is not canonical (it is never read in the divine liturgy) but it is scripture and may be read by any Russian Orthodox Christian as scripture.
Re: Contra Bibliolatreia II -the Septuagint by Ihedinobi3: 12:38pm On Oct 30, 2018
@Ubenedictus, I will beg your indulgence because I am going to cut to the heart of the matter. I apologize if that offends you but I really cannot afford the time and energy for the piecemeal responses that you may want and for all the historical research that answering each specific point requires especially since I am not trained in history.

To begin with, the claim the Bible makes and which Christians believe is that it is the Word of God, God's Oracle, God's Truth or God's Testimony.

That statement is what this thread is attacking on the basis of historical arguments that I believe are very flawed. I have already given my reasons for believing so. Now I will give my reasons for believing that the Bible's claim about itself is true. In my arguments, I think that you will also find your own counterarguments answered in one way or another.

The same way that the only person who can tell you that some testimony attributed to them is really from them is that person themselves, it is only God Himself Who decides what the Bible is or what the Canon is. No human or angelic council can do that. It cannot be voted on or be pronounced upon in any way. If any book belongs to the Canon, it will be known from the identifying feature - whatever it may be - that God Himself put upon it to make sure that nobody who really cares to know will be confused about it. That is only to be expected since we evil humans who will deliberately mislead other people into believing falsehoods about ourselves can still be responsible enough to make sure that people we care about don't get misled into believing that something that is not from us is really from us and something that is really isn't. God Who is Perfect and perfectly loving toward His Creatures must therefore be even more responsible in His Own Actions regarding His Testimony. The books that He inspired must therefore contain some innate witness within themselves that makes it clear to everyone who reads them that these books really came from Him.

Therefore, no human or angelic council of any sort is qualified or necessary to decide what the Canon is or "set it" in any way.

For this reason, I cannot accept that the Canon of the Hebrew Scriptures (which, by the way, were in use for more than a thousand years and the last of which was written more than four hundred years before the Lord Jesus Christ came and died for our sins) was "not set until after the apostles had died". The Canon was set as each book was written because of God's unique "signature", if you will, in each one of them.

Now, because human history from the Garden of Eden until Eternity begins is all about Truth, that is, about the question, "what is Truth?", it only follows that Satan and humans will be invested in distorting whatever God's own Answer to that question may be. We possess a free will, the very Image of God, and therefore can choose what we want to believe. But we also have something in us that demands Truth, that is, a Conscience. For that reason, while we may reject God's Truth, we must provide ourselves with some rationale for doing so. That is what leads to the distortions and total or complete inventions of belief systems of our own that have nothing to do with God, forcing our consciences to embrace the Lie in one form or another.

That is how many versions of the Bible whether in historical manuscripts or in contemporary translations exist with not a few of them conflicting with each other on one point or the other.

Regardless of this desire on the part of the majority of human beings to distort God's Truth, God's Truth is still preserved in the world because of others who not only want to know it in its pure form but want to keep it accessible to others who may come to seek it. This is how God counteracts the power of the Lie. So, in every generation, there have been true believers equipped with the abilities and resources required to either reclaim the Truth from increasingly elaborate distortions that the Enemy and his agents have tried to mire it in. Some of them, like Jerome, had tremendous work to do in doing so and, being weak humans like the rest of us, often caved to the pressure to just leave well enough alone but each one went far enough to preserve a shining witness to God's Testimony for others to know that work still needed to be done. Their mistakes - when they made any - must then be separated from their successes. That Jerome, for example, did quote some of the Apocrypha as Scripture - if indeed he did for I admit no such thing having too little expertise in history to have any kind of expert opinion on that - does not therefore mean that they were part of the Bible. It only means that he did quote them as Scripture - if, like I said, your claims that he did are in fact true.

Why did God not prevent anyone from corrupting the Scriptures though? It is a fair question because obviously God can and He loves us and wants us to know the Truth or else the Bible is lying about Him, that is, He would be lying about Himself if the Bible is truly His Testimony. The answer to that question is that we have a free will. All sane human beings (the overwhelming majority of human beings) do. Therefore, each of us has a God-given right to decide what to do with God's Testimony. We can receive it in humility. We can ignore it. Or we can actively try to destroy it like King Jehoiakim of Judah tried to do in Jeremiah 36:21-26. Active physical destruction of the Bible has been attempted multiple times in human history but it is not the only way that people have actively attempted to destroy the Scriptures. They have tried too to add or remove or change material in them so that those who read their production will be misled into believing lies masked as Truth. This is hardly novel since Satan himself has been doing that since the beginning of human history, that is, presenting the lie as the truth to try to deceive those who want to be listening to God.

God allows this to make sure that every human choice about him is clearly demonstrated in the eyes of men and angels. But He is also God and He does have people who love His Truth and He commits Himself to helping them to preserve it, covering their weaknesses with His Strength so that His Testimony is preserved pure in the earth. There has never been a time in human history when such people did not exist. Nor has there ever been a time in human history when their opposite didn't either. So at all times throughout human history, both the pure Testimony of God and the adulteration, distortions and outright invented alternatives have always existed together so that everyone can choose what side they want to be on.

For this reason, the age of any given material says very little about whether or not it is God's Testimony. So, the argument that the Septuagint pre-existed the Masoretic Text counts for exactly nothing...not to mention that in some of the material discovered in the Qumran Caves you mentioned which are older than the Septuagint (if memory serves me right), the Masoretic Text was witnessed to rather emphatically.

Finally, what is God's Signature in the Scriptures? How can anyone know what is Scripture and what isn't if we cannot judge by human authority or popular appeal? It is this: God is Spirit, therefore, every Scripture will contain His Essence, that is, they will necessarily possess His Inspiration and thus be spiritual in themselves. This is something that cannot be ascertained by physical or material investigation of any kind. The same way that our eyes need help to be able to detect certain lights like infrared and ultraviolet, our minds must be helped (with the tool or faculty of free will faith) in order to perceive the spiritual quality of the Scriptures. Every living human is able to tell that Scripture is Scripture (if they have preserved that faculty of free will faith in themselves) but not everyone can understand what is written in it. For unbelievers, if they care, they will find the Gospel in the Bible and be led to Salvation. Other than that, not much else in the Bible will make sense to them since it is spiritually discerned. For the neophyte believer, they may learn some fundamental truths of the Bible. But only if they submit to a fellow believer who possesses a teaching gift and training will they learn more than that. The Scriptures only yield themselves to faith and growing faith. Otherwise, they are opaque to those who try to read them.

This is why it is such a stumbling block. When those who will not submit to God discover His Testimony, they have only two possible reactions: ignore it or try to destroy it. Many have done or tried to do one or the other. But nobody has ever seen God's Truth and failed to know Its Uniqueness.

