I don’t have much trouble signing most Evangelical doctrinal statements. Normally, the shorter they are, the better. That is what it means to be Evangelical (at least in the 20th-century understanding of the term). When they get too long, I start to smell a little bit of magisterial institutionalization creeping back into the church. However, every organization has the right to spell out their doctrinal requirements according to their purpose of existence. The Credo House doctrinal statement (to which all employees must adhere) is pretty short. It is definitely Protestant, but we have tried to keep it as broadly Evangelical as we could. I did not even put anything in it about Calvinism! Why? Because it is the purpose of this doctrinal statement to represent the mission of Credo House, not the particular beliefs of Michael Patton.
This week Together for the Gospel (T4G) is holding is annual conference with lots of great stuff and lots of great speakers. I wish I could have been there. Now, I must confess that I don’t really know much about T4G or its exact purpose, but the name seems to suggest that they are purposed to bring a general community back “together” to the centrality of the Gospel message. Who could argue with that? The speakers they have placed on their list this year include C. J. Mahaney, Albert Mohler, John Piper, and Matt Chandler. When you have the likes of Carl Trueman relegated to doing a breakout session, then your list of main speakers must be out of this world! The list is definitely Reformed, so I don’t think T4G is trying to be too broad. Again, this is okay, depending on your purpose.
Many bloggers have been giving updates on the conference and I appreciate it. However, when I looked at Justin Taylor’s blog today, I found myself a bit confused. He posted a link to T4G’s doctrinal statement. I did not get past the first line before I realized that I could not sign it. I am not too particular on many things and I can manipulate some wording so that I am comfortable signing some things. I just don’t ask too many questions. However, the first line in this statement, if I am understanding it correctly, is a disqualifier for me. In fact, I am a bit confused that those who signed it could do so in good conscience as Evangelicals.
Here are the signers:
Here is the doctrinal statement in the form of affirmation and denials.
So, with what in the statement did I disagree, since I agreed with most of it? There are a few things here and there which give me some problems, but I don’t care to discuss those right now. The primary thing that I want to talk about is the first line in the first affirmation:
“We affirm that the sole authority for the Church is the Bible, verbally inspired, inerrant, infallible, and totally sufficient and trustworthy.”
I am not sure if you caught it, but it is something very important. I disagree that the Bible is the “sole authority for the Church.” No, I am not denying sola Scriptura. I believe very deeply in the authority of the Scripture. In fact, I think it is a key issue in Christianity. However, sola Scriptura does not and has never meant that the Scripture is the “sole” authority for the church. Sola Scriptura means that the Scripture is the final and only infallible authority for the individual and the church in matters of faith and practice. But it is not the only authority. There are many other authorities. Protestant Christians believe that tradition, reason, and (many times) experience are lesser authorities to which individual Christians must submit. Are they fallible authorities? Yes, but they are authorities nonetheless.
Martin Luther, the father of the Protestant Reformation, spoke of three of these while defending himself at Worms in his great “Here I Stand” speech:
“Unless I am convinced by the testimony of the Holy Scriptures or by evident reason-for I can believe neither pope nor councils alone, as it is clear that they have erred repeatedly and contradicted themselves-I consider myself convicted by the testimony of Holy Scripture.”
Notice that Scripture and reason (“or by evident reason”) are authorities in his life. As well, though he understands that traditions (“popes and councils”) have “contradicted themselves,” he does still respect these as authorities (as evidence from the word “alone” after “pope and councils”). From statements such as these we construct what we call “Luther’s Trilateral.” Luther believed in three sources of authority for the church: Scripture, reason, and tradition. Of these, the Scripture is the final and only infallible source. We often express it in this way: the Scripture is the norma normans sed non normata (“norm that norms which is not normed”). Another way to put it is that the Scripture is the source that judges all other sources and is not judged by them.
John Wesley, the great Arminian evangelist, held to four sources, often called the “Wesleyan Quadrilateral.” Like Luther, he believed that the Bible is the final and only infallible source, but he also believed in the authority of reason and tradition. To these he added one more: experience. I am not sure Luther would have necessarily disagreed with this, but my point is not to enter into that debate. My point is to show that the phrase “the sole authority for the Church is the Bible” is not within the best traditions of Reformed Protestantism. In fact, it would be more associated with the “radical reformation” which has been, for the most part, repudiated by traditional Protestants for, among other things, their outright rejection of tradition as an authority.
