Hi, KFC. You probably anticipated that I would comment....

The earliest version of the Torah was not written prior to the end of the Babylonian Diaspora, around 569 BCE. Parts were written much later. The Book of Esther, for example, was written after the time of Ahashveros, the Persian King who is a prominent figure in that story, so that means after 369 BCE.

It is a collection of stories and rules meant to unite a group of tribes that came out of slavery, conquered a land, were in turn conquered, built temples, saw those temples destroyed, etc. It evolved over centuries, changed and adapted.

A "common theme of God's redeeming love for humanity" is NOT part of the Torah. It is full of killing, rape, incest and genocide. Lets take the story of Esther as written in the Megillah. The story begins in the time of King Saul and the prophet Samuel. Agag was the king of the Amalekites, a people who had the charming habit of sexually mutilating any Jew that fell into their tender mercies, to mock the rite of circumcision and the compact that it symbolized. Saul defeated the Amalekites and captured Agag. Saul did not immediately kill Agag, as G-d presumably wanted. Samuel DID execute Agag by wa-yeshassef (hewing into peices), but the delay somehow allowed Agag time to conceive the ancestor of Haman. See Link for references.

Time passes and the Jews are conquered by the Babylonians who are in turn conquered by the Persians. Xerxes may have been Ahashverous or it may been another king. Haman, the descendant of the last of the Amalekites, plots to kill the Jews. He uses Pur or dice to pick the auspicious day. Mordecai, with the aid of his niece Esther, turns the tables on Haman and Haman and his entire family are killed, finishing the genocide begun in generations past. Then we dance and celebrate and eat pastries!

The moral lesson is clear: Kill or be killed. There is no love for humanity, this is about the descendants of Abraham trying to survive in a hostile world.

"So the canon of the OT was closed in about 400 BC. Some call this time the 400 silent years. The silence ended with the birth of the Savior." Not true in the least. First, parts of the Torah were still being written then and secondly the Talmud was being written at this time. The Second Temple period of Judaism was an exciting time of religious debate. This was when the Sadducees and Pharisees were arguing hotly and the Essenes were emerging. This is when the roots of Christianity were taking shape.

There is plenty of documentation of what was going on in Second Temple times. It was the beginning of the age of the Rabbis and they left written records, including the Dead Sea Scrolls. Christians tend to deny this, because the records make no mention of Jesus, implying that he either lived later or was considered at most a minor figure with no real authority.

As referenced in our last debate, Jesus knew about the Essenes, who were at Qumran until 68 CE (or AD if you prefer) but they make no mention of him or John the Baptist. Certainly, if there were important figures, Jews in fact, doing miracles in the Judean Wilderness, that would have made it into the works of the Essenes or others writing at that time. The Roman records, Tacitus and Josephus, are written much later.

This was a Golden Age of Judaic thought, not a time of silence.

Hi, KFC. You probably anticipated that I would comment....

well I thought I might run into you.

The earliest version of the Torah was not written prior to the end of the Babylonian Diaspora, around 569 BCE. Parts were written much later. The Book of Esther, for example, was written after the time of Ahashveros, the Persian King who is a prominent figure in that story, so that means after 369 BCE.

Earliest version? What do you mean by that? I know that Judges and Samuel and Joshua were written well before the Babylonian captivity. Moses writings were about 1400 BC. Isaiah wrote a hundred or so years before the captivity but Jeremiah wrote during and or right after the captivity and with the help of archaeological discovery this can be proven. Remember Jerusalem didn't all fall all at once but it was a series of waves that took quite a few years from about 605 BC - 586 BC and Ezek and Jer both wrote during this period or right after.

As far as Esther, we're not far off here. I believe it was around 465 BCE so we're talking 100 years but much of the Torah was much earlier.

As referenced in our last debate, Jesus knew about the Essenes, who were at Qumran until 68 CE (or AD if you prefer) but they make no mention of him or John the Baptist.

I'm not really familiar with the Essenes but there is much historical writings that back up Christ and the Baptist outside of scripture proving they were real historical people. I know the Essenes were ascetic people which was a gnostic thought and something Paul addresses in Colosians. They did not recognize Christ and were awaiting his arrival. I kind of look at them as monks in a sense. But I'm not sure your point here. If they didn't believe in Christ as the Messiah and they were keeping themselves separate why would they write about the NT?

This was a Golden Age of Judaic thought, not a time of silence

the silence I'm referring to is from God to man. He had no revelation for us during that time and is known as the time of silence from God.

KFC POSTS on Feb. 28: The bible is a remarkable collection of 66 books united by a common theme of God's redeeming love for humanity. Just the fact that these books were collected, agreed upon and accepted as the Word of God is itself a miracle of God's providence.
To be fair some have questioned some of the OT books at one time or another.
-------------------------------------------------------------

I would point out that Protestant Bibles contain 66 Books (39 Books in the OT and 27 in the NT). The Catholic Bible has 73 Books (46 Books in the OT and 27 in the NT) and those 7 additional books are all found in the Old Testament. Your Protestant Bible omits the Books of Tobit, Judith, Wisdom, Sirach (also called Ecclesisasticus), Baruch and the 2 Books of Maccabees, as well as sections of Esther (10:4 to 16:24), Daniel (3:24-90) and chapters 13 and 14.

You wrote “let’s look at the truth”. So, let’s do that. Let’s look at the fullness of truth and explain that. A bit of historical background will help toward a clearer understanding of what happened by whom and when. In the early days of the Church there were 2 versions of the OT used by the Jewish people: (1) an OT in Greek used by the Greek speaking Jews outside of Palestine that contained the 7 Books and (2), an OT in Hebrew used in Palestine that did not contain the 7 Books.

The Greek version was called the Septuagint and was translated into Greek about 150 years before the time of Christ.
We are in absolute agreement that not all Jewish literature was considered inspired and that God alone is the principle Author. In the middle of the 1st century AD, the early Christians had already accepted the list of OT books in the Greek translation of the OT. The CC does not claim that she, by identifying and drawing up a definitive list of 73 Books at the Synod of Rome in 382 AD, the Councils of Hippo in 393 and Carthage in 397, rendered all 73 of them canonical. The CC instead claims that she and she alone has the authority and responsibility of infallibly pointing out which books comprise the Biblical canon already authored by God.


So, these 7 Jewish Books were declared by the three councils as divinely inspired and included in the OT canon making 46 Books in the OT canon and 27 in the NT. From this point on, there is, in practice, no dispute about the canon of the Bible, the only exception being the Protestant Reformers who entered the scene in 1517, 11 centuries later.

The Catholic Church did not add those 7 Books at the Council of Trent in 1546. Rather, the C.of Trent gave its final definitive, infallible definition of the Biblical canon naming the very same list of 73 Books that had been included in the 4th century.

It was the early Protestant reformer Zwingli who deleted the 7 Jewish Books from his edition of the Bible. Martin Luther also argued they weren’t canonical and removed them from his own German translation of the Bible because certain teachings (e.g. the existence of Purgatory and the efficacy of prayers for the souls of the departed presented in 2Maccabees 12) clashed with his new theological system.
-------------------------------------------------------------


KFC POSTS: “Therefore these OT books were selected by the Jews without the benefit of a council to debate each books. While there were some disagreement at times the decision was never in the hands of any select committee. In AD 90 in Jamnia a council met and the canon of the OT was on its agenda. This council basically only ratified the books on that the Jews had accepted 500 years earlier. These books had already proven themselves authentic.”


Luther’s rationale for deleting the those canonical books was that the Hebrew Bible did not contain them, though the Septuagint of the OT (which was the version used by the vast majority of Jews at the time of Christ and the Apostles, did contain them.) He argued that the Jews who compiled the Hebrew Canon did not include those books know better than anyone whether they belonged. Problem for Luther the Rabbis at the council of Jamnia no longer held any authority to make such decisions as that authority had been passed out of the hands of the Jewish elders and into the hands of the Apostles and their successors. Furthermore, the Rabbis didn't include those 7 Books, not because of any doctrinal disagreements with what the books contained (far from it), but because they were unable to imagine the possibility that God could inspire Sacred Scripture in a pagan language such as Greek instead of in Hebrew. And the earliest editions of those books they could find at the time were written in Greek or Aramaic (later discoveries suchas the Qumran scrolls in 1947, have furnished evidence of earlier editions in Hebrew. ).
------------------------------------------------------------------------------


KFC POSTS: So the canon of the OT was closed in about 400 BC. Some call this time the 400 silent years. The silence ended with the birth of the Savior.


Let’s go over this a little more closely. The Books of the OT contained in the Catholic Canon are those contained in the Greek Septuagint translation of the Hebrew Bible---a translation made in Alexandria by the Jews residing there. This translation was made during the 3 centuries before the birth of Christ. The Jews, even of Palestine accepted the Septuagint canon or list of Books and Our Lord Himself used it in conversing with them. The Jews began to deny its authenticity only about a century after Christ because they could not resist the arguments drawn from them and used against them by the Christians. They therefore said that it was a bad translation (being Greek); that it did not agree with the Hebrew text and they rejected it. But the use of the Jews themselves had made of it for nearly 400 years rendered their rejection of it too late. And their motives of course, are evident. Their interest was not critical, but polemical.
When the Protestant Reformers abandoned the Catholic Church, they adopted the same policy as the Jews had adopted against the early Christians and tried to cast doubt upon the Catholic versions of Scripture. They too, therefore, rejected the Septuagint Canon, and accepted the Hebrew copies of the OT Books. The Hebrew manuscripts omitted several of the Books in the Septuagint and the Protestants therefore followed suit.
-----------------------------------------------------------


FKC POSTS: So we know that the OT is based on the Hebrew OT canon that was accepted by the Jews. This is the same canon that Christ gave credibility to by his frequent references to as the Word of God.



As we have seen this is only part of the story. Christ and the Apostles used both the Hebrew Palestinian Canon and the Greek Septuagint Canon. Both were familiar to and accepted at that time by the Jews. Christ and the Apostles most often though quoted from the Greek Septuagint. In fact, of some 350 quotations, nearly 300 are taken from the Septuagint. In his “Introduction to the Sacred Scriptures” Thomas Hartwell Horne, a Protestant writer, says that the NT writers had to quote from the Greek Septuagint because many for whom they wrote were ignorant of Hebrew, whereas the Greek version was generally known and read. If the Septuagint were erroneous and its canon false, then far from quoting it, the Apostles should have denounced it and warned Christians not to use it, but to exclusively use the Palestinian Canon. The Apostles did not do so. They sanctioned the use of the Canon accepted by the Cahtolic Church and rejected by the Protestant Reformers.

Finally, page 604-5 of Peloubet’s Protestant Bible Dictionary says that the Septuagint Canon of the OT “were manifestly the chief storehouse from which Christ and the Apostles drew their proofs and precepts”.

Lula....this was not about the Gk Septuagint which came later. This piece was about the OT canon put together by Ezra.... before the Septuagint. This piece was also not about the CC version of the extra books which again came later around 150-25 BC. I was thinking of maybe dealing with both the NT Canon and the Apocrypha later.

Christ never quoted from those "extra" books which was a big criteria in the formation and acceptence of the canon by the Christians. In fact you may want to read Luke 11:51 when he accused the scribes of being guilty of slaying all the prophets God had sent Israel from Abel to Zechariah. The account of Abel's death is in Genesis (the first book of the OT) and Zechariah's death is in 2 Chron which is the last book in the order of the books in the Hebrew Bible. Therefore it's as if Jesus said "Your guilt is recorded all thru the OT scriptures". He did not include any of the apocryphal books that were in existence at the time he spoke and which contained the accounts of other martyrs. Why?

The Apocrypha books were never accepted by the Jews or by Jesus on a par with the books of the OT. They were revered but not considered scripture. Even Jerome in his translating the Latin Vulgate had a problem with these other books. He gave them secondary status. It wasn't until the Council of Trent (1548) they were recognized them as cannonical although the Reformers rejected this. Nothing points to their being cannonized other than the CC said so.

While I agree they are good books, I don't believe they are inspired. One only has to read them and compare to the rest (as did Jerome) to see this.

LARRY KUPERMAN POSTS: As referenced in our last debate, Jesus knew about the Essenes

Could you tell me how Jesus knew about the Essenes?

LARRY KUPERMAN POSTS: First, parts of the Torah were still being written then and secondly the Talmud was being written at this time.

What can you tell me about the Talmud? I understand that there are blasphemies vs. Christ in the Talmud and this has been known for centuries.

good question. I look forward to that answer as well.

KFC POSTS: Lula....this was not about the Gk Septuagint which came later. This piece was about the OT canon put together by Ezra.... before the Septuagint. This piece was also not about the CC version of the extra books which again came later around 150-25 BC. I was thinking of maybe dealing with both the NT Canon and the Apocrypha later.


KFC, I guess I rushed the boat then. I didn’t think so though since the Septuagint is part of the OT canon. Really though, since you remarked that the “the bible is a remarkable collection of 66 books”, you must have expected some kind of response from me?

66 Books? Remarkable yes, but alas short 7....so for one who is a “Bible alone” Christian, you are not operating with a full deck, so to speak, KFC. And why you would not think of all 7 Books that the Book of Wisdom isn't inspired by God is beyond me! In my view, it’s one of the MOST inspired and inspiring Books in the entire Bible.


You keep calling the CC version “extra books”, and they aren’t “extra” at all once the compilation as we have today was complete. They were always included in the Septuagint, a 3rd century Greek translation of the OT which served as the Scripture of the Apostles and the generations that followed them. Since the beginning, the OT has contained 46 Books and 46 Books is always what was and has been. That only changed when Protestantism came about in the 1500’s and the Reformers deleted those 7 Books making the number of Books in the Protestant OT canon = 39. I just learned that it took some time for Zwingli and Luther’s directive to lose those 7 Books to take universal effect. For the first 3 centuries after the start of the Protestant Reformation virtually all Protestant Bibles contained the “extra” or Deuterocanonical books! Check this out---it wasn’t until 1827 that the first major Protestant edition produced by the British and Foreign Bible Society finally eliminated the books altogether.

Real quick. How has the Bible come to be composed of 73 Books with 46 in the OT?

As you said, the OT is divided into 3 main portions, The Law, the Prophets, and the Writings. The Law was written by Moses about 3,300 years ago, and was the nucleus which at one time formed the sole Book of Scripture the Jews possessed. To this the Prophets was added and finally the Writings.

At what date the OT Canon was finally closed is not absolutely certain. Some say the OT was completed about 430 BC under Esdras and Nehemiah. Others contend it was not until 100 BC that the canon was finally closed by the inclusion of the Writings. Whichever contention is correct, on is for certain, that at least by 100 years before the birth of our Lord, the OT existed precisely as we have it---that is 46 Books.

The Writings is where Chronicles, Psalms, Wisdom, Proverbs, Daniel and Esther are found. Those 7 Books accepted by the Greek Septuagint version of the Hebrew Bible but which Palestinian Jews rejected after the time of Christ are called “Deutero-Canonical” books. They together with parts of Daniel and Esther are not accepted as part of the OT by Palestinian Jews and Protestants. The Council of Hippo in 393 AD first determined which books were inspired and were to be included in the Canon, a canon in every respect identical to the canon of the Council of Trent. These books comprise the Old and the New Testaments. It' s a matter of Faith for Catholics to believe that all passages of all these 73 Books are equally inspired.

Now, for clarity, there are some books which were rejected by the Council of Hippo as being non-inspired and those belong to what Catholics call the Apocrypha. The Catholic use of the word “apocrypha” as defined should not be distinguished from the incorrect Protestant use of the word which is to designate the 7 books of the Bible included in the OT canon but not found in Protestant Bibles. These 7 are Tobit, Judith, Wisdom, Sirach, Baruch, 1 and 2 Macabees, and parts of Esther and Daniel.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

KFC POSTS: Christ never quoted from those "extra" books which was a big criteria in the formation and acceptance of the canon by the Christians.

“Christ never quoted from those “extra” books...” C’mon, on what do you base this assertion because you have been misled if you truly believe this?

Let’s take it back and follow through what happened. The OT was written in Hebrew which was the Semitic language that originated in Canaan and was passed on by Abraham and his descendants reaching its greatest glory in the reigns of David and Solomon.It was the language of the Holy Land until about the 3rd century B.C. After the “Dispersion” of the Jews and they were scattered and settled in lands outside Palestine, they began to lose their Hebrew language. They gradually became Greek speaking which was the universal language. This isn’t classical Greek as we know today, but a dialect which spread throughout the known world at the time by conquests of Alexander the Great.


The Jews living in the few centuries before Christ were divided into 2 groups. The Jews dwelling in Palestine and speaking Hebrew and the large number scattered throughout the Roman Empire and speaking the Greek language, a consequence of the conquest of Alexander the Great of Greece.

It became necessary to furnish a copy of OT Scripture in Greek. About 250 BC, the OT from the Hebrew was translated into the Greek Septuagint by 70 Jewish scholars at Alexandria. The Septuagint was acknowledged by all the Jews of the Dispersion in Asia and Egypt. It was the version used by Our Lord, His Apostles and evangelists in their teachings, as well as by Jews and Gentiles and Christians in the early days of the Church. It is from this translation that Christ and the NT writers most often quote when referring to the OT.

Now, what was the criteria of the Jewish Canon? In several centuries before the coming of Christ, the Jews in Palestine reexamined and eliminated some of the books from the existing collection as not in harmony with the Law of Moses and as of doubtful inspiration. The Pharisees set up 4 criteria which their sacred books had to pass in order to be included in the revised Jewish canon. They had to be in harmony with the Torah. They had to have been written before the time of Ezra. They had to be written in Hebrew, and they had to have been written in Palestine.
The application of this arbitrary criteria eliminated: the Book of Judith probably written in Aramaic, a branch of the Semitic languages and was used in Palestine at the time of Christ and language spoken by Christ; the Book of Wisdom and 2 Macabees written in Greek; Tobit and parts of Daniel and Esther written in Aramaic and probably outside of Palestine; Baruch, probably written outside of Palestine; Sirach and 1Macabees written after the time of Ezra.


Now, at the time of Christ, both the Palestinian Hebrew Scriptures and the Greek Septuagint were equally acknowledged by the Jews as authoritative. It is certain that neither Christ nor the Apostles ever challenged the value of the Septuagint. Both direct and indirect references to the Greek Septuagint abound in the NT.
-------------------------------------------------------------------

KFC POSTS: In fact you may want to read Luke 11:51 when he accused the scribes of being guilty of slaying all the prophets God had sent Israel from Abel to Zechariah. The account of Abel's death is in Genesis (the first book of the OT) and Zechariah's death is in 2 Chron which is the last book in the order of the books in the Hebrew Bible. Therefore it's as if Jesus said "Your guilt is recorded all thru the OT scriptures". He did not include any of the apocryphal books that were in existence at the time he spoke and which contained the accounts of other martyrs. Why?

Zecharias was a prophet who died by being stoned in the temple of Jerusalem around the year 800 B.C. because he accused the people of Israel of being unfaithful to God’s law. 2Chron. 24:20-22. The murder of Abel Gen.4:8 and that of Zecharias were, respectively, the first and last murders reported in these books which the Jews regarded as Sacred Scripture. As I said above, Jesus and His Apostles used both the Hebrew Palestinian Scripture and the Greek Septuagint canon. All I’m pointing out is that the OT canon, all 46 books including the Greek Septuagint was the one primarily used 2 centuries before Christ, was used and referred to by Christ; is the one that was settled as the inspired canon at the Council of Hippo, and reconfirmed at two other councils and later finalized at Trent and is the very one (only in English) that I use everyday.


KFC POSTS: The Apocrypha books were never accepted by the Jews or by Jesus on a par with the books of the OT. They were revered but not considered scripture.

I take it you mean by the Apocrypha books as being those 7 of the Greek Septuagint, I’ve just completely explained how and why the Palestinian Jews, the Pharisees rejected them while Christ and all the other Jews outside Palestine, Gentiles and early Christians accepted them as authoritative and inspired.
----------------------------------------------------------------

KFC POSTS: Even Jerome in his translating the Latin Vulgate had a problem with these other books. He gave them secondary status.
No, he didn’t. The Church In 382 AD, the Church knowing there was a grave danger through corrupt conditions of many translations then existing, deemed that a uniform, secure, faithful translation be made lest the pure Scripture be lost. St.Jerome first translated the NT canon. Then, in Bethlehem, in 392-404, he translated the protocanonical books of the OT from Hebrew to Latin. That was followed by the deuterocanonical books of Tobit, Judith ,Wisdom, Sirach, Baruch, 1 and 2 Maccabees, Daniel and Esther from the Septuagint. The Bible was the celebrated Vulgate , the value at which all scholars admit to be simply inestimable and which continued to influence all the other versions down to the Reformation.
-----------------------------------------------------------------


KFC POSTS: Nothing points to their being canonized other than the CC said so.
While I agree they are good books, I don't believe they are inspired. One only has to read them and compare to the rest (as did Jerome) to see this.


KFC, all I can say is I’m playing with a full deck. My Douay Rheims with its 73 Books, every one inspired, is the most faithful, correct English translation that came from St.Jerome’s Latin Vulgate. It just doesn’t get any better. It's the real deal. Try it, you'll like it.

sheeesh Lula, what is this? The one with the most words win?

KFC POSTS: Christ never quoted from those "extra" books which was a big criteria in the formation and acceptance of the canon by the Christians.“Christ never quoted from those “extra” books...” C’mon, on what do you base this assertion because you have been misled if you truly believe this?

ok, show me. Show me where Jesus quoted from any of those books you are referring and the ones I call "extra." Give me chapter and verse. I can show you quite easily where he quoted or referred to the writing of the many writers of the OT.

Also show me where the Jews accepted these books as inspired.

I have no problem with the Gk septuagint at all. I also acknowledge that Jesus quite possibly and most probably used it when he read the scriptures. But that doesn't prove that the books you are referring to are included.

KFC, all I can say is I’m playing with a full deck.

ha! If you say so.......

LITTLE-WHIP POSTS: Pharisees. The both of ya.


Actually, we are sisters in Christ.

Actually Lula and I are an example of two that actually get along smashingly well. So you're really not in the right here LW.

"Come let us reason together says God."



Well then open your eyes. Stop complaining. Geeesh what's your gift anyhow? The gift of criticism? I can see the preacher now......Com'on up LW and lead us in a word of CRITICISM......



YES, truth DOES matter.



so the opposite would be......? To be spiritual with no truth? So to be a seeker of truth automatically makes one a Pharisee? So where does that put you?

You might want to take a second look at Pharisee Nicodemus and later many Pharisees came to the faith.

KFC POSTS:
Actually Lula and I are an example of two that actually get along smashingly well.

Sure thing. I'd say like "soul sisters" in that we love Sacred Scripture and discussing it too. (Smiley face)!!! The key is that although we have doctrinal differences, we greatly respect each other....and that's something that is earned.

KFC POSTS: Christ never quoted from those “extra” books which was a big criteria in the formation and acceptance of the canon by the Christians.
KFC POSTS: ok, show me. Show me where Jesus quoted from any of those books you are referring and the ones I call "extra." Give me chapter and verse. I can show you quite easily where he quoted or referred to the writing of the many writers of the OT.
Also show me where the Jews accepted these books as inspired.
I have no problem with the Gk septuagint at all. I also acknowledge that Jesus quite possibly and most probably used it when he read the scriptures. But that doesn't prove that the books you are referring to are included.
---------------------------------------------


These are the names and order of all the Books of the Old Testament that were translated into Greek in 280 BC by 70 rabbis and Jewish scholars at Alexandria that came to be known as the Septuagint (also the Alexandrian Canon). As you can see the Septuagint included the 5 Mosaic Books (Hebrew Pentateuch), the Prophets, and the Writings. The Books without the asterisks are the protocanonical Books and the ones with the asterisks are the 7 deuterocanonical books that the Palestinian Jews rejected after the time of Christ (as did the Protestant Reformers).

Genesis Canticle of Canticles
Exodus Wisdom *
Leviticus Ecclesiasticus * aka Sirach
Numbers Isaias
Deuteronomy Jeremias
Josue Lamentations (sometimes included in Jeremiah)
Judges Baruch *
Ruth Ezechiel
1Kings Daniel * (has 14 chapters)
2Kings Osee
3Kings Joel
4kings Amos
1Paralipomenon Abdias
2Paralipomenon Jonas
1Esdras Micheas
2Esdras, aka Nehemias Nahum
Tobias * Habacuc
Judith * (Aramaic) Sophonias
Esther (has 16 chapters) Aggeus
Job Zacharias
Psalms Malachias
Proverbs 1 Machabees *
Ecclesiastes 2 Machabees *


At the time of Christ, the vast majority of Jews were either Aramaic speaking or Greek speaking and relatively few could understand Hebrew. Christ and the Apostles quoted (in most cases from memory) from both the Hebrew Scriptures and the Septuagint. The Septuagint was then at the time of Christ the same OT canon of 46 Books approved by 3 early Church councils in 382, 393 and 397 used in assembling what we now know as the Catholic Bible. This list, together with the 27 Books of the NT, was formally approved and declared a matter of faith (all 73 are inspired) at the Council of Trent.

It was Martin Luther who tossed out the 7 Books used by Christ and the Apostles and considered canonical since the beginning of Church history. Luther also rejected the Epistle to the Hebrews and the Book of Revelation. He also called the Epistle of James , the Epistle of straw because James 2:14-26 conflicted with his personal theology on good works..(of which I might add has become part of Protestant oral tradition down through the ages). Luther also added the word (in his German translation) “only” in Romans 3:20 and 4:15 and he inserted the world “alone” in Romans 3:28. From this he built a whole new Protestant theology called Sola Fides, “by faith alone” (which I see you mention in your latest blog).


This is what I’ve found in my research. In the NT, there are more than 200 direct quotations from the OT, 118 of which are found in the Pauline Epistles. If references of all kinds are counted, the total number is 350 of which about 300 are cited according to the Septuagint version. St. Matthew’s manner of quoting the OT is noteworthy. When he uses Greek sources (when he depends on St. Mark), he retains their Greek wording. When working independently, he quotes the OT text according to the Hebrew, though on occasion the Septuagint can be traced. For example, in St. Matt. 21:16, Psalm 8:3 is cited according to the Septuagint for apologetic reasons.

Except for the Epistles to the Hebrews, who quotes the Septuagint more exactly, most NT authors show little concern for exactness in their quotations. This practice of free rendering of OT texts was the common literary custom. E. Ellis’s book, “Paul’s Use of the OT” has 186 charts of Pauline combinations. For instance, St.Paul strings together OT texts to form a single quotation. Rom. 3:10-18 is composed of Ps. 13 (14): 1-3; 5:10; 139 (140) :4; Is. 59:7-8 ; Ps. 35 (36) :2. Romans 9:25-29 uses something called chain quotations or haraz.

St. Paul quotes from the Septuagint text of Judith 8:14 in 1Cor 2:10 and of Judith 8:25 in 1Cor 10:9.

Judith 8:14 "But forasmuch as the Lord is patient, let us be penitent for this same thing, and with many tears let us beg his pardon:"
1Cor. 2:10: "But to us God hath revealed them, by his spirit. For the Spirit searches all things, yea, the deep things of God."

Judith 8:25 " Were destroyed by the destroyer, and perished by serpents."
1Cor. 10:9 "Neither let us tempt CHrist:as some of them tempted, and perished by the serpents."


Here is another one from St. Paul: In 1Cor. 2:16, St. Paul quotes from the Septuagint Book of Wisdom 9:13.
1Cor. 2:16: "For who hath known the mind of the Lord, that he may instruct him? But we have the mind of Christ."
Wisdom 9:13: "For who among men is he that can know the counsel of God? or who can think what the will of God is?

Jesus quoted Ecclesiasticus 18:22 when he told the parable of the unjust judge and perserving in prayer. "And, he spoke also a parable to them, that we ought always to pray, and not faint.” St. Luke 18:1
Eccles. 18:22 "Let nothing hinder thee from praying always, and be not afraid to be justified even to death, for the reward of God continueth forever."

Jesus quotes the Book of Wisdom is St. Matt 13:43 "Then shall the just shine as the sun, in the kingdom of their Father. He that hath ears to hear, let him hear."
Wisdom 3:7 " The just shall shine, and shall run to and fro like sparks among the reeds."

In St. Matt. 7:12, the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus quotes from Tobias 4:16 " See thou never do to another what thou wouldst hate to have done to thee by another." St. Matt. 7:12 " All things whatsoever you would tht men should do to you, do also to them. For this is the law and the prophets."

Now, back to the Palestinian Hebrew canon of 39 Books. Near the end of the first century, when all connection between the Church and Judaism had ended, a group of rabbis met in Jamnia in Palestine and drew up another canon of their sacred writings. Because of their high regard for the prophet Ezra, they assumed nothing written after his time (the 5th century BC.) could be inspired. They eliminated certain books from the Septuagint that were written after Ezra’s time. Their canon came to be known as the Palestine Canon. The CC took no notice of this canon. No one did for centuries. It wasn’t until Martin Luther who resurrected the Palestinian Canon and adopted it. His reason? He didn’t like certain things taught in the Septuagint books eliminated in the Palestinian Canon. He was especially opposed to offering sacrifice and prayers for the dead as described in 2 Machabees 12. KFC, Luther’s decision was purely arbitrary and that has been followed by all of Protestant traditions.


It’s the Protestants who decided to adopt and use the 7 books less-shorter canon. Can you not see the irony of Fundamentalists saying that the CC “adds” books to the OT or you saying Christ never quoted from those "extra" books ......."? Between 250 and 150 BC. is when Jewish scholars translated the the Jewish Scriptures from the Old testament from Hebrew into Greek. The 46 Books of the Septuagint Canon was the OT of our Lord and the early Christians and has always been the OT of the Catholic Church.
The Palestinian Canon that is 7 books less was formed well after the Septuagint Canon and therefore it cannot rightfully be said that the CC "added" the books or that the 7 books are "extra".

I see that the posting of the books of the Bible didn't come out in 2 columns as I had hoped. Instead of reposting, please note that each line contains 2 Books of the Bible.

Sorry Lula but Paul, nor Jesus nor any other Apostle were quoting from any books of the Apocrytha.

For Instance......this is one you mentioned:



Paul was referring to Num 21:6 which was written hundreds of years before Judith and it says:

"And the Lord sent fiery serpents among the people and they bit the people and much people of Israel died"

For every Apocrytha soundbite you're using you'll find it first written in the OT which....again was written first. Somebody is giving you bad info.

Jesus NEVER quoted from the Apocrytha books. Never. In fact, he mentions the OT writers by name. He mentions, Isaiah, Ezek, Jonah,Daniel etc. He never mentions Judith, Tobias, Maccabee or any of the other writers of the Apocrytha. Paul & Peter also mention many by name but none at all from those "other books".

We see direct quotes from the OT prophets....direct, not scripture that kind of sound like it might fit which is what you are bringing up.



No, First off I don't think Jesus was quoting from anything, but if you insist you may want to check out Daniel 12:3 which states:

"And they that be wise shall shine as the brighness of the firmament and they that turn many to righteousness as the stars for ever and ever."

Again, Daniel was written 537 BC....well before the book of Wisdom.



I can't believe Lula you'd put this one in. Did you not notice Law and Prophets? This is not Tobias. He doesn't fit the description. We know the books of the law are the Mosiac books right? The Prophets are the OT Prophets and are not the books of the Apocrypha which were written again...later.

Let me show you an example or two of what I'm talking about as direct quotes (no question) by Jesus.

Luke 4:17-18 And there was delivered to Him the book of the prophet Isaiah. And when he had opened the book, he found the place where it was written...." and he goes on to quote directly from the book of Isaiah. Not a question.

Another would be Matt 24:15 "When you therefore shall see the abomination of desolation spoken of by Daniel the prophet, stand in the holy place...."

Again, he's quoting from Daniel directly. On and on I can give you things of this nature. You are giving me quotes from the Apocrytha that have already been spoken of in the OT. If anything the Apocrytha books are copying the OT writers. You can not prove that Jesus quoted from one Apocrytha book. And that's what I'm asking you to do.



I know how much you abhor Luther and you seem to blame him for everything, but this isn't true. They were tossed out from the get go, from the 1st Century and certainly by both councils in the 4th century. Even your beloved Jerome wrote that these books were "different" than the rest. So it's not fair to dump this on Luther. You can go well before Luther to see the unacceptance (as inspired) of these books.

If "criticism" was her gift, she'd fit in fine in most protestant churches that I've ever attended, most especially those of the Calvary breed . . .