OrthodoxChristianity.net
November 23, 2014, 02:24:32 AM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: Reminder: No political discussions in the public fora.  If you do not have access to the private Politics Forum, please send a PM to Fr. George.
 
   Home   Help Calendar Contact Treasury Tags Login Register  
Pages: 1 2 »  All   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: why on earth did the Protestants take so much away from the Bible?  (Read 3806 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Tikhon.of.Colorado
Site Supporter
Archon
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 2,363



« on: February 07, 2011, 12:27:42 AM »

the OSB says the Protestants took roughly 11 books from the Bible. 

why did they do this?

how can they claim to be "sola scriptura" when they don't even have the whole thing?!
Logged

"It is true that I am not always faithful, but I never lose courage, I leave myself in the Arms of Our Lord." - St. Thérèse of Lisieux
Justin Kissel
Formerly Asteriktos
Protospatharios
****************
Offline Offline

Posts: 30,174


theologian by day, bard by night


« Reply #1 on: February 07, 2011, 12:36:28 AM »

They didn't take books out of the Bible. Rather, there had long been disputes about which books belong in the Bible. In the 16th century the Protestants went one route, choosing the canon used by some in the early Church (St. Athanasius, St. Gregory the Theologian, St. Cyril of Jerusalem, St. John of Damascus, etc.), while the Catholics went a different route, choosing a canon used by others in the early Church (St. Ambrose, St. Augustine, the Council of Carthage in 397, etc.)  The Orthodox have never dogmatically defined the canon, though most Orthodox accept the same deuterocanonical books that Catholics accept (and usually add a few more).
Logged
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,963



« Reply #2 on: February 07, 2011, 12:43:52 AM »

They didn't take books out of the Bible. Rather, there had long been disputes about which books belong in the Bible. In the 16th century the Protestants went one route, choosing the canon used by some in the early Church (St. Athanasius, St. Gregory the Theologian, St. Cyril of Jerusalem, St. John of Damascus, etc.), while the Catholics went a different route, choosing a canon used by others in the early Church (St. Ambrose, St. Augustine, the Council of Carthage in 397, etc.)  The Orthodox have never dogmatically defined the canon, though most Orthodox accept the same deuterocanonical books that Catholics accept (and usually add a few more).
Not exactly.

EVERY SINGLE Chrsitian manuscript of the OT has the "extra" books, and the Fathers quote from them, incluidng the Fathers at the Ecumenical Councils. The Protestants followed St. Jerome's error, but like him, dared not remove them from the Bible.  The Protestants did not become so bold until the 19th century, when the Bible Society [sic] removed them (cheaper for distribution, and less problem to explain).
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
Tikhon.of.Colorado
Site Supporter
Archon
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 2,363



« Reply #3 on: February 07, 2011, 12:44:21 AM »

They didn't take books out of the Bible. Rather, there had long been disputes about which books belong in the Bible. In the 16th century the Protestants went one route, choosing the canon used by some in the early Church (St. Athanasius, St. Gregory the Theologian, St. Cyril of Jerusalem, St. John of Damascus, etc.), while the Catholics went a different route, choosing a canon used by others in the early Church (St. Ambrose, St. Augustine, the Council of Carthage in 397, etc.)  The Orthodox have never dogmatically defined the canon, though most Orthodox accept the same deuterocanonical books that Catholics accept (and usually add a few more).

I see.  thanks for clearing this up  Grin  .  I ask because my priest told me to pick a book of the Bible and study it over lent.  being the cheater I am, I skimmed my selected book, the Wisdom of Sirach, a bit early.  I brought up an inspiring quote to the Christian group I belong to at school, and got the strangest looks.  they actually don't have that book, which suprised me!  they must have thougt I was some sort of wierdo with a defective Bible!  Cheesy
Logged

"It is true that I am not always faithful, but I never lose courage, I leave myself in the Arms of Our Lord." - St. Thérèse of Lisieux
Justin Kissel
Formerly Asteriktos
Protospatharios
****************
Offline Offline

Posts: 30,174


theologian by day, bard by night


« Reply #4 on: February 07, 2011, 12:47:46 AM »

They didn't take books out of the Bible. Rather, there had long been disputes about which books belong in the Bible. In the 16th century the Protestants went one route, choosing the canon used by some in the early Church (St. Athanasius, St. Gregory the Theologian, St. Cyril of Jerusalem, St. John of Damascus, etc.), while the Catholics went a different route, choosing a canon used by others in the early Church (St. Ambrose, St. Augustine, the Council of Carthage in 397, etc.)  The Orthodox have never dogmatically defined the canon, though most Orthodox accept the same deuterocanonical books that Catholics accept (and usually add a few more).
Not exactly.

EVERY SINGLE Chrsitian manuscript of the OT has the "extra" books, and the Fathers quote from them, incluidng the Fathers at the Ecumenical Councils. The Protestants followed St. Jerome's error, but like him, dared not remove them from the Bible.  The Protestants did not become so bold until the 19th century, when the Bible Society [sic] removed them (cheaper for distribution, and less problem to explain).

Your custom title says that there is nothing that (St.) John of Damascus can't answer. Funny, then, that his canon of Scripture agrees with those bad old Protestants, eh? I guess the Exact Exposition of the Orthodox Faith isn't so exact?  And speaking of Ecumenical Councils, the canon issue was dealt with at Trullo. Which canon did they authorize? Multiple ones (canon 2). Smiley
« Last Edit: February 07, 2011, 12:49:44 AM by Asteriktos » Logged
Justin Kissel
Formerly Asteriktos
Protospatharios
****************
Offline Offline

Posts: 30,174


theologian by day, bard by night


« Reply #5 on: February 07, 2011, 12:53:15 AM »

They didn't take books out of the Bible. Rather, there had long been disputes about which books belong in the Bible. In the 16th century the Protestants went one route, choosing the canon used by some in the early Church (St. Athanasius, St. Gregory the Theologian, St. Cyril of Jerusalem, St. John of Damascus, etc.), while the Catholics went a different route, choosing a canon used by others in the early Church (St. Ambrose, St. Augustine, the Council of Carthage in 397, etc.)  The Orthodox have never dogmatically defined the canon, though most Orthodox accept the same deuterocanonical books that Catholics accept (and usually add a few more).

I see.  thanks for clearing this up  Grin  .  I ask because my priest told me to pick a book of the Bible and study it over lent.  being the cheater I am, I skimmed my selected book, the Wisdom of Sirach, a bit early.  I brought up an inspiring quote to the Christian group I belong to at school, and got the strangest looks.  they actually don't have that book, which suprised me!  they must have thougt I was some sort of wierdo with a defective Bible!  Cheesy

Fwiw, I sometimes make too big a deal out of the issue. Clearly most Orthodox, Catholics and Oriental Orthodox have certain books that the Protestants don't, so there's every reason to think them inspired. Still, I don't think the Orthodox ever dogmatically settled the issue of which books are in the Bible, so I think it's misleading to speak as though it has.

EDIT--Also, remember, I"m just some Joe Schmoe on the internet. When in doubt, you can always ask your bishop what the official or public belief/decision is regarding which Bible to use in your local Church.
« Last Edit: February 07, 2011, 12:55:53 AM by Asteriktos » Logged
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,963



« Reply #6 on: February 07, 2011, 02:06:55 AM »

They didn't take books out of the Bible. Rather, there had long been disputes about which books belong in the Bible. In the 16th century the Protestants went one route, choosing the canon used by some in the early Church (St. Athanasius, St. Gregory the Theologian, St. Cyril of Jerusalem, St. John of Damascus, etc.), while the Catholics went a different route, choosing a canon used by others in the early Church (St. Ambrose, St. Augustine, the Council of Carthage in 397, etc.)  The Orthodox have never dogmatically defined the canon, though most Orthodox accept the same deuterocanonical books that Catholics accept (and usually add a few more).
Not exactly.

EVERY SINGLE Chrsitian manuscript of the OT has the "extra" books, and the Fathers quote from them, incluidng the Fathers at the Ecumenical Councils. The Protestants followed St. Jerome's error, but like him, dared not remove them from the Bible.  The Protestants did not become so bold until the 19th century, when the Bible Society [sic] removed them (cheaper for distribution, and less problem to explain).

Your custom title says that there is nothing that (St.) John of Damascus can't answer. Funny, then, that his canon of Scripture agrees with those bad old Protestants, eh? I guess the Exact Exposition of the Orthodox Faith isn't so exact?  And speaking of Ecumenical Councils, the canon issue was dealt with at Trullo. Which canon did they authorize? Multiple ones (canon 2). Smiley
Quote
Observe, further (Cyril Hieros., Cat. 4; Epiphan., De pond. et mens.) that there are two and twenty books of the Old Testament, one for each letter of the Hebrew tongue....There are also the Panaretus, that is the Wisdom of Solomon, and the Wisdom of Jesus, which was published in Hebrew by the father of Sirach, and afterwards translated into Greek by his grandson, Jesus, the Son of Sirach. These are virtuous and noble, but are not counted nor were they placed in the ark.
Evidently St. John wasn't on the same page as the Protestants:
Quote
As you have listened already to Moses and Isaiah, so listen now to Jeremiah inculcating the same truth as they:—This is our God, and there shall be none other likened unto Him, Who hath found out all the way of knowledge, and hath given it unto Jacob His servant and to Israel His beloved. Afterward did He shew Himself upon earth and dwelt among men (Baruch iii. 35–37).
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf209.ii.v.ii.iv.html?scrBook=Bar&scrCh=3&scrV=35#ii.v.ii.iv-p126.1
Quote
For all things, as the Prophet says (2 Macc. vii. 28.), were made out of nothing; it was no transformation of existing things, but the creation into a perfect form of the non-existent.
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf209.ii.v.ii.iv.html?scrBook=2Macc&scrCh=7&scrV=28#ii.v.ii.iv-p55.1
Quote
The divine Scripture likewise saith that the souls of the just are in God’s hand (Wisd. iii. 1)
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf209.iii.iv.iv.xv.html?scrBook=Wis&scrCh=3&scrV=1#iii.iv.iv.xv-p13.1
and elsewhere.

Quote
The Letter of the Same Holy Synod of Ephesus, to the Sacred Synod in Pamphylia Concerning Eustathius Who Had Been Their Metropolitan

Forasmuch as the divinely inspired Scripture says, “Do all things with advice,” (Wisdom of Sirach, xxxii., 19)
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf214.x.xvi.xiii.html?scrBook=Sir&scrCh=32&scrV=19#x.xvi.xiii-p4.1

Quote
It has pleased the Council to prohibit the reading of anything besides the canonical Scriptures in church under color of divine Scriptures. The canonical Scriptures are the following, to wit: Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, Joshua the son of Nun, Judges, Reigns 4, Paralipomena 2 books, Job, the Psalter, the 4 books of Solomon, the 12 books of the Prophets, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Daniel, Tobit, Judith, Esther, the 2 books of Ezra; of the New Testament, the 4 Gospels, Acts of the Apostles (one book), the 14 Epistles of Paul, the 2 of Peter the Apostle, the 3 of John the Apostle, the 1 of James the Apostle, the 1 of Jude the Apostle, the Revelation of John
http://www.holytrinitymission.org/books/english/councils_local_rudder.htm#_Toc72635086
Canon 32 of Carthage "sealed and confirmed definitely and by name in c. II of the holy Sixth Ecumenical Council, but generally and indefinitely by c. I of the 4th, and by c. I of the 7th. Its c. LXXXIX is cited verbatim by the holy Fifth Ecumenical Council; and by virtue of this confirmation they have acquired a force which is in a way ecumenical."

The Apostolic Canons
Quote
85. To all you Clergymen and Laymen let the following books be venerable and sacred: Of the Old Testament, the five of Moses, namely, Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy; the one of Jesus of Nave (commonly called Joshua in English); the one of Judges; the one of Ruth; the four of the Kingdoms; two Paralipomena of the Book of Days; two of Esdras; one of Esther; three of the Maccabees; one of Job; one Psalter (commonly called the Psalms in English and also in Greek); three of Solomon, namely, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, and the Song of Songs; twelve of the Prophets; one of Isaiah; one of Jeremiah; one of Ezekiel; one of Daniel; outside of these it is permissible for you to recount in addition thereto also the Wisdom of very learned Sirach by way of teaching your younger folks. Our own books, that is to say, those of the New Testament, comprising four Gospels, namely, that of Matthew, of Mark, of Luke, and of John; fourteen Epistles of Paul; two Epistles of Peter, three Epistles of John; one of James; one of Jude; two Epistles of Clement; and the Injunctions addressed to you Bishops through me, Clement, in eight books, which ought not to be divulged to all on account of the secret matters they contain) and the Acts of us Apostles.
Quote
Interpretation.

After teaching and legislating in their sacred Canons in what manner it befits those in holy orders and lay Christians in general to conduct themselves as a matter of policy, the Apostles lastly teach also what books they ought to read. Thus in their c. IX they taught us not to read books that are uncanonical and falsely entitled and ascribed to others than their real authors, while in the present Canon they teach us to read the canonical and holy books which they also enumerate, as they appear listed here. These books are also mentioned in c. IX of the Council held in Laodicea, and in c. XXXII of that held in Carthage. Moreover, Athanasius the Great in his 39th festal letter, and St. Gregory the Theologian, in his Epic Verses, and Amphilochins the Bishop of Iconion in his Iambic Lines also mention them. In fact Athanasius the Great in his said letter divides all the books of the OJd Testament into two groups: the canonical, and the readable. As regarding the ones in the Old Testament called canonical he says that they are twenty-two books, in agreement with the number twenty-two of letters in the Hebrew alphabet (as is stated also by St. Gregory the Theologian and by divine John of Damascus), being named as follows: 1, Genesis; 2, Exodus; 3, Leviticus; 4, Numbers; 5, Deuteronomy; 6, Jesus of Nave (or Joshua); 7, Judges; 8, Ruth; 9, Kingdoms first and second taken together (wrhich are also known as the Books of Samuel among the Jews); 10, Kingdoms third and fourth (called also the First and Second Books of Kings, respectively); 11, Parahpomena first and second taken together (called in English "the First Book of the Chronicles" and "The Second Book of the Chronicles," respectively); 12, the First and the Second Book of Esdras, taken together; 13, The Psalms; 14, Proverbs; 15, Eeclesi-astes; 16, The Song of Songs; 17, Job; 18, The twelve lesser Prophets, named as a single book; 19, Isaiah; 20, Jeremiah together with Lamentations, and Baruch, and an epistle; 21, Ezekiel; 22, Daniel. Readable books to be studied by the recently catechized are the following: Wisdom of Solomon, which is also called all-virtuous according to Eusebius (Book 11, ch. 7, concerning Evangelical preparation); Wisdom of Sirach, which is also called all-virtuous, according to George Syngelos (note, however, that Sirach is called by Westerners "Ecclesiasticus"); Esther; Judith; and Tobias Take note, however,of the fact that the book of Esther, which is but one, is also included among the Canonical Books, just as the present Apostolical Canon also lists it among the canonical books; and so does the council held in Laodicea, and that held in Carthage. But even the Wisdom of Solomon, and Judith, and Tobit are enumerated among the canonical books by the council of Carthage. In the present Ap. c. the first three books of the Maccabees are also listed as canonical books.105 Of the New Testament the canonical books are the following: The four Gospels; the Acts of the Apostles; the seven Epistles General, namely, one of James, two of Peter, three of John, and one of Jude; fourteen Epistles of Paul; and the Book of Revelation, concerning which, however, divine Amphilochius in his Iambics says that though many approve it as genuine, most authorities deem it spurious. The Book of Revelation was nevertheless accepted by the Council of Carthage as a canonical book, as attested by its c. XXX; and by Athansius the Great in his aforesaid letter No. 39; and by divine Dionysius the Areopagite, who calls it a mystical intuition; and the scholiast of St. Dionysius divine Maximus mentions in many places in his scholia; it is also approved by St. Jerome, who calls it the most sublime book in the world. But if St. Gregory the Theologian fails to mention it in his Epic Verses, yet in the constituent address which he made to the one hundred and fifty bishops composing the Second Ecumenical Council he expressly mentioned it, saying: "For I, am persuaded that other ones (i.e., angels) supervise other churches, as John teaches me in Revelation." Origen, too, had a communication on Revelation. Cyril of Alexandria also mentions it (in p. 679 of the Pentateuch); and likewise does Clement of Alexandria (in p. 856 of the Pentateuch); it is accepted also by Apollinaris, Ephraim, Papias, Justin, Irenaeus, Tertullian, Lactantinus, Severus, Sylpicius, Augustine, Methodius, Hippolytus, Andrew of Caesarea, and the Second Ecumenical Council itself, before which St. Gregory the Theologian delivered his constituent address in which he mentioned the book of Revelation. It is also recognized by Meliton the bishop of Sardis, and by Theophilus the bishop of Aiitioch, and by others. As for the two Epistles of Clement mentioned in the present Apostolical Canon, they were addressed to the Corinthians on the part of the Church of Rome, and were published in the collection of the first volume of the Records of the Councils; but the second one is deemed spurious by Photius (folio 156 of the Myriobiblus). As for the Injunctions of the Apostles, which are also called the Didache of the Apostles by Athansius the Great, they were rejected by c. II of the 6th Ecumenical Council, on the ground that they had been garbled by heretics. But since not all of them were garbled, but only certain parts of them, therefore many of the Fathers even before the Sixth, among whom St. Gregory the Theologian in particular, but also sacred Maximus as well, adopted sayings taken therefrom. Thus the Theologian in his discourse on Easter, with reference to the proposition saying, "I will be on my guard," explain the word sheep as representing Christ allegorically on account of the coat of imperishability, which saying was gleaned from the Injunctions, according to Micetas; while divine Maximus uses whole excerpts from the Injunctions in his scholia on Dionysius. But why am I speaking of individuals? The Fifth Ecumenical Council itself bears witness to the Injunctions, in the letter of Justinian, to the effect that alms ought; to be given in behalf of the dying, p. 392 of the second volume of the collection of the councils. But even after the Sixth Council the Council assembled in St. Sophia adopted testimony from the Injunctions. Michael, too5 the patriarch of Constantinople, simamed Cerularius, together with the synod attending him, living A.D. 1053, adopted testimony against the cutting off of the beard which is found in Book I of the Apostolical Injunctions, ch. 3, reading as follows: "Ye shall not depilate your beards: for God the Creator made this becoming in women, but unsuited to men." Sec also page 978 of volume II of the Conciliar Records. Besides, as they are now found printed, it does not appear to me that they contain anything spurious or improper. The Shepherd, which Athanasius the Great mentions in his often-cited epistle, was a book which has not been preserved to our times. Perhaps it was such an affair as the discourse which John of Climax attributes to a shepherd, and, briefly speaking, there was such a book teaching the shepherd of rational sheep how to shepherd them towards a pasture conducive to salvation, and how to keep them safe from the clutches and claws of rational wolves, and of demons and cacodoxical human beings as well. We have been informed that this Shepherd is found as a very old book in some monastery in Greece and that it is a work of Quartus, one of the seventy Apostles. The Shepherd is mentioned also by St. Maximus in his scholia on divine Dionvsius. Its size is about that of the Psalter. Note that e. LIV of Carthage commands that besides the books of the Old and New Testaments the Lives of the Martyrs are to be read which contain an account of their ordeals on the davs of their festivals.
http://www.holytrinitymission.org/books/english/cannons_apostles_rudder.htm

and so on.
Quote
We have thus four [five if we accept the Laodicean list as genuine,] different canons of Holy Scripture, all having the approval of the Council in Trullo and of the Seventh Ecumenical.  From this there seems but one conclusion possible, viz.:  that the approval given was not specific but general.
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf214.xvii.xxiii.html?highlight=scripture#highlight
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
Melodist
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: The Faith That Established The Universe
Jurisdiction: AOANA
Posts: 2,523



« Reply #7 on: February 07, 2011, 02:42:50 AM »

They didn't take books out of the Bible. Rather, there had long been disputes about which books belong in the Bible. In the 16th century the Protestants went one route, choosing the canon used by some in the early Church (St. Athanasius, St. Gregory the Theologian, St. Cyril of Jerusalem, St. John of Damascus, etc.), while the Catholics went a different route, choosing a canon used by others in the early Church (St. Ambrose, St. Augustine, the Council of Carthage in 397, etc.)  The Orthodox have never dogmatically defined the canon, though most Orthodox accept the same deuterocanonical books that Catholics accept (and usually add a few more).

I see.  thanks for clearing this up  Grin  .  I ask because my priest told me to pick a book of the Bible and study it over lent.  being the cheater I am, I skimmed my selected book, the Wisdom of Sirach, a bit early.  I brought up an inspiring quote to the Christian group I belong to at school, and got the strangest looks.  they actually don't have that book, which suprised me!  they must have thougt I was some sort of wierdo with a defective Bible!  Cheesy

When talking to Protestants, I sometimes refer to them as "originally in the OT but later removed from some Bibles", and reference that they were originally included in the KJV.
Logged

And FWIW, these are our Fathers too, you know.

Made Perfect in Weakness - Latest Post: The Son of God
Altar Server
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian(as of 12/18/10)
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 978


Holy Father Seraphim, Pray to God for us!


« Reply #8 on: February 07, 2011, 08:51:09 AM »

When Martin Luther was translating the bible into German he decided to use the current Jewish Cannon.
Logged

All my hope I place in you, O Mother of God, keep me under your protection!
bogdan
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 1,615



« Reply #9 on: February 07, 2011, 09:54:46 AM »

When Martin Luther was translating the bible into German he decided to use the current Jewish Cannon.

He also suppressed (though did not actually remove, AFAIK) Esther, Hebrews, James, and Revelation, because they did not fit with his opinions and views of what Christianity is.

Luther made the error of thinking that, because there were no Hebrew manuscripts of these books, they were forgeries. Of course, today linguists have shown that several of the LXX books probably were composed in Hebrew originally. Others were not, but the Jews were living in a Hellenized world, and outside of Palestine most did not even speak Hebrew (hence the need for the LXX in the first place).

The current Jewish canon was created some decades after Christianity began. As the NT contains many references to the LXX, the Jews of Christ's day obviously knew these books as well.

http://www.scripturecatholic.com/septuagint.html
http://www.scripturecatholic.com/deuterocanon.html
« Last Edit: February 07, 2011, 10:13:30 AM by bogdan » Logged
Ortho_cat
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: AOCA-DWMA
Posts: 5,392



« Reply #10 on: February 07, 2011, 09:56:03 AM »

Actually, it was not them who removed it, it was us who added it Wink
Logged
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,963



« Reply #11 on: February 07, 2011, 10:03:05 AM »

Actually, it was not them who removed it, it was us who added it Wink
no, they, following the Jews, removed them.  That can be easily shown at the Tlamud comments on Sirach, the Jews have tradtions based on Judith, they celebrate Hanukkah as commanded by Maccabees, and the Jewish translations in Greek made to compete with the LXX after the rise of the Church translate the whole of Daniel (i.e. with Susanna, the Three Youths, and Bel and the Dragon).
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
Alveus Lacuna
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Posts: 6,951



« Reply #12 on: February 07, 2011, 10:07:50 AM »

Jewish Cannon.


Logged
bogdan
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 1,615



« Reply #13 on: February 07, 2011, 10:12:11 AM »

Fwiw, I sometimes make too big a deal out of the issue. Clearly most Orthodox, Catholics and Oriental Orthodox have certain books that the Protestants don't, so there's every reason to think them inspired. Still, I don't think the Orthodox ever dogmatically settled the issue of which books are in the Bible, so I think it's misleading to speak as though it has.

That is a fair point. We have come to suppress 3 Esdras (Apocalypse of Ezra) and especially 4 Maccabees in Orthodoxy, though they are generally considered canonical. The question has never been formally addressed or laid down. Indeed, we don't use the Psalms of Solomon, and those are part of the LXX. Our canon has always been based on what the Church uses.
Logged
Ortho_cat
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: AOCA-DWMA
Posts: 5,392



« Reply #14 on: February 07, 2011, 12:39:41 PM »

Actually, it was not them who removed it, it was us who added it Wink
no, they, following the Jews, removed them.  That can be easily shown at the Tlamud comments on Sirach, the Jews have tradtions based on Judith, they celebrate Hanukkah as commanded by Maccabees, and the Jewish translations in Greek made to compete with the LXX after the rise of the Church translate the whole of Daniel (i.e. with Susanna, the Three Youths, and Bel and the Dragon).

Ya, good luck convincing a protestant that though Wink
Logged
Irish_Melkite
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Jurisdiction: Eparchy of Newton MA
Posts: 98


« Reply #15 on: February 07, 2011, 01:07:42 PM »

Actually, it was not them who removed it, it was us who added it Wink

Horsey-poo.  I have a reprint of the Original 1611 King James Bible, and it includes the deutero-canonical books (the ones called "apocrypha" by others) and the deutero-canonical books were suppressed in the USA by Protestant ministers who don't like the part about "praying for the dead" in the 12th chapter of the 2 Maccabees. 

If you really are Orthodox, you'd know that the Orthodox Church knows full well the Bible in use at the time when Our Lord took flesh and walked the Earth was the Septuagint. 

What's really interesting is that the Dead Sea Scrolls include the extra un-numbered Psalm that the Septuagint has... this is the first time the extra un-numbered Psalm has shown up in a Hebrew source.
Logged
Irish_Melkite
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Jurisdiction: Eparchy of Newton MA
Posts: 98


« Reply #16 on: February 07, 2011, 01:09:37 PM »

Also, one must keep in mind the present Masoretic text that the Jews use today came out around 1000 AD in Babylon (modern day Iraq).  It's NOT the same Old Testament used at the time of Christ.
Logged
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,963



« Reply #17 on: February 07, 2011, 01:12:03 PM »

Actually, it was not them who removed it, it was us who added it Wink
no, they, following the Jews, removed them.  That can be easily shown at the Tlamud comments on Sirach, the Jews have tradtions based on Judith, they celebrate Hanukkah as commanded by Maccabees, and the Jewish translations in Greek made to compete with the LXX after the rise of the Church translate the whole of Daniel (i.e. with Susanna, the Three Youths, and Bel and the Dragon).

Ya, good luck convincing a protestant that though Wink
LOL. I'm a (former) protestant convinced of that. Facts are stubborn things.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
Shlomlokh
主哀れめよ!
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Bulgarian
Posts: 1,299



« Reply #18 on: February 07, 2011, 02:16:09 PM »

the OSB says the Protestants took roughly 11 books from the Bible. 

why did they do this?

how can they claim to be "sola scriptura" when they don't even have the whole thing?!
Prolly cuz dey think dey all dat! Tongue

Rather ironic that they chose the same OT canon as that of the Jews who rejected Christ in their own council before the close of the first century AD.

In Christ,
Andrew
Logged

"I will pour out my prayer unto the Lord, and to Him will I proclaim my grief; for with evils my soul is filled, and my life unto hades hath drawn nigh, and like Jonah I will pray: From corruption raise me up, O God." -Ode VI, Irmos of the Supplicatory Canon to the Theotokos
orthonorm
Warned
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Sola Gratia
Jurisdiction: Outside
Posts: 16,610



« Reply #19 on: February 07, 2011, 02:58:50 PM »

To be fair though, the question becomes to what degree are the omission of the Holy Scriptures of the Protestants is a roadblock to salvation or an argument to get into which could possibly be convincing enough for them to change their "church".

IME, it is easy for me and everyone else I come in contact with to get quickly into obvious differences which frankly don't end up going very far.

And to be fair, what truly constitutes the "Bible" as already has been mentioned was a very problematic affair early in Church history and became again during the Reformation and continues today, but the scholarly work today is NBD for those of use outside academia.

Concentrating on what is held in relatively in common might be a better way to go and discuss the small differences there.

I find this is the best way of having a dialog in just about anything in life.

Good luck Trevor.
Logged

Ignorance is not a lack, but a passion.
Ortho_cat
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: AOCA-DWMA
Posts: 5,392



« Reply #20 on: February 07, 2011, 03:18:40 PM »

Actually, it was not them who removed it, it was us who added it Wink

Horsey-poo.  I have a reprint of the Original 1611 King James Bible, and it includes the deutero-canonical books (the ones called "apocrypha" by others) and the deutero-canonical books were suppressed in the USA by Protestant ministers who don't like the part about "praying for the dead" in the 12th chapter of the 2 Maccabees. 

If you really are Orthodox, you'd know that the Orthodox Church knows full well the Bible in use at the time when Our Lord took flesh and walked the Earth was the Septuagint. 

What's really interesting is that the Dead Sea Scrolls include the extra un-numbered Psalm that the Septuagint has... this is the first time the extra un-numbered Psalm has shown up in a Hebrew source.

You guys don't have much of a sense of humor around here... Wink
Logged
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,963



« Reply #21 on: February 07, 2011, 04:27:14 PM »

To be fair though, the question becomes to what degree are the omission of the Holy Scriptures of the Protestants is a roadblock to salvation or an argument to get into which could possibly be convincing enough for them to change their "church".

IME, it is easy for me and everyone else I come in contact with to get quickly into obvious differences which frankly don't end up going very far.

And to be fair, what truly constitutes the "Bible" as already has been mentioned was a very problematic affair early in Church history and became again during the Reformation and continues today, but the scholarly work today is NBD for those of use outside academia.

Concentrating on what is held in relatively in common might be a better way to go and discuss the small differences there.

I find this is the best way of having a dialog in just about anything in life.

Good luck Trevor.
Yeah, I never argue with Protestants from the Anagignoskomena, only about them: i.e. how can you trust the manuscripts of the Bible when they all have them, how can you say they were not part of the canon when the Jews (and Our Lord) celebrate their Feasts etc. according to them and the Talmud comments on them, etc.  Trying to validate prayers for the departed to Protestants, for instance, from Maccabees is a non starter.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
Carl Kraeff (Second Chance)
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 6,925



« Reply #22 on: February 07, 2011, 04:37:55 PM »


Except for the flag in the background, the soldier could pass for many an Arab. Naturally so since they are cousins, aren't they?
« Last Edit: February 07, 2011, 04:38:23 PM by Second Chance » Logged

Michal: "SC, love you in this thread."
Keble
All-Knowing Grand Wizard of Debunking
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 3,436



« Reply #23 on: February 07, 2011, 05:02:51 PM »

Actually, it was not them who removed it, it was us who added it Wink

Horsey-poo.  I have a reprint of the Original 1611 King James Bible, and it includes the deutero-canonical books (the ones called "apocrypha" by others) and the deutero-canonical books were suppressed in the USA by Protestant ministers who don't like the part about "praying for the dead" in the 12th chapter of the 2 Maccabees.

Of course that KJV was written by Protestants. Let's be a little less sweeping in our generalizations.
Logged
orthonorm
Warned
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Sola Gratia
Jurisdiction: Outside
Posts: 16,610



« Reply #24 on: February 07, 2011, 05:03:30 PM »

Actually, it was not them who removed it, it was us who added it Wink

Horsey-poo.  I have a reprint of the Original 1611 King James Bible, and it includes the deutero-canonical books (the ones called "apocrypha" by others) and the deutero-canonical books were suppressed in the USA by Protestant ministers who don't like the part about "praying for the dead" in the 12th chapter of the 2 Maccabees.

Of course that KJV was written by Protestants. Let's be a little less sweeping in our generalizations.


Mote-Beam.
« Last Edit: February 07, 2011, 05:03:44 PM by orthonorm » Logged

Ignorance is not a lack, but a passion.
Irish_Melkite
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Jurisdiction: Eparchy of Newton MA
Posts: 98


« Reply #25 on: February 07, 2011, 05:10:16 PM »

Actually, it was not them who removed it, it was us who added it Wink

Horsey-poo.  I have a reprint of the Original 1611 King James Bible, and it includes the deutero-canonical books (the ones called "apocrypha" by others) and the deutero-canonical books were suppressed in the USA by Protestant ministers who don't like the part about "praying for the dead" in the 12th chapter of the 2 Maccabees.

Of course that KJV was written by Protestants. Let's be a little less sweeping in our generalizations.



  Yes, the KJV was written by Protestants but the original 1611 included the whole Bible.  It was pressure from American Protestant ministers to get rid of the Apocrypha  in the 1789 edition of the KJV because American Protestant ministers objected to the above mentioned section in 2 Maccabees.
Logged
orthonorm
Warned
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Sola Gratia
Jurisdiction: Outside
Posts: 16,610



« Reply #26 on: February 07, 2011, 05:22:26 PM »

The KJV was not "written" by Protestants. It was a significant and extremely important work of scholarship and of incredible importance for the English-language literature and culture and Christianity and thus world literature and culture and Christianity.

Writing it off as "written", is at best ignorance at worst simply insulting.

It was a critical (in many senses) version of English translation of the Holy Scriptures.
Logged

Ignorance is not a lack, but a passion.
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,963



« Reply #27 on: February 07, 2011, 05:37:19 PM »

Actually, it was not them who removed it, it was us who added it Wink

Horsey-poo.  I have a reprint of the Original 1611 King James Bible, and it includes the deutero-canonical books (the ones called "apocrypha" by others)
Lke ts predecessors, the Matthew,Coverdale and "Great" Bibles of Henry VIII, the Geneva Bible of the Puritans and the Bishop Bible of the High Church.

Some overly Puritan zealots who bound the Geveva Bible's 1599 edition who first removed them, discarded the published pages and crossing out by pen them in the table of contents.  In response the Archbishop of Cantebury in 1615 made such actions punishable by a years imprisionment. So in 1640 the Puritans published the Geneva Bible without them in Amsterdam (and lying in the process, claiming in its apologia in lieu of the bookd in between Malachi and the NT that the Dutch Bible omitted the books.  The Dutch Bible has them as an appendix, with an prefaced apology.  The English included the translated apology, but did not append the Books). When the Puritans took over Parliament, they issued the Westminister Confession in 1648, which dictated the mutilation of the Bible as a matter of dogma.  Thereafter, the Non-conformists took it as an article of Faith (and how the first Bible printed in America, in 1782, i.e. when the Anglican church was disestablished and the Protestant Episcoapl Church of the United States yet to be organized at an attempt at canonical order, it did not have the Books), and forced it on the British Bible Society in 1826 by mandating that no funds would be used for any Bible that was not mutilated.  When the Bible Society offered to donate the Bible for the coronation mass, the Archbishop of Cantebury refused it on the grounds that it "did not contain the Apocrypha, and therefore was a mutilated and imperfect Bible.
http://books.google.com/books?id=rr0QAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA14&lpg=PA14&dq=Cromwell+apocrypha+bible&source=bl&ots=tuDUs7T2KZ&sig=jisWAgh_iPazmOu0qkCM7G19VeE&hl=en&ei=bVZQTcWoBIXfgQfLkok0&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CBYQ6AEwAA#

So as not to be Anglocentric (I never am) the Lutherbibel, the Christian III's Bibel of Denmark (and Norway), Sweden's (and Finland's) Gustav Vasas Bibel (and Finland's own Vanha kirkkoraamattu (Old Church Bible)), and the Dutch Statenbijbel, Calvin's Bible de Genève and his cousin's Bible d'Olivétan-all more or less the equivalent of the KJV, ALL had (and still have in case of the Lutherans) the "apocrypha." No body on the Continent got the dark idea of mutilating the Bible until the British Bible Society started to spread its preaching.

and the deutero-canonical books were suppressed in the USA by Protestant ministers who don't like the part about "praying for the dead" in the 12th chapter of the 2 Maccabees.  


Can't blame the Yanks for that. It was their British kin.

If you really are Orthodox, you'd know that the Orthodox Church knows full well the Bible in use at the time when Our Lord took flesh and walked the Earth was the Septuagint. 

What's really interesting is that the Dead Sea Scrolls include the extra un-numbered Psalm that the Septuagint has... this is the first time the extra un-numbered Psalm has shown up in a Hebrew source.
You can prove the LXX numbering from the Masoretic Text. Psalms 9 and 10 are an acrostic (alphabetical poem) in Hebrew, Ps. 10 picking up in the alphabet where Ps. 9 breaks off. The LXX keeps it together as Ps. 9.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
jnorm888
Jnorm
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 2,516


Icon and Cross (international space station)


WWW
« Reply #28 on: February 07, 2011, 05:42:42 PM »

Actually, it was not them who removed it, it was us who added it Wink

Horsey-poo.  I have a reprint of the Original 1611 King James Bible, and it includes the deutero-canonical books (the ones called "apocrypha" by others) and the deutero-canonical books were suppressed in the USA by Protestant ministers who don't like the part about "praying for the dead" in the 12th chapter of the 2 Maccabees.

Of course that KJV was written by Protestants. Let's be a little less sweeping in our generalizations.

I actually like the Caroline Divines. (please don't argue with me about the exact date of the Caroline Divines. For Some of the same people behind the translation of the KJV would some decades later be known as Caroline Divines)
« Last Edit: February 07, 2011, 05:43:16 PM by jnorm888 » Logged

"loving one's enemies does not mean loving wickedness, ungodliness, adultery, or theft. Rather, it means loving the theif, the ungodly, and the adulterer." Clement of Alexandria 195 A.D.

http://ancientchristiandefender.blogspot.com/
Keble
All-Knowing Grand Wizard of Debunking
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 3,436



« Reply #29 on: February 07, 2011, 06:12:15 PM »

The KJV was not "written" by Protestants. It was a significant and extremely important work of scholarship and of incredible importance for the English-language literature and culture and Christianity and thus world literature and culture and Christianity.

Writing it off as "written", is at best ignorance at worst simply insulting.

It was a critical (in many senses) version of English translation of the Holy Scriptures.

And every person who worked on it was a member of the the quite Protestant Church of England.
Logged
orthonorm
Warned
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Sola Gratia
Jurisdiction: Outside
Posts: 16,610



« Reply #30 on: February 07, 2011, 06:15:34 PM »

Actually, it was not them who removed it, it was us who added it Wink
no, they, following the Jews, removed them.  That can be easily shown at the Tlamud comments on Sirach, the Jews have tradtions based on Judith, they celebrate Hanukkah as commanded by Maccabees, and the Jewish translations in Greek made to compete with the LXX after the rise of the Church translate the whole of Daniel (i.e. with Susanna, the Three Youths, and Bel and the Dragon).

Ya, good luck convincing a protestant that though Wink
LOL. I'm a (former) protestant convinced of that. Facts are stubborn things.

Good grief man, are you ever OCD. I figured you were like the only Orthodox kid at school who got stones thrown at him by Muslims, Catholics, and Calvinists, and so you spent your time ardently learning everything about your faith lest you be tempted by your school-mate agents of Satan.

« Last Edit: February 07, 2011, 06:16:00 PM by orthonorm » Logged

Ignorance is not a lack, but a passion.
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,963



« Reply #31 on: February 07, 2011, 06:16:04 PM »

The KJV was not "written" by Protestants. It was a significant and extremely important work of scholarship and of incredible importance for the English-language literature and culture and Christianity and thus world literature and culture and Christianity.

Writing it off as "written", is at best ignorance at worst simply insulting.

It was a critical (in many senses) version of English translation of the Holy Scriptures.

And every person who worked on it was a member of the the quite Protestant Church of England.

LOL. At least Protestant enough for us.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
orthonorm
Warned
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Sola Gratia
Jurisdiction: Outside
Posts: 16,610



« Reply #32 on: February 07, 2011, 06:17:09 PM »

The KJV was not "written" by Protestants. It was a significant and extremely important work of scholarship and of incredible importance for the English-language literature and culture and Christianity and thus world literature and culture and Christianity.

Writing it off as "written", is at best ignorance at worst simply insulting.

It was a critical (in many senses) version of English translation of the Holy Scriptures.

And every person who worked on it was a member of the the quite Protestant Church of England.


Point?
Logged

Ignorance is not a lack, but a passion.
Keble
All-Knowing Grand Wizard of Debunking
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 3,436



« Reply #33 on: February 08, 2011, 07:52:42 AM »

The KJV was not "written" by Protestants. It was a significant and extremely important work of scholarship and of incredible importance for the English-language literature and culture and Christianity and thus world literature and culture and Christianity.

Writing it off as "written", is at best ignorance at worst simply insulting.

It was a critical (in many senses) version of English translation of the Holy Scriptures.

And every person who worked on it was a member of the the quite Protestant Church of England.

Point?

 Roll Eyes Um, that your statements aren't true?
« Last Edit: February 08, 2011, 07:53:09 AM by Keble » Logged
orthonorm
Warned
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Sola Gratia
Jurisdiction: Outside
Posts: 16,610



« Reply #34 on: February 08, 2011, 12:35:02 PM »

The KJV was not "written" by Protestants. It was a significant and extremely important work of scholarship and of incredible importance for the English-language literature and culture and Christianity and thus world literature and culture and Christianity.

Writing it off as "written", is at best ignorance at worst simply insulting.

It was a critical (in many senses) version of English translation of the Holy Scriptures.

And every person who worked on it was a member of the the quite Protestant Church of England.

Point?

 Roll Eyes Um, that your statements aren't true?


Umm, you did not respond to any of them. If repeating a word to yourself is what goes for discourse in your world, have at it.
Logged

Ignorance is not a lack, but a passion.
jnorm888
Jnorm
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 2,516


Icon and Cross (international space station)


WWW
« Reply #35 on: February 08, 2011, 12:47:17 PM »

The KJV was not "written" by Protestants. It was a significant and extremely important work of scholarship and of incredible importance for the English-language literature and culture and Christianity and thus world literature and culture and Christianity.

Writing it off as "written", is at best ignorance at worst simply insulting.

It was a critical (in many senses) version of English translation of the Holy Scriptures.

And every person who worked on it was a member of the the quite Protestant Church of England.

Point?

 Roll Eyes Um, that your statements aren't true?


Umm, you did not respond to any of them. If repeating a word to yourself is what goes for discourse in your world, have at it.


The King James Bible was mostly produced by those who would later be known as the Caroline Divines. They were the enemies of the puritans and thus the high churchmen of their day. I still have alot of love and respect for a good number of them.

The Caroline Divines, The Nonjurors.....especially William Law, and the Oxford movement were the things I always liked about Anglicanism. I never did like Archbishop Cranmer. And I never really liked the Puritans.
« Last Edit: February 08, 2011, 12:52:38 PM by jnorm888 » Logged

"loving one's enemies does not mean loving wickedness, ungodliness, adultery, or theft. Rather, it means loving the theif, the ungodly, and the adulterer." Clement of Alexandria 195 A.D.

http://ancientchristiandefender.blogspot.com/
Keble
All-Knowing Grand Wizard of Debunking
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 3,436



« Reply #36 on: February 08, 2011, 01:12:01 PM »

The Caroline divines are of course crucial to Anglican theology, and they were Protestant in key matters; Anglo-Catholic sentiment was two centuries in the future. And consider what Article VI has to say about the Apocrypha: And the other books (as Hierome saith) the Church doth read for example of life and instruction of manners; but yet doth it not apply them to establish any doctrine. (1662 version, but it's not significantly different from the 1563 text, nor from the 1801 American text.)
Logged
jnorm888
Jnorm
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 2,516


Icon and Cross (international space station)


WWW
« Reply #37 on: February 08, 2011, 01:23:12 PM »

The Caroline divines are of course crucial to Anglican theology, and they were Protestant in key matters; Anglo-Catholic sentiment was two centuries in the future. And consider what Article VI has to say about the Apocrypha: And the other books (as Hierome saith) the Church doth read for example of life and instruction of manners; but yet doth it not apply them to establish any doctrine. (1662 version, but it's not significantly different from the 1563 text, nor from the 1801 American text.)

I ignored the articles back when I was Episcopal.
Logged

"loving one's enemies does not mean loving wickedness, ungodliness, adultery, or theft. Rather, it means loving the theif, the ungodly, and the adulterer." Clement of Alexandria 195 A.D.

http://ancientchristiandefender.blogspot.com/
Keble
All-Knowing Grand Wizard of Debunking
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 3,436



« Reply #38 on: February 08, 2011, 02:28:40 PM »

And most Anglicans do now, but that's an innovation borne out of a century of Oxford Movement influence. The Jacobean scholars were much less Roman in their theology.
Logged
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,963



« Reply #39 on: February 08, 2011, 02:51:31 PM »

And most Anglicans do now, but that's an innovation borne out of a century of Oxford Movement influence. The Jacobean scholars were much less Roman in their theology.

And evidently less Orthodox, less Apostolic, less Catholic, less one with the Church and consequently less holy as well.
« Last Edit: February 08, 2011, 02:54:24 PM by ialmisry » Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
Greywalk
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: ACROD
Posts: 20



« Reply #40 on: February 08, 2011, 03:15:31 PM »

the OSB says the Protestants took roughly 11 books from the Bible. 

why did they do this?

how can they claim to be "sola scriptura" when they don't even have the whole thing?!

OK returning to the thread, if you want a look at what the Protestants are attempting to do, they justify their efforts based upon a discipline called "Textual Criticism".  The interesting part of this discipline is, people further from the actual event can by exploring content, vocabulary, form etc...are capable of making a better determination of the actual historical text.  So in effect they can pick and chose and argue their point with logical blocks based upon an illogical supposition...they are smarter or more informed then people closer to the events.   Huh
Logged

Just a poor wayfaring stranger passing through (from an old American Folk song)
orthonorm
Warned
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Sola Gratia
Jurisdiction: Outside
Posts: 16,610



« Reply #41 on: February 08, 2011, 03:39:14 PM »

the OSB says the Protestants took roughly 11 books from the Bible. 

why did they do this?

how can they claim to be "sola scriptura" when they don't even have the whole thing?!

OK returning to the thread, if you want a look at what the Protestants are attempting to do, they justify their efforts based upon a discipline called "Textual Criticism".  The interesting part of this discipline is, people further from the actual event can by exploring content, vocabulary, form etc...are capable of making a better determination of the actual historical text.  So in effect they can pick and chose and argue their point with logical blocks based upon an illogical supposition...they are smarter or more informed then people closer to the events.   Huh

For the love of God, the Church Fathers and everyone involved in exegesis engages in "textual criticism". How explicit one tries to be about their method and the method they use differs.
Logged

Ignorance is not a lack, but a passion.
Keble
All-Knowing Grand Wizard of Debunking
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 3,436



« Reply #42 on: February 08, 2011, 04:14:52 PM »

OK returning to the thread, if you want a look at what the Protestants are attempting to do, they justify their efforts based upon a discipline called "Textual Criticism".  The interesting part of this discipline is, people further from the actual event can by exploring content, vocabulary, form etc...are capable of making a better determination of the actual historical text.  So in effect they can pick and chose and argue their point with logical blocks based upon an illogical supposition...they are smarter or more informed then people closer to the events.   Huh

Well, there's two "events" here. If you are looking at New Testament events, it is possible to advance the argument that the church fathers are far enough away from those events as to pose issues, and to argue that they are interpreters to the same degree that modern readers of the texts are interpreters. I think that argument is weak, and that one can prefer their interpretations over modernist readings for a wide variety of reasons; but it cannot be denied that they had become interpreters of texts and not merely conduits for their transmission.

The Septuagint is a lot further off, and if you look at the history of canon formation you'll see a great deal of fundging around the edges, with Jerome (to take an example) preferring the Hebrew text in some cases over the Greek and certain texts wandering in and out of the canon (most especially 4 Maccabees). The situation invites second-guessing because the ancients were already doing it, because they were already aware of variation in the text.
Logged
Greywalk
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: ACROD
Posts: 20



« Reply #43 on: February 09, 2011, 03:33:43 AM »

Well, there's two "events" here. If you are looking at New Testament events, it is possible to advance the argument that the church fathers are far enough away from those events as to pose issues, and to argue that they are interpreters to the same degree that modern readers of the texts are interpreters. I think that argument is weak, and that one can prefer their interpretations over modernist readings for a wide variety of reasons; but it cannot be denied that they had become interpreters of texts and not merely conduits for their transmission.

The Septuagint is a lot further off, and if you look at the history of canon formation you'll see a great deal of fundging around the edges, with Jerome (to take an example) preferring the Hebrew text in some cases over the Greek and certain texts wandering in and out of the canon (most especially 4 Maccabees). The situation invites second-guessing because the ancients were already doing it, because they were already aware of variation in the text.
So then it follows the Protestants aren't the only one's playing with the Biblical texts?
Logged

Just a poor wayfaring stranger passing through (from an old American Folk song)
Ninjaly Awesome
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catachumen
Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church of America
Posts: 87



« Reply #44 on: February 13, 2011, 05:00:42 PM »

Something I think needs to be addressed is the errors found in the apocrypha.

Judith 1:5, "Now in the twelfth year of his reign, Nabuchodonosor, king of the Assyrians, who reigned in Ninive the great city, fought against Arphaxad and overcame him."

Obviously, Nebudchanezzar was king of the Babylonians, not the Assyrians. How can this be scripture when it's so blatantly inaccurate?

And here's another historical inaccuracy...

Baruch 6:2, "And when you are come into Babylon, you shall be there many years, and for a long time, even to seven generations: and after that I will bring you away from thence with peace."

Seven generations? That's way longer than 70 years as predicted in the OT.
Logged

饥 渴 慕 义 的 人 有 福 了 ! 因 为 他 们 必 得 饱 足 。

馬 太 福 音 5:6
Tags:
Pages: 1 2 »  All   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.18 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Page created in 0.189 seconds with 72 queries.