Think of it another way: Without tradition being an authority we would not even have the Scriptures themselves, as it is only through tradition that we know what Scripture is actually Scripture. The Scriptures have no place where there is an inspired list telling us which books belong in the Scripture (we call this the “canon” of Scripture). It is through the traditions of the church that we know which books are the final authority. Therefore, tradition must be an authority to some degree.
Now, much of Fundamentalism has been known to mistakenly define sola Scriptura in a way that appears as if Scripture is the sole authority. I get that. Have you ever heard someone say “If it ain’t in the Bible, then I don’t believe it”? But this is not Evangelical. Even R.C. Sproul says the belief that the Scripture is the “sole authority” is not sola Scriptura, but nuda Scriptura (nothing but the Scripture). (See this work for a good history of sola Scriptura.) In fact, this is one of the main distinctions between the Puritans and the Anglicans. The Puritans were more inclined to believe that Scripture was the only authority for the Church. The Anglicans were not. This is where I really appreciate the historic Anglican church. I think they were on the right side of the debate here. (See this work for a more definitive distinction between Puritans and Anglicans on this issue.)
If you are still not convinced, think of all the places where the Scriptures themselves speak of other authorities for the Christian. Parents are in authority over their children (Eph. 6:1). Husbands are in authority over their wives (Eph. 5:22). People are to submit to the authority of the government, since there is “no authority which is not from God” (Rom. 13:1). And the Scripture even talks about the church (elders) being in authority over its members: “Obey your leaders and submit to them, for they watch over your souls” (Heb. 13:17). If elders/pastors were not an authority in the church, how could we ever hope to practice church discipline? Of course all of these other authorities (parents, husbands, government, elders) are fallible, as are reason and experience. But this does not mean that they are irrelevant. One does not have to be infallible to be in authority.
It is for this reason that I don’t think I could sign the T4G doctrinal statement. Of course, these are all smart chaps (much more so than me!) and must know this. Therefore, I think I may be misunderstanding what they mean when they say, “We affirm that the sole authority for the Church is the Bible.” I just wish it was worded differently. But, as it stands, I could not sign the T4G doctrinal statement in good conscience.
119 replies to "A Disagreement I Think I Have with Together For the Gospel"
http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2012/04/which-comes-first-collection-or-list.html
Indeed the balance and even education of today’s theological churchmen are questionable? As I have said and noted, the Judeo-Christian culture has taken a beating today, especially as many Christian reformed label themselves “postmodern”.
Michael,
Quoting from St. Basil and Gregory of Nyssa does not boost or give credence to the Protestant position. Both of these men understood the Church to be something quite different from the Protestant Reformers – one reason being that there were no Protestants in existance during their lifetimes. Their understanding of ecclesiology was both incarnational and mystical (as in its Christian definition).
As an Orthodox Christian, we honor both St. Basil and St. Gregory as men who had the authority to teach within the Church. However, the Church they knew, and the Church that the Orthodox understand her to be is not fragmented into various confessions and beliefs as to the meaning of Holy Scripture. The interpretation of Holy Scripture must be perceived and discerned from the mind of the Church, that life that has existed within her for 2,000 yrs. and which gave her the authority to come together in Ecumenical Councils, declaring doctrine and exposing/refuting heresy.
I’m really confused. Doesn’t saying “sole authority” stand in direction opposition to continuationism? I thought that Mahaney was the poster boy for reformed continuationism. How could he sign this?
Brendt: As worded, yes. But based on the reported feedback during the open TGC session, it sounds like they meant it the same way that CMP understands sola Scriptura: “Sole infallible authority”, not “sole authority of any kind”.
And as I understand it, Mahaney believes in the same kind of “fallible prophecy” that Wayne Grudem & John Piper believe in.
Jugulum, thanks for the clarification. It’s encouraging that they apparently didn’t mean “nuda”. It’s discouraging that they were that sloppy, though.
And I don’t say that lightly. It has been my observation that many in the reformed movement claim “sola”, but seem to actually believe “nuda”. It’s a shame that an important document would further enable this misconception.
If the Bible is not the exclusive authority, what other sources are justified is using? Let me know, so that I can give the Roman Catholic counter argument. From my perspective, the Protestant has no objection to reliance on a long list of extra-Biblical sources, so long as they don’t resemble ‘romanism’.
This point was clarified during a panel discussion at T4G (I was present). Mohler expanded on that article to say that they had not intended to say that Scripture was a “naked” authority and that there were no other valid authorities which inform faith and practice. The intent was to trumpet the same Reformation call to sola Scriptura.
