Catholic and Protestant Canons

[Pietro]

We all probably know that the Catholic OT Canon has seven additional books than the Protestant Canon. The Catholic Bible is pkmtyolbed on the Alexandrian Greek Septuagint OT while the Protestant Bible is based on the Palestinian Hebrew OT.

The city of Alexandria possessed the greatest library in the ancient world. It was there that around 125 B.C. a translation of the entire Hebrew Bible was finished.

The Hebrew canon was established by Jewish rabbis in Jamnia around 100 A.D. perhaps in reaction to the Christian Church using the Septuagint. These Jews rejected the seven books because they could not find any Hebrew versions which the Septuagint supposedly translated into Greek.

We also know that in the early centuries of the Church there were many gospels and writtings such as the Gospel of Peter and Thomas, Letters of Barnabas and Clement. They did not make it into the New Testament Canon. The Catholic Church made the canon official with the septuagint OT and what we now have as the New Testamewnt in 393 A.D..


My questions for Protestants are these:
You recognize that the Church of that time had the authority to decide what books would be in the New Testament Canon why then do you deny it the authority to decide the Old Testament Canon?

Why would you prefer the Canon of the Non-Christian Jews to the Canon of the Church?

Really, to trust the Bible is to trust in the authority of the Catholic Church that decided what belongs in it. Logically, Protestants should not quote the Bible at all, for they have no way of determining which books are inspired-unless they accept the teaching authority of the Catholic Church.

[LauraJean]

Regarding the NT, it is my understanding that the writings "accepted" into the Canon were simply the writings that were being used at the time. It's not like a bunch of priests sat around a table and said, "Okay, this one and that one are in, this other one is out."

And regarding the Septuagint, while the stories are interesting, what light do they shine on/add to our understanding of the nature of God or on our relationship with Him? 2TI 3:16 All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, 17 so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.
Do the writings contained in the Septuagint fulfill this description of scripture? Also, as you said yourself, not even the Jews of the day relied on the Septuagint as inspired scripture.

Really, to trust the Bible is to trust in the authority of the Catholic Church that decided what belongs in it.

Shouldn't this read, rather, "trust in the authority of the Church" since at the time there was no Catholic Church but only a catholic church?


In any case, this should be an interesting discussion. I'm looking forward to learning more about the development of the Canon from you.

Blessings,
LJ

[Pietro]

Thanks for responding, LJ. it seems things around here either get boring or hostile. It's just good to have an open discussion.

You said:

Regarding the NT, it is my understanding that the writings "accepted" into the Canon were simply the writings that were being used at the time. It's not like a bunch of priests sat around a table and said, "Okay, this one and that one are in, this other one is out."

Actually it was at the councils of Hippo 393 and Carthage 397 that the writings were declared Canon. These are two of many counsils that are part of the hisory of the Catholic tradition.

You also ask:

And regarding the Septuagint, while the stories are interesting, what light do they shine on/add to our understanding of the nature of God or on our relationship with Him? 2TI 3:16 All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, 17 so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.
Do the writings contained in the Septuagint fulfill this description of scripture?

I suppose you can ask this of eveything including Song of Songs. I think it is really a subjective judgement more than anything else.

Also, as you said yourself, not even the Jews of the day relied on the Septuagint as inspired scripture.

Let's not forget the great animosity that existed between the Jews and the new Christians. The Palistianian Jews of around 100 A.D. didn't accept the Septuagint of 125 B.C. because they no longer had Hebrew copies. I suppose it is a good question if they ever existed in Palistine to begin with or if those particular books were written outside Palistine. There is evidence that Jesus and Paul had access to the Septuagint Canon. Since it was in Greek while Hebrew was dying out (even the Jews spoke Aramaic) it was in the common language of the meditaranian world.

Shouldn't this read, rather, "trust in the authority of the Church" since at the time there was no Catholic Church but only a catholic church?

At that time there were bishops including the bishop of Rome and the church Fathers. There were also various heretical "churches". The church that defined canon is the direct linage of the Catholic Church unbroken until the reformation.