So, all the history in this debate is an interesting intellectual exercise and had I the time I would have enjoyed butting heads with you over what really did happen and what each event really meant. But I don't have the time and the history is beside the point. The point is that the Bible is really its own defence against all the efforts that have been made to destroy it. So, PastorAIO is wrong and in quite a few points so are you.
Re: Contra Bibliolatreia II -the Septuagint by Ubenedictus(m): 5:57pm On Oct 30, 2018
Ihedinobi3:
@Ubenedictus, I will beg your indulgence because I am going to cut to the heart of the matter. I apologize if that offends you but I really cannot afford the time and energy for the piecemeal responses that you may want and for all the historical research that answering each specific point requires especially since I am not trained in history.

To begin with, the claim the Bible makes and which Christians believe is that it is the Word of God, God's Oracle, God's Truth or God's Testimony.

That statement is what this thread is attacking on the basis of historical arguments that I believe are very flawed. I have already given my reasons for believing so. Now I will give my reasons for believing that the Bible's claim about itself is true. In my arguments, I think that you will also find your own counterarguments answered in one way or another.

The same way that the only person who can tell you that some testimony attributed to them is really from them is that person themselves, it is only God Himself Who decides what the Bible is or what the Canon is. No human or angelic council can do that. It cannot be voted on or be pronounced upon in any way. If any book belongs to the Canon, it will be known from the identifying feature - whatever it may be - that God Himself put upon it to make sure that nobody who really cares to know will be confused about it. That is only to be expected since we evil humans who will deliberately mislead other people into believing falsehoods about ourselves can still be responsible enough to make sure that people we care about don't get misled into believing that something that is not from us is really from us and something that is really isn't. God Who is Perfect and perfectly loving toward His Creatures must therefore be even more responsible in His Own Actions regarding His Testimony. The books that He inspired must therefore contain some innate witness within themselves that makes it clear to everyone who reads them that these books really came from Him.

Therefore, no human or angelic council of any sort is qualified or necessary to decide what the Canon is or "set it" in any way.

For this reason, I cannot accept that the Canon of the Hebrew Scriptures (which, by the way, were in use for more than a thousand years and the last of which was written more than four hundred years before the Lord Jesus Christ came and died for our sins) was "not set until after the apostles had died". The Canon was set as each book was written because of God's unique "signature", if you will, in each one of them.

Now, because human history from the Garden of Eden until Eternity begins is all about Truth, that is, about the question, "what is Truth?", it only follows that Satan and humans will be invested in distorting whatever God's own Answer to that question may be. We possess a free will, the very Image of God, and therefore can choose what we want to believe. But we also have something in us that demands Truth, that is, a Conscience. For that reason, while we may reject God's Truth, we must provide ourselves with some rationale for doing so. That is what leads to the distortions and total or complete inventions of belief systems of our own that have nothing to do with God, forcing our consciences to embrace the Lie in one form or another.

That is how many versions of the Bible whether in historical manuscripts or in contemporary translations exist with not a few of them conflicting with each other on one point or the other.

Regardless of this desire on the part of the majority of human beings to distort God's Truth, God's Truth is still preserved in the world because of others who not only want to know it in its pure form but want to keep it accessible to others who may come to seek it. This is how God counteracts the power of the Lie. So, in every generation, there have been true believers equipped with the abilities and resources required to either reclaim the Truth from increasingly elaborate distortions that the Enemy and his agents have tried to mire it in. Some of them, like Jerome, had tremendous work to do in doing so and, being weak humans like the rest of us, often caved to the pressure to just leave well enough alone but each one went far enough to preserve a shining witness to God's Testimony for others to know that work still needed to be done. Their mistakes - when they made any - must then be separated from their successes. That Jerome, for example, did quote some of the Apocrypha as Scripture - if indeed he did for I admit no such thing having too little expertise in history to have any kind of expert opinion on that - does not therefore mean that they were part of the Bible. It only means that he did quote them as Scripture - if, like I said, your claims that he did are in fact true.

Why did God not prevent anyone from corrupting the Scriptures though? It is a fair question because obviously God can and He loves us and wants us to know the Truth or else the Bible is lying about Him, that is, He would be lying about Himself if the Bible is truly His Testimony. The answer to that question is that we have a free will. All sane human beings (the overwhelming majority of human beings) do. Therefore, each of us has a God-given right to decide what to do with God's Testimony. We can receive it in humility. We can ignore it. Or we can actively try to destroy it like King Jehoiakim of Judah tried to do in Jeremiah 36:21-26. Active physical destruction of the Bible has been attempted multiple times in human history but it is not the only way that people have actively attempted to destroy the Scriptures. They have tried too to add or remove or change material in them so that those who read their production will be misled into believing lies masked as Truth. This is hardly novel since Satan himself has been doing that since the beginning of human history, that is, presenting the lie as the truth to try to deceive those who want to be listening to God.

God allows this to make sure that every human choice about him is clearly demonstrated in the eyes of men and angels. But He is also God and He does have people who love His Truth and He commits Himself to helping them to preserve it, covering their weaknesses with His Strength so that His Testimony is preserved pure in the earth. There has never been a time in human history when such people did not exist. Nor has there ever been a time in human history when their opposite didn't either. So at all times throughout human history, both the pure Testimony of God and the adulteration, distortions and outright invented alternatives have always existed together so that everyone can choose what side they want to be on.

For this reason, the age of any given material says very little about whether or not it is God's Testimony. So, the argument that the Septuagint pre-existed the Masoretic Text counts for exactly nothing...not to mention that in some of the material discovered in the Qumran Caves you mentioned which are older than the Septuagint (if memory serves me right), the Masoretic Text was witnessed to rather emphatically.

Finally, what is God's Signature in the Scriptures? How can anyone know what is Scripture and what isn't if we cannot judge by human authority or popular appeal? It is this: God is Spirit, therefore, every Scripture will contain His Essence, that is, they will necessarily possess His Inspiration and thus be spiritual in themselves. This is something that cannot be ascertained by physical or material investigation of any kind. The same way that our eyes need help to be able to detect certain lights like infrared and ultraviolet, our minds must be helped (with the tool or faculty of free will faith) in order to perceive the spiritual quality of the Scriptures. Every living human is able to tell that Scripture is Scripture (if they have preserved that faculty of free will faith in themselves) but not everyone can understand what is written in it. For unbelievers, if they care, they will find the Gospel in the Bible and be led to Salvation. Other than that, not much else in the Bible will make sense to them since it is spiritually discerned. For the neophyte believer, they may learn some fundamental truths of the Bible. But only if they submit to a fellow believer who possesses a teaching gift and training will they learn more than that. The Scriptures only yield themselves to faith and growing faith. Otherwise, they are opaque to those who try to read them.

This is why it is such a stumbling block. When those who will not submit to God discover His Testimony, they have only two possible reactions: ignore it or try to destroy it. Many have done or tried to do one or the other. But nobody has ever seen God's Truth and failed to know Its Uniqueness.

So, all the history in this debate is an interesting intellectual exercise and had I the time I would have enjoyed butting heads with you over what really did happen and what each event really meant. But I don't have the time and the history is beside the point. The point is that the Bible is really its own defence against all the efforts that have been made to destroy it. So, PastorAIO is wrong and in quite a few points so are you.
the only thing you forgot to do is address my points, no, you just repeat whatever you think of the Bible and expect others to agree because you said so.



I will respond to your rather long post in a detailed manner latter. Just as your earlier submission, your current reading is rather simplistic and I will agrue erroneous.


I'll get back to this.

It almost seems you think the Bible fell down from heaven, worst you imagine rather incorrectly that every book is immediately recognized as inspired immediately it is written which unfortunately is untrue or just ignorant....
Re: Contra Bibliolatreia II -the Septuagint by JMAN05: 6:20am On Oct 31, 2018
Ubenedictus:
not exactly, Jerome lived a great deal in Palestine, of course the Jews didn't use the dueterocanonical books and he adopted that position, he called the Hebrew canon the list of canonical books. But he did not exactly put the dueterocanonical books as apocryphal... Nope, he put them in a class of their own, the became the ecclesiastical books which are read in the churches for edification but not for doctrine.

Jerome had two list, the canonical books comprising of the Hebrew Bible alone and then the ecclesiastical books comprising of the deuterocanonical books.

Here is what Jerome says



These instances have been just touched upon by me (the limits of a letter forbid a more discursive treatment of them) to convince you that in the holy scriptures you can make no progress unless you have a guide to shew you the way...Genesis ... Exodus ... Leviticus ... Numbers ... Deuteronomy ... Job ... Jesus the son of Nave ... Judges ... Ruth ... Samuel ... The third and fourth books of Kings ... The twelve prophets whose writings are compressed within the narrow limits of a single volume: Hosea ... Joel ... Amos ... Obadiah ... Jonah ... Micah ... Nahum ... Habakkuk ... Zephaniah ... Haggai ... Zechariah ... Malachi ... Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, and Daniel ... Jeremiah also goes four times through the alphabet in different metres (Lamentations)... David...sings of Christ to his lyre; and on a psaltry with ten strings (Psalms) ... Solomon, a lover of peace and of the Lord, corrects morals, teaches nature (Proverbs and Ecclesiastes), unites Christ and the church, and sings a sweet marriage song to celebrate that holy bridal (Song of Songs) ... Esther ... Ezra and Nehemiah. (Philip Schaff and Henry Wace, Nicene and Post Nicene Fathers (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1953, Volume VI, St. Jerome, Letter LIII.6-8, pp. 98-101).

As, then, the Church reads Judith, Tobit, and the books of Maccabees, but does not admit them among the canonical Scriptures, so let it also read these two volumes (Wisdom of Solomon and Ecclesiasticus) for the edification of the people, not to give authority to doctrines of the Church...I say this to show you how hard it is to master the book of Daniel, which in Hebrew contains neither the history of Susanna, nor the hymn of the three youths, nor the fables of Bel and the Dragon... (Ibid., Volume VI, Jerome, Prefaces to Jerome's Works, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes and the Song of Songs; Daniel, pp. 492-493).

He never claimed the dueterocanonical books are uninspired, in fact he denies saying that the deuterocaononical books are uninspired.

After he translated the vulgate with the deuteron canonical he was immediately accused by fellow Christians that he wrote dismissively about the deuterocanon, he IMMEDIATELY DENIED IT, he claimed all he meant to write was that the Jews didn't agree with the deuteron canonical books but that he personally submit himself to the judgment of the churches that adopted the non Hebrew canon.

Here is Jerome making a u-turn and submitting to the churches on the theodian long Greek canon.




We have four versions to choose from: those of Aquila, Symmachus, the Seventy, and Theodotion. The churches choose to read Daniel in the version of Theodotion. What sin have I committed in following the judgment of the churches? But when I repeat what the Jews say against the Story of Susanna and the Hymn of the Three Children, and the fables of Bel and the Dragon, which are not contained in the Hebrew Bible, the man who makes this a charge against me proves himself to be a fool and a slanderer; for I explained not what I thought but what they commonly say against us. I did not reply to their opinion in the Preface, because I was studying brevity, and feared that I should seem to he writing not a Preface but a book. I said therefore, “As to which this is not the time to enter into discussion.” […] Still, I wonder that a man should read the version of Theodotion the heretic and judaizer, and should scorn that of a Christian, simple and sinful though he may be. Letter to ruffinus.

So Jerome translated the book of Daniel according to the Greek deuterocanon and says that is the judgement of the church and that he submit himself to that judgment and that any harsh things he wrote about the deuterocanon is just a report of what the Jews used to say about it.


No, he never made a U-turn. the discussion you quoted was with Rufinus, and the discussion isnt about the canon of the bible. See wrote Jerome wrote to Lady

"“Let her avoid all the apocryphal books, and if she ever wishes to read them, not for the truth of their doctrines but out of respect for their wondrous tales, let her realize that they are not really written by those to whom they are ascribed, that there are many faulty elements in them, and that it requires great skill to look for gold in mud.”—Select Letters, CVII.

This is an dvise written to an inquirer, and thus shows his view of these books. It could be that he agreed with what some parts of these aprocryphals stated, but he never viewed it as written by inspired authors.

Rufinus himself didnt recognise those books as canonical. So that was never the issue at all. They were rather trading words cause of the writing of Origin, which Rufinus seem to argue that Jerome subscribe to doctrinally. But Jerome admired the work of Oregin, but not his doctrines. Jerome in the same work you quoted emphasized the superiority of the Hebrew scriptures over Septuagint because of some inconsistency in them.
Re: Contra Bibliolatreia II -the Septuagint by JMAN05: 6:28am On Oct 31, 2018
"here the Britannica is either simplistic or just incorrect, the quram cave discovery showed us that the canon read by certain Jews were much bigger than the Hebrew canon, in fact the Hebrew Canon was not set until after the apostles had died, both the Ethiopians Jews, the Alexandrian Jews and even certain Jews in Palestine even some in the Talmud used an extended canon including the deuterocanonical books. On this the Britannica is incorrect. The church didn't manufacture those books and add to the Septuagint, they were part of it and was already in use by the Jews."

How did you arrive at the bold faced phrase?
Re: Contra Bibliolatreia II -the Septuagint by Ubenedictus(m): 10:06am On Oct 31, 2018
JMAN05:



No, he never made a U-turn. the discussion you quoted was with Rufinus, and the discussion isnt about the canon of the bible. See wrote Jerome wrote to Lady

"“Let her avoid all the apocryphal books, and if she ever wishes to read them, not for the truth of their doctrines but out of respect for their wondrous tales, let her realize that they are not really written by those to whom they are ascribed, that there are many faulty elements in them, and that it requires great skill to look for gold in mud.”—Select Letters, CVII.

This is an dvise written to an inquirer, and thus shows his view of these books. It could be that he agreed with what some parts of these aprocryphals stated, but he never viewed it as written by inspired authors.

Rufinus himself didnt recognise those books as canonical. So that was never the issue at all. They were rather trading words cause of the writing of Origin, which Rufinus seem to argue that Jerome subscribe to doctrinally. But Jerome admired the work of Oregin, but not his doctrines. Jerome in the same work you quoted emphasized the superiority of the Hebrew scriptures over Septuagint because of some inconsistency in them.
first of all Jerome never classified the deuterocanon as apocryphal, he classified them as ecclesiastical and not canonical, so the quote above doesn't even have any business in the discussion.

It is funny if you even read that quote in the original Latin it says:

Caveat omnia apocrypha et, si quando ea non ad dogmatum veritatem, sed ad signorum reverentiam legere voluerit, sciat non eorum esse, quorum titulis praenotantur, multaque his **admixta vitiosa et grandis esse prudentiae aurum in luto quaerere.

Let her beware all apocrypha; so long as she but wishes to read such things for reverence toward signs [ie, miracles] and not for truth of dogma, may she know them not to be what they are written on their title labels [the tags on scrolls]. And many **are mixed full of vice; and to find gold in mud, one's prudence must be great.

He goes on to say:
Let her always have Cyprian's little works in her hand. She may race uninterruptedly through Athanasius' letters and Hilarius' books without stubbing her foot. She may enjoy such tracts of such [good] characters, in whose books piety of faith may not totter. Let her read the rest in another way, for she may better judge [them] than follow after.

The apocryphal according to Jerome in this quote are full of vice, any body who has read Jerome will testify that on his worst days he doesn't ever say that of the deuterocanon instead he is clear that they edifyAs, then, the Church reads Judith, Tobit, and the books of Maccabees, but does not admit them among the canonical Scriptures, so let it also read these two volumes (Wisdom of Solomon and Ecclesiasticus) for the edification of the people, not to give authority to doctrines of the Church

Clearly he is not talking of the deuterocanonical books.


The quote isn't even talking about books of the Bible or the canon, he his telling a woman about the books her kids are to read and the next sentence in that letter is


Let her always have Cyprian's little works in her hand. She may race uninterruptedly through Athanasius' letters and Hilarius' books without stubbing her foot. She may enjoy such tracts of such [good] characters, in whose books piety of faith may not totter. Let her read the rest in another way, for she may better judge [them] than follow after.


Is Cyprian, athanasius and Hilary scripture? Do you consider them inspired? Because in that letter of what to read they are included... You have brought an off topic quote.

2nd Jerome is always the first to elevate the Hebrew canon, but as the quote I provided showed he clearly said, THE CHURCHES do not read the book according to the Hebrew canon instead it is read according to the Theodian which contain the deuterocanonical part of Susanna and bell and he said he translated it according to that version with the deuterocanon because HE SUBMITS TO THE JUDGEMENT OF THE CHURCHES and what he had earlier wrote against it were only what the Jews used to say.


Then he goes further and calls the deuterocanonical book of sirach scripture and quotes a ton of other deuterocanonical books as scripture and prophet
Does not the SCRIPTURE say: 'Burden not thyself above thy power' [SIRACH 13:2] Jerome, To Eustochium, Epistle 108 (A.D. 404), in NPNF2, VI:207

not, my dearest brother, estimate my worth by the number of my years. Gray hairs are not wisdom; it is wisdom which is as good as gray hairs At least that is what Solomon says: "wisdom is the gray hair unto men.’ [Wisdom 4:9]" Moses too in choosing the seventy elders is told to take those whom he knows to be elders indeed, and to select them not for their years but for their discretion (Num. 11:16)? And, as a boy, Daniel judges old men and in the flower of youth condemns the incontinence of age (Daniel 13:55-59, or Story of Susannah 55-59, only found in the Catholic Bibles) Jerome, To Paulinus, Epistle 58 (A.D. 395), in NPNF2, VI:119


Rufinus the guy he is addressing does the same, he lists the books without the deuterocanon but also quote them as scripture.

For it is evident that the Son, not the Father, became incarnate and was born in the flesh, and that from that nativity in the flesh the Son became "visible and passible." Yet so far as regards that immortal substance of the Godhead, which He possesses, and which is one and the same with that of the Father, we must believe that neither the Father, nor the Son, nor the Holy Ghost is "visible or passible." But the Son, in that He condescended to assume flesh, was both seen and also suffered in the flesh. Which also the Prophet foretold when he said, 'This is our God: no other shall be accounted of in comparison of Him. He hath found out all the way of knowledge, and hath given it unto Jacob His servant and to Israel His beloved. Afterward He shewed Himself upon the earth, and conversed with men.' [Baruch 3:36-38]" Rufinus of Aquileia, The Apostles Creed, 37-38 (A.D. 404), in NPNF2, III:545


Neither of them dispute the inspiration of those books, they treated them as scripture but as non canonical because the canon is what is read in liturgy.
Re: Contra Bibliolatreia II -the Septuagint by Ubenedictus(m): 1:29pm On Oct 31, 2018
JMAN05:


How did you arrive at the bold faced phrase?
by reading the Jews.


The Mishnah, compiled at the end of the 2nd century CE, describes a debate over the status of some books of Ketuvim, and in particular over whether or not they render the hands ritually impure. Yadaim 3:5 calls attention to a debate over Song of Songs and Ecclesiastes- Wikipedia


They were still debates by the 2nd century if and what books are pure and which are impure. That is to say their canon wasn't fixed even then, the Essene Jews used a great deal more books than current jews, so too the Alexandria Jews, the Ethiopian and even in Palestine... Put simply they hadn't set a canon.
Re: Contra Bibliolatreia II -the Septuagint by Ubenedictus(m): 3:17pm On Oct 31, 2018
R
Ihedinobi3:
@Ubenedictus, I will beg your indulgence because I am going to cut to the heart of the matter. I apologize if that offends you but I really cannot afford the time and energy for the piecemeal responses that you may want and for all the historical research that answering each specific point requires especially since I am not trained in history.
you don't need to be trained in history you just need to be sufficiently interested about the issue....
I don't have the time to be offended.

To begin with, the claim the Bible makes and which Christians believe is that it is the Word of God, God's Oracle, God's Truth or God's Testimony.

Allow me to begin here to address your points

The 66 books of the Protestant Bible or the 70+ books of the Catholic/Orthodox bibles do not make any claim that each of those books are God's oracles, his word etc. Don't get me wrong, many book have a thus says the Lord character, but many others don't, besides there are many thus says the Lord books that none of the groups above consider scripture. Paul is the guy who tells us all scripture is God breathed but he doesn't give a list of the books he considers scripture... Is it the current Hebrew Bible or a more robust Septuagint, we know he used the Septuagint extensively? Did he intend to write scripture when he was writing the letter to Philemon? Or is Luke's personal correspondence with theophilus?


There is no book in the Bible that says these 66 or 73 books are scripture, God's word and Oracle, nope! That claim isn't in the Bible.

Do you know who made those claims?

The Christian churches, they brought together personal letters, church letters and books of various genres and declared that they are scripture, God's Truth and Oracle.

That is the first point, the Bible makes no such claim.

That statement is what this thread is attacking on the basis of historical arguments that I believe are very flawed. I have already given my reasons for believing so. Now I will give my reasons for believing that the Bible's claim about itself is true. In my arguments, I think that you will also find your own counterarguments answered in one way or another.
I believe your premise is itself wrong, the Bible makes no such claim.

The same way that the only person who can tell you that some testimony attributed to them is really from them is that person themselves, it is only God Himself Who decides what the Bible is or what the Canon is. No human or angelic council can do that. It cannot be voted on or be pronounced upon in any way. If any book belongs to the Canon, it will be known from the identifying feature - whatever it may be - that God Himself put upon it to make sure that nobody who really cares to know will be confused about it. That is only to be expected since we evil humans who will deliberately mislead other people into believing falsehoods about ourselves can still be responsible enough to make sure that people we care about don't get misled into believing that something that is not from us is really from us and something that is really isn't. God Who is Perfect and perfectly loving toward His Creatures must therefore be even more responsible in His Own Actions regarding His Testimony. The books that He inspired must therefore contain some innate witness within themselves that makes it clear to everyone who reads them that these books really came from Him.

Therefore, no human or angelic council of any sort is qualified or necessary to decide what the Canon is or "set it" in any way.
here you have created new problems for yourself. Of course the guy who has the right to say which and which are his word is the owner of the word himself.... That can't be debated, the question is how do you know what God says concerning each book been scripture or not?

Its been a long time since men heard God thundering his opinion about stuff from heaven, if I remember rightly it scared the hell out of them, so the question remains how do we know...

You believe that God put an identify feature upon each book, that every good person should recognize... Well many Samaritans will describe themselves as sincere yet they didn't see that feature in the prophets and proverbs and psalms, the Essene say the feature in in the Maccabees, Tobit, Judith, the Pharisees will disagree... On and on....seeing this illusive "feature" seem pretty subjective, the good men in the church say they saw it and the rabbis didn't. Who decides who really get the feature thing?

I on the other hand will argue that God in his kindness didnt want us in such confusion and made his church as the pillar and bulwark of truth, promised her the holy spirit to lead her to all Truth and promised to be with her for all ages...I will argue that he guides each council as is found in acts 15 that it decisions are spirit guided. And I would say that the church is the guarantee to the scripture not each individual Christian searching subjectively for a rather illusive nondescript "feature".

The word of God doesn't thunder from heaven and if it isn't the voice of the church, then every Christian may very well decide on his own canon according to his knowledge of the " feature " just as Luther attempted removing certain new testament books.




For this reason, I cannot accept that the Canon of the Hebrew Scriptures (which, by the way, were in use for more than a thousand years and the last of which was written more than four hundred years before the Lord Jesus Christ came and died for our sins) was "not set until after the apostles had died". The Canon was set as each book was written because of God's unique "signature", if you will, in each one of them.

Now, because human history from the Garden of Eden until Eternity begins is all about Truth, that is, about the question, "what is Truth?", it only follows that Satan and humans will be invested in distorting whatever God's own Answer to that question may be. We possess a free will, the very Image of God, and therefore can choose what we want to believe. But we also have something in us that demands Truth, that is, a Conscience. For that reason, while we may reject God's Truth, we must provide ourselves with some rationale for doing so. That is what leads to the distortions and total or complete inventions of belief systems of our own that have nothing to do with God, forcing our consciences to embrace the Lie in one form or another.

That is how many versions of the Bible whether in historical manuscripts or in contemporary translations exist with not a few of them conflicting with each other on one point or the other.

Regardless of this desire on the part of the majority of human beings to distort God's Truth, God's Truth is still preserved in the world because of others who not only want to know it in its pure form but want to keep it accessible to others who may come to seek it. This is how God counteracts the power of the Lie. So, in every generation, there have been true believers equipped with the abilities and resources required to either reclaim the Truth from increasingly elaborate distortions that the Enemy and his agents have tried to mire it in. Some of them, like Jerome, had tremendous work to do in doing so and, being weak humans like the rest of us, often caved to the pressure to just leave well enough alone but each one went far enough to preserve a shining witness to God's Testimony for others to know that work still needed to be done. Their mistakes - when they made any - must then be separated from their successes. That Jerome, for example, did quote some of the Apocrypha as Scripture - if indeed he did for I admit no such thing having too little expertise in history to have any kind of expert opinion on that - does not therefore mean that they were part of the Bible. It only means that he did quote them as Scripture - if, like I said, your claims that he did are in fact true.
who decides what is a distortion and what is true, a Catholic say rightly that Jerome quoted the deuterocanon as scripture and that they truly are, Protestants repeat his reservations for them and say they are a distortion. Catholics will say the decision of the church superseded the reservation of one priest Jerome, Protestants elevate his reservation above the church. Which is the distortion which is the truth?

Do you believe that some books that are scripture should be in the Bible? because you seem to think Jerome quote them as scripture yet they should not be in the Bible.

Who decides what is a shinning witness and what is a mistake? A Catholic/Orthodox will see Jerome's submission to the judgment of the church as a shinning witness, you seem to think it is a mistake. I guess if he agrees with you it is a shinning witness, when he disagrees it is a mistake abi?

Talk of double standard and making ones self the ultimate authority.


Why did God not prevent anyone from corrupting the Scriptures though? It is a fair question because obviously God can and He loves us and wants us to know the Truth or else the Bible is lying about Him, that is, He would be lying about Himself if the Bible is truly His Testimony. The answer to that question is that we have a free will. All sane human beings (the overwhelming majority of human beings) do. Therefore, each of us has a God-given right to decide what to do with God's Testimony. We can receive it in humility. We can ignore it. Or we can actively try to destroy it like King Jehoiakim of Judah tried to do in Jeremiah 36:21-26. Active physical destruction of the Bible has been attempted multiple times in human history but it is not the only way that people have actively attempted to destroy the Scriptures. They have tried too to add or remove or change material in them so that those who read their production will be misled into believing lies masked as Truth. This is hardly novel since Satan himself has been doing that since the beginning of human history, that is, presenting the lie as the truth to try to deceive those who want to be listening to God.
reminds me of Luther knowingly adding the word alone in his German Bible and removing books from the Bible

God allows this to make sure that every human choice about him is clearly demonstrated in the eyes of men and angels. But He is also God and He does have people who love His Truth and He commits Himself to helping them to preserve it, covering their weaknesses with His Strength so that His Testimony is preserved pure in the earth. There has never been a time in human history when such people did not exist. Nor has there ever been a time in human history when their opposite didn't either. So at all times throughout human history, both the pure Testimony of God and the adulteration, distortions and outright invented alternatives have always existed together so that everyone can choose what side they want to be on.

For this reason, the age of any given material says very little about whether or not it is God's Testimony. So, the argument that the Septuagint pre-existed the Masoretic Text counts for exactly nothing...not to mention that in some of the material discovered in the Qumran Caves you mentioned which are older than the Septuagint (if memory serves me right), the Masoretic Text was witnessed to rather emphatically.
and many times the substraction and addition in the masoretic text are made glaring.

Finally, what is God's Signature in the Scriptures? How can anyone know what is Scripture and what isn't if we cannot judge by human authority or popular appeal? It is this: God is Spirit, therefore, every Scripture will contain His Essence, that is, they will necessarily possess His Inspiration and thus be spiritual in themselves. This is something that cannot be ascertained by physical or material investigation of any kind. The same way that our eyes need help to be able to detect certain lights like infrared and ultraviolet, our minds must be helped (with the tool or faculty of free will faith) in order to perceive the spiritual quality of the Scriptures. Every living human is able to tell that Scripture is Scripture (if they have preserved that faculty of free will faith in themselves) but not everyone can understand what is written in it. For unbelievers, if they care, they will find the Gospel in the Bible and be led to Salvation. Other than that, not much else in the Bible will make sense to them since it is spiritually discerned. For the neophyte believer, they may learn some fundamental truths of the Bible. But only if they submit to a fellow believer who possesses a teaching gift and training will they learn more than that. The Scriptures only yield themselves to faith and growing faith. Otherwise, they are opaque to those who try to read them.

This is why it is such a stumbling block. When those who will not submit to God discover His Testimony, they have only two possible reactions: ignore it or try to destroy it. Many have done or tried to do one or the other. But nobody has ever seen God's Truth and failed to know Its Uniqueness.

So, all the history in this debate is an interesting intellectual exercise and had I the time I would have enjoyed butting heads with you over what really did happen and what each event really meant. But I don't have the time and the history is beside the point. The point is that the Bible is really its own defence against all the efforts that have been made to destroy it. So, PastorAIO is wrong and in quite a few points so are you.
if every human can tell that "scripture is scripture" as you claim then we wouldn't be having a discussion about the church decisions about scripture been overruled by some men 500years ago.


Since you seem to get the feature thing, please tell us which version, translation, canon.... Has the identification feature?
Re: Contra Bibliolatreia II -the Septuagint by Ihedinobi3: 2:24am On Nov 01, 2018
Ubenedictus:
R you don't need to be trained in history you just need to be sufficiently interested about the issue....
I don't have the time to be offended.



Allow me to begin here to address your points

The 66 books of the Protestant Bible or the 70+ books of the Catholic/Orthodox bibles do not make any claim that each of those books are God's oracles, his word etc. Don't get me wrong, many book have a thus says the Lord character, but many others don't, besides there are many thus says the Lord books that none of the groups above consider scripture. Paul is the guy who tells us all scripture is God breathed but he doesn't give a list of the books he considers scripture... Is it the current Hebrew Bible or a more robust Septuagint, we know he used the Septuagint extensively? Did he intend to write scripture when he was writing the letter to Philemon? Or is Luke's personal correspondence with theophilus?


There is no book in the Bible that says these 66 or 73 books are scripture, God's word and Oracle, nope! That claim isn't in the Bible.

Do you know who made those claims?

The Christian churches, they brought together personal letters, church letters and books of various genres and declared that they are scripture, God's Truth and Oracle.

That is the first point, the Bible makes no such claim.

I believe your premise is itself wrong, the Bible makes no such claim.

here you have created new problems for yourself. Of course the guy who has the right to say which and which are his word is the owner of the word himself.... That can't be debated, the question is how do you know what God says concerning each book been scripture or not?

Its been a long time since men heard God thundering his opinion about stuff from heaven, if I remember rightly it scared the hell out of them, so the question remains how do we know...

You believe that God put an identify feature upon each book, that every good person should recognize... Well many Samaritans will describe themselves as sincere yet they didn't see that feature in the prophets and proverbs and psalms, the Essene say the feature in in the Maccabees, Tobit, Judith, the Pharisees will disagree... On and on....seeing this illusive "feature" seem pretty subjective, the good men in the church say they saw it and the rabbis didn't. Who decides who really get the feature thing?

I on the other hand will argue that God in his kindness didnt want us in such confusion and made his church as the pillar and bulwark of truth, promised her the holy spirit to lead her to all Truth and promised to be with her for all ages...I will argue that he guides each council as is found in acts 15 that it decisions are spirit guided. And I would say that the church is the guarantee to the scripture not each individual Christian searching subjectively for a rather illusive nondescript "feature".

The word of God doesn't thunder from heaven and if it isn't the voice of the church, then every Christian may very well decide on his own canon according to his knowledge of the " feature " just as Luther attempted removing certain new testament books.




who decides what is a distortion and what is true, a Catholic say rightly that Jerome quoted the deuterocanon as scripture and that they truly are, Protestants repeat his reservations for them and say they are a distortion. Catholics will say the decision of the church superseded the reservation of one priest Jerome, Protestants elevate his reservation above the church. Which is the distortion which is the truth?

Do you believe that some books that are scripture should be in the Bible? because you seem to think Jerome quote them as scripture yet they should not be in the Bible.

Who decides what is a shinning witness and what is a mistake? A Catholic/Orthodox will see Jerome's submission to the judgment of the church as a shinning witness, you seem to think it is a mistake. I guess if he agrees with you it is a shinning witness, when he disagrees it is a mistake abi?

Talk of double standard and making ones self the ultimate authority.


reminds me of Luther knowingly adding the word alone in his German Bible and removing books from the Bible

and many times the substraction and addition in the masoretic text are made glaring.

if every human can tell that "scripture is scripture" as you claim then we wouldn't be having a discussion about the church decisions about scripture been overruled by some men 500years ago.


Since you seem to get the feature thing, please tell us which version, translation, canon.... Has the identification feature?
First of all, Ubenedictus, why do you sound like you're on the war path? You opted to respond to me when I addressed myself to PastorAIO. The least you could do is maintain something of a neutral attitude, right? If I have offended you, it was completely unwitting. There is no reason to treat my arguments like a personal affront.

Second, your rebuttal about the Bible's claim about itself is truly disappointing. Here's why:

2 Timothy 3:16
[16]All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness;

2 Peter 1:20-21
[20]But know this first of all, that no prophecy of Scripture is a matter of one's own interpretation,
[21]for no prophecy was ever made by an act of human will, but men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God.

2 Peter 3:15-16
[15]and regard the patience of our Lord as salvation; just as also our beloved brother Paul, according to the wisdom given him, wrote to you,
[16]as also in all his letters, speaking in them of these things, in which are some things hard to understand, which the untaught and unstable distort, as they do also the rest of the Scriptures, to their own destruction.

The above are three out of 53 results that showed up when I searched the word "Scripture" in an NASB (New American Standard Bible) app. The first thing that comes straight out is that the word "Scripture" is clearly used as a technical word meaning something very specific. That means that both Paul and Peter and the people they wrote to knew what the word meant. That is to say, they knew what was Scripture and what was not. This was obviously before all the apostles were dead since these two were apostles. Also, throughout the New Testament, as I already mentioned, there is constant reference to "the Scripture" or "the Scriptures" so that clearly there was existing literature that was known by those who made these references and by those to whom the references were made as Scripture. That immediately negates your claim that "the Hebrew Canon was not set until after the apostles died".

Next, Peter clearly recognized Paul's writings as Scripture in the last passage of the three I shared above. Paul was still very much alive at that time and still writing. So, clearly, the text itself was known to be Scripture right when it was written, not hundreds of years later when some council pronounced upon it. Even Paul himself, the writer, treated his writings as Scripture (Col 4:16). So, as I said before, the Canon was set as each book was written because of God's unique signature in them. The writers knew what they were writing. Those who read the writing knew what they read. No council was necessary to prove anything. And there is no reason in the New Testament to believe that God thundered in any way to communicate that the writing in question was from Him.

Again, it was clearly sufficient that, as Paul said, each writing of Scripture was "inspired" by God. That means that each writing possessed the Essence of God which identified the writing as God's Words to the reader. That is what the Bible itself says, not a claim that I am making. So, the Bible is the one you would be taking issue with here if you disagree, not me. In other words, what Paul said is that if any writing is Scripture, you will be able to tell that it is from the presence of God's Inspiration in it, not that the writing itself will claim to be written by God. So, if you are looking for an actual explicit written claim in a book of the Bible that it was written or commissioned by God, it would be at your own behest, not because the Bible says that true Scripture would be identified that way.

Finally, obviously, the Bible does claim that Scripture is God-inspired. So, unless any writing can prove itself to indeed be God-inspired, it is not Scripture. That is the Bible's actual claim. And it is on the basis of that claim that we can say that this or that book does or does not belong in the Bible. It is only when we doubt this claim made in the Bible that we would then make up our own criteria for deciding what is and what is not Scripture. That is what I believe is very wrong with the Roman Catholic Church: you do not believe the Bible.

Third, I don't believe that it is only good people who can tell that something is Scripture. That is not what I said. I believe that the Bible identifies itself to anyone who cares to know what it is. Not that they would understand what it says: only those who have the Spirit of God can understand what the Bible says. But anyone - good, bad, believing, unbelieving - who comes to the Bible seeking to know what it is will know that it is God's Oracle. Whether they decide to retain that knowledge in themselves by believing it or not is up to them. If they choose to reject it as God's Truth, then the Bible will be closed to them and its claims and pronouncements ridiculous to them. That is why we can have these discussions. The Truth does not force itself on anyone while we still live in mortal flesh in this world. We have free will and can choose whether to accept or reject the Truth as it pleases us. So, even knowing that the Bible is the Word of God when we open it does not mean that we will believe it. We can reject that knowledge and choose instead to lie to ourselves that it isn't for any number of rationalizations that suits us.

So, double standards? Luther's alleged tampering? Essenes? Etc. My answer to all these things is that once you accept the testimony of Scripture concerning itself, it becomes clear that to know what book, text, translation, manuscript etc is Scripture, all we need to do is read it.

PS. I don't think that you should take history so lightly. You make a lot of claims on the basis of documents you believe say the truth about what happened so long ago. A trained historian might surprise you about what is really admissible as historical truth and what isn't. Just saying.
Re: Contra Bibliolatreia II -the Septuagint by JMAN05: 6:34am On Nov 01, 2018
Ubenedictus:
first of all Jerome never classified the deuterocanon as apocryphal, he classified them as ecclesiastical and not canonical, so the quote above doesn't even have any business in the discussion.

It is funny if you even read that quote in the original Latin it says:

Caveat omnia apocrypha et, si quando ea non ad dogmatum veritatem, sed ad signorum reverentiam legere voluerit, sciat non eorum esse, quorum titulis praenotantur, multaque his **admixta vitiosa et grandis esse prudentiae aurum in luto quaerere.

Let her beware all apocrypha; so long as she but wishes to read such things for reverence toward signs [ie, miracles] and not for truth of dogma, may she know them not to be what they are written on their title labels [the tags on scrolls]. And many **are mixed full of vice; and to find gold in mud, one's prudence must be great.

He goes on to say:
Let her always have Cyprian's little works in her hand. She may race uninterruptedly through Athanasius' letters and Hilarius' books without stubbing her foot. She may enjoy such tracts of such [good] characters, in whose books piety of faith may not totter. Let her read the rest in another way, for she may better judge [them] than follow after.

The apocryphal according to Jerome in this quote are full of vice, any body who has read Jerome will testify that on his worst days he doesn't ever say that of the deuterocanon instead he is clear that they edifyAs, then, the Church reads Judith, Tobit, and the books of Maccabees, but does not admit them among the canonical Scriptures, so let it also read these two volumes (Wisdom of Solomon and Ecclesiasticus) for the edification of the people, not to give authority to doctrines of the Church

Clearly he is not talking of the deuterocanonical books.


The quote isn't even talking about books of the Bible or the canon, he his telling a woman about the books her kids are to read and the next sentence in that letter is


Let her always have Cyprian's little works in her hand. She may race uninterruptedly through Athanasius' letters and Hilarius' books without stubbing her foot. She may enjoy such tracts of such [good] characters, in whose books piety of faith may not totter. Let her read the rest in another way, for she may better judge [them] than follow after.


Is Cyprian, athanasius and Hilary scripture? Do you consider them inspired? Because in that letter of what to read they are included... You have brought an off topic quote.

It letter has a substance to the discussion, The full paragraph of interest reads:

Letter 107 - To Laeta

let her treasures be not silks or gems but manuscripts of the holy scriptures; and in these let her think less of gilding, and Babylonian parchment, and arabesque patterns, than of correctness and accurate punctuation. Let her begin by learning the psalter, and then let her gather rules of life out of the proverbs of Solomon. From the Preacher let her gain the habit of despising the world and its vanities. Let her follow the example set in Job of virtue and of patience. Then let her pass on to the gospels never to be laid aside when once they have been taken in hand. Let her also drink in with a willing heart the Acts of the Apostles and the Epistles. As soon as she has enriched the storehouse of her mind with these treasures, let her commit to memory the prophets, the heptateuch, the books of Kings and of Chronicles, the rolls also of Ezra and Esther. When she has done all these she may safely read the Song of Songs but not before: for, were she to read it at the beginning, she would fail to perceive that, though it is written in fleshly words, it is a marriage song of a spiritual bridal. And not understanding this she would suffer hurt from it. Let her avoid all apocryphal writings, and if she is led to read such not by the truth of the doctrines which they contain but out of respect for the miracles contained in them; let her understand that they are not really written by those to whom they are ascribed, that many faulty elements have been introduced into them, and that it requires infinite discretion to look for gold in the midst of dirt. Cyprian's writings let her have always in her hands. The letters of Athanasius and the treatises of Hilary she may go through without fear of stumbling. Let her take pleasure in the works and wits of all in whose books a due regard for the faith is not neglected. But if she reads the works of others let it be rather to judge them than to follow them."

you can see the instruction was about sacred scripture before his recommending other works.

jerome listed 22 books as what he viewed are canonical, and stated that any beyond that will be left as apocryphal. When someone list books he considers canonical, he is in another words telling us that the books he listed are inspired and authoritative. Any other book beyond that might be correct, but it is never as authoritative and inspired as the ones listed as canonical. That is simple to me.

2nd Jerome is always the first to elevate the Hebrew canon, but as the quote I provided showed he clearly said, THE CHURCHES do not read the book according to the Hebrew canon instead it is read according to the Theodian which contain the deuterocanonical part of Susanna and bell and he said he translated it according to that version with the deuterocanon because HE SUBMITS TO THE JUDGEMENT OF THE CHURCHES and what he had earlier wrote against it were only what the Jews used to say.

I think you are detaching that discussion out of context. The church back then had even accepted this apocryphals as canonical, as they follow what is written in the Septuagint. Back then, they viewed the Septuagint as inspired. But Jerome took a different turn. He went ahead to translate from the Hebrew Bible, not the Septuagint that was revered by the then church. Is that the judgment of the churches? When Augustine wrote Jerome, instructing him to stick to the Septuagint and nothing more, did Jerome hid to that advice? You read further his letter 57 or read that discuss with Rufinus, you will see him make case for the Hebrew bible as against the Septuagint, which was then against the opinion of the churches. So you are cutting the letter out of context.

Then he goes further and calls the deuterocanonical book of sirach scripture and quotes a ton of other deuterocanonical books as scripture and prophet
Does not the SCRIPTURE say: 'Burden not thyself above thy power' [SIRACH 13:2] Jerome, To Eustochium, Epistle 108 (A.D. 404), in NPNF2, VI:207

not, my dearest brother, estimate my worth by the number of my years. Gray hairs are not wisdom; it is wisdom which is as good as gray hairs At least that is what Solomon says: "wisdom is the gray hair unto men.’ [Wisdom 4:9]" Moses too in choosing the seventy elders is told to take those whom he knows to be elders indeed, and to select them not for their years but for their discretion (Num. 11:16)? And, as a boy, Daniel judges old men and in the flower of youth condemns the incontinence of age (Daniel 13:55-59, or Story of Susannah 55-59, only found in the Catholic Bibles) Jerome, To Paulinus, Epistle 58 (A.D. 395), in NPNF2, VI:119


Rufinus the guy he is addressing does the same, he lists the books without the deuterocanon but also quote them as scripture.

For it is evident that the Son, not the Father, became incarnate and was born in the flesh, and that from that nativity in the flesh the Son became "visible and passible." Yet so far as regards that immortal substance of the Godhead, which He possesses, and which is one and the same with that of the Father, we must believe that neither the Father, nor the Son, nor the Holy Ghost is "visible or passible." But the Son, in that He condescended to assume flesh, was both seen and also suffered in the flesh. Which also the Prophet foretold when he said, 'This is our God: no other shall be accounted of in comparison of Him. He hath found out all the way of knowledge, and hath given it unto Jacob His servant and to Israel His beloved. Afterward He shewed Himself upon the earth, and conversed with men.' [Baruch 3:36-38]" Rufinus of Aquileia, The Apostles Creed, 37-38 (A.D. 404), in NPNF2, III:545


Neither of them dispute the inspiration of those books, they treated them as scripture but as non canonical because the canon is what is read in liturgy.

If one does not list a particular book in his canon, how can he view the one not listed as inspired. If you understand the meaning of canon, you will understand the point very well. And some of the areas where you added a scripture attached the words of these men are not certain. They never wrote there words with those scriptural quotations. Secondly, as Jerome said to Laeta, they may view those books as books of wisdom,but not as a book from the authors the book was ascribed to.

Jerome says:

"Thus there are twenty-two books . . . This prologue of the Scriptures can serve as a fortified approach to all the books which we translate from the Hebrew into Latin; so that we may know that whatever is beyond these must be put in the apocrypha"

And these is even as the council of Carthage had those books as there canon.

(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (Reply)

My Week Of Blessing By Rev. Fr. Ejike Mbaka / A Comprehensive Break Down Of Stephen Hawkin's Famous Quote On Gravity / •Sun-day Worship, A Christianized Form Of Sun Worship Cult

(Go Up)

Sections: politics (1) business autos (1) jobs (1) career education (1) romance computers phones travel sports fashion health
religion celebs tv-movies music-radio literature webmasters programming techmarket

Links: (0) (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9)

Nairaland - Copyright © 2005 - 2019 Oluwaseun Osewa. All rights reserved. See How To Advertise. 1305
Disclaimer: Every Nairaland member is solely responsible for anything that he/she posts or uploads on Nairaland.