If the Scripture isn’t the only authority, then you have no objection to my use of Papal Bulls and the Magesterium’s interpretaions of the Bible, correct?
If the Scripture isn’t the only authority, then you have no objection to my use of Papal Bulls and the Magesterium’s interpretaions of the Bible, correct?
As long as they are evaluated according to Scripture, Scripture being held as the final and only infallible authority, and are corrected by Scripture wherever contradictory—have at it! 😉
Curt just said, “As long as they are evaluated according to Scripture, Scripture being held as the final and only infallible authority, and are corrected by Scripture wherever contradictory—have at it! ;)”
Ok-great! Now as we read these documents, who shall sound the buzzer when Scripture is contradicted? Shall you, Curt, or shall Jesse? No, of course not. We need a more deeply rooted authority. A church body. A Sola Scriptura church body. How about the Lutheran Church – Missouri Synod? It is very conservative and trustworthy. Or maybe the Evangelical Free Church of America? They are on fire for God. Who will blow the whistle when someone misunderstands Scripture? If we read the Bible and the papal bulls side by side, who shall be the judge between them?
Not intending to be snarky, just sarcastic. Any appeal to Scripture is an appeal to an interpretation of Scripture. It’s absolutely unavoidable.
All things in life are open to interpretation. If we were to appeal to a pope past or living magisterium, it would be an appeal to our interpretation of such and subject to the same misunderstandings. But I don’t think things are so bleak. We can appeal to scripture as it is guarded by the consensus fideum. That way we have multiple checks and balances which create a degree of authority even when the Scripture is final.
i think sometimes we can over argue the gospel on both sides. To me, that is often more of a distraction, and I’ve often wondered if perhaps non-believers see the continuing contradictions among ourselves as more of promoting the bad news about the differences in Christianity as we practice it nowadays, than the Good News about Christ.
Just saying. Something to think about.
Hello Mr Patton,
About your last comment: Interpreting the Scriptures and interpreting the Magisterium are not subject to the same misunderstandings. A magisterium can “talk back” and explicitly correct or affirm our interpretations. It can teach now, in the present, serving as its own interpreter.
(Scripture can’t truly interpret Scripture in Sola Scriptura, because of having a fallible canon. You can’t know if there is an essential chapter or book missing, or if something is included that really shouldn’t be.)
Indeed, for Protestants, especially the Reformed, just as Roman Catholics and the EO cannot understand, or really accept, the idea of Sola Scriptura, we Reformed don’t see the idea of a so-called living Magisterium! For the historical Church is always just a fallible, and Pilgrim reality! This was really what Luther stood against with the papacy. And only the Holy Spirit is the true ‘Vicar of Christ’!
The problem, Irene, is that there is considerable debate about the meaning of things such as Papal Encyclicals. A Magisterium just doesn’t solve the problem. I agree with you that (proper) interpretation is necessary—but that’s just as true for the Roman Catholic as it is for anyone else. If perspicuity is a problem for the evangelical [I wouldn’t agree that it is], then the RC faces the same problem.
Your question of who is going to provide the authoritative interpretation assumes the need for such. You’re evaluating an evangelical’s brief comment based on RC (I assume) presuppositions. I think Michael is exactly right with his appeal to the consensus fideum. Evangelicals actually could enjoy much greater unity in the essentials of the faith; instead we tend to squabble and divide over nonessential doctrines. This is a problem with us not the Scriptures. And I don’t see the RCC enjoying perfect doctrinal harmony among her thinkers and leaders. Why not, I wonder?
Fr. Robert,
EOs can “understand” sola scriptura. Christians who take the Sciptures out of context and interpret them through through their own individual understanding is what the historical Church has been dealing with for almost 2,000 years. These are called “heresies”, which St. Paul preached against.
“Heresies” has an ugly connotation for Protestants, but really, in Greek all it means is “choice”. The individual has made the “choice” to follow their own interpretation instead of following the tradition of the Church.
You know better than most on this blog that the gulf between EOs and Protestants is huge, more so than with the RCC, simply because we approach issues (sin, salvation, etc) from TOTALLY different directions, with different definitions for almost EVERY term.
I enjoy reading this blog, and it is clear that Calvanists (and the entire western church) sees Christianity through a lens that it radically different than in the east. Agree?
@ Mr. Robert [see, April 19, 2012 at 7:11 pm]
The Early Fathers wouldn’t understand or accept the innovation of sola scriptura, either. I am as interested in Luther as I am in Joseph Smith.
@Mr. Jesse: That is a very ignorant statement to my mind, as Luther held closely to the Nicene “homoousios”, and of course Joseph Smith did not!
@Pete: No, I would not agree with your hypothesis! Certainly on the subject of Tradition and Holy Scripture there is a vast difference between the EO and even Anglicanism. But Anglicans believe strongly in the First Three Creeds: Nicene, Athanasius, and the Apostles Creed. And here it is the EO, who have made the wrong “choice” on Holy Scipture and its authority! Right Protestants simply believe in the Ecclesia semper reformada, the choice and change is always by “spirit & truth”!
OK Fr. Robert, name just one EO doctrine where where our tradition contradicts Holy Scriputre?
And remember…our Holy Scripture is the exact same canon as the 1st century Church used, which includes the Greek Septuagint Old Testament.
Fr. Robert, do you know what concept CAN NOT be found in the Holy Scriptures? “Ecclesia semper reformada”.
1 Timothy 3:15 I write so that you may know how you ought to conduct yourself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, THE PILLAR AND GROUND OF THE TRUTH.
@Pete: I am so glad you mentioned the Greek Stepuagint. Though we don’t fully know why and when the traslation was originally done, it is clear that it became the “Bible” of Greek-speaking Jews, and later Christians. But it is also worth noting that the Septuagint differs from the Hebrew text, and the order of the Biblical Books is not the same. The “threefold division of the Hebrew canon into the Law, Prophets, and the Writings” is not followed in the LXX. And of course several books not found in the Hebrew are included in the LXX or Septuagint. And obviously these books are known as the Apocrypha in the English Bible. And though the so-called Apocrypha rejected by Protestants as non-canonical, they.. and especially the Wisdom Books are read for their literary and even spiritual/wisdom sense. We could also note the different Jewish historical groups, that did not read or use the Apocrypha.
As to 1 Tim. 3:15, the Church is, as the Greek word “Hedraioma”, a support, “stay”…
Hi Curt,
I disagree. Admittedly, the CC needs to do a better job of communication. But interpreting the magisterium and interpreting scripture is not at all the same thing.
Take Michael’s original post here as an example/analogy. What was written in the T4G doctrinal statement of faith was misunderstood (understandably). It took someone closer to the source to clarify and say what was really meant. And this is a contemporary document, with no historical, cultural, etc fog to see through! How much more so we need someone with God-given authority to explain the Scriptures to us! What if Michael had said, “No, I have to go by what was written as the final authority. I can’t trust that you have any kind of authority to say otherwise.” ?
Granted, this T4G document isn’t inerrant like Scripture, but inerrancy doesn’t mean not subject to misinterpretation. Remember Peter’s warning about Paul’s writings in 2Pet 3:16.
Fr Robert, could you rewrite that part above about1 Tim 3:15? It got lost in the character count malfunction.
PS..Pete, ran out of characters! 😉 The verse in 1 Tim. 3:15, simply does not support the idea that the Church “Itself” is the TRUTH, but it is the “stationary” place where truth does come forth as a basis, and even “fixed stay”. But in the context in 1 Tim. 3:15, it is more the “local church or assembly”. Again, a support and mainstay, to the Word and Revelation of God itself, but technically NOT the maker of that WORD, itself! Of course this is the now Reformational, Protestant and Reformed position. But both Luther and Calvin, as the other top-tier Reformers also thought of the Church as Catholic!
@ Fr. Robert
“Though we don’t fully know why and when the traslation was originally done”. Yes we do, it was translated in the 3rd century BC in Alexandria because Jews around the world spoke much more Greek more than Hebrew.
“the order of the Biblical Books is not the same”. Right, because the Hebrew canon was set by the Jews in the 2nd century AD. The “Christian Bible” canon was set in the 3rd century BC.
“And of course several books not found in the Hebrew are included in the LXX or Septuagint”. Yes, the JEWS didn’t like the Maccabees (too political) and other books. But the CHRISTIANS of the 1st & 2nd centuries were OK with them. Who do you want to follow?
“And obviously these books are known as the Apocrypha”. That is YOUR label. The early Christians considred the Septuagint the “Holy Scriptures”.
In Luke 4, Jesus teaches in the synagogue using the Septuagint Old Testament.
St. Paul used the Septuagint as a reference multiple times in Hebrews.
@Pete: “Although it is not completely understood either when or why the translation was originally done, it is clear that it in large measure reflects the common language of the period..” (From the Preface of The Septuagint With Apocrypha: Greek and English, by Sir Lancelot C.L. Brenton, (Samuel Bagster & Sons, Ltd, London, 1851 / First reprint in 1986, Hendrickson) *I have a Bagster edition myself also.
Of course the name derives from the tradition that it (LXX) was made by seventy (or seventy-two) Jewish scholars at Alexandria, Egypt during the reign of Ptolemy (285-247 B.C.) But the again “compete” reason is not really known, fully!
Pete again,
Sorry, perhaps you know something I don’t. What’s the evidence that the Jesus & the author of Hebrews used a manuscript of the Septuagint that included the Aprocrypha?
Pete again,
Also note that Protestants are “OK” with the Apocrypha, too–just not as God-breathed, but rather as human-produced religious literature, useful for edification. Like Jerome.
PS..St. Paul also loves in fact, to quote free Hebrew texts in his Letters! > See, btw, Steve Moyise’s 2010 Baker book: Paul and the Scripture, Studying the New Testament Use of the Old Testament.
Hi Irene,
I’m not sure of the focus of your disagreement. I’m not suggesting that inerrancy (or perspicuity) renders Scripture impervious to misinterpretation. Yes, there’s a contemporary aspect of the Magisterium. But do you not agree that magisterial pronouncements must also be interpreted? Granted the possibility for clarification, but has this removed all ambiguity? Is there no doctrinal debate or conflict within the RCC? And if there is, why?
I don’t advocate ignoring the interpretation of others in the church (today or throughout history), making Scripture alone our authority. (This goes back to Michael’s original concern.) I don’t want to dismiss the work of RC scholars. But I also see no reason to enthrone them. Because the RCC presumed the authority to give the interpretation of Scripture, through much of church history we essentially had sola ecclesia. I see no reason to accept the interpretation of the RCC as infallible.
Fr Robert, I like your #26 (page 2) above! Now we are getting to the heart of it, and coming ’round full circle to what the original post was about–the interplay between authorities!
I actually agree with most of what you said! A support and mainstay, yes, but not the maker of that Word itself. Indeed! As a Catholic, I don’t believe the Church has a power above Jesus, or separate from Jesus. The only authority the Church has is the authority Jesus *gave* her, as the Scriptures say. She doesn’t add to revelation or subtract from revelation (give me a pass here on development of doctrine, because that’s a whole different issue), but she guards it as a treasure. She is not the origin of revelation, but, by the grace of God and the protection of the Holy Spirit, is the faithful keeper and minister of
revelation. She is where we go to find the Truth–as you said, the place where Truth does come forth.
I wrote that last comment from an admittedly Western perspective. But when we factor in the Eastern Church, it prompts even more questions. How could there have ever been schism in a Church that believed in the Church’s ability to infallibly interpret Scripture? It seems either the Eastern or Western Church is not infallible. Does this not at least potentially call into question the whole notion of an infallible Church? And if the Church is not infallible, is it not in need of ongoing reformation? And isn’t a common appeal to the authority of Scripture essential to such a process?
@Irene: Indeed the Histoical Church Catholic IS an “authority”, but not an infallible one, this is the historical Anglican position. Note the – Sola fides in Christum membra ecclesiae constituit: Only faith in Christ can establish the members of the church. And only CHRIST makes the Christian Man/Person, and the Mystic Body and sustains it! – Of course within the fulness of the Triune God!
WE all are really closer, than far-apart ‘In Christ’! 🙂
My question in #34 is better asked as: How could there have been schism in a church that possessed the ability to infallibly interpret Scripture?
Curt: Is stating my mind and thought! The CHURCH, East & West, is a Pilgrim Body, and the ‘Vicar of Christ’ is the Holy Spirit’!
(Irene, *historical…I am such a poor typer! 😉
The CHURCH, East & West, is a Pilgrim Body, and the ‘Vicar of Christ’ is the Holy Spirit’!
Amen! I pray that we may all become more united in this pilgrimage as we hear the voice of the Spirit, especially through the Scriptures.
Amen Curt! I should have added my “heart” also in this “pilgrimage”! WE really are the BODY of Christ, as redeemed & redemptive! 🙂
@Curt Patton: if you referring to the RCC/Orthodox schism of the 11th-13th centuries, from an Orthodox perspective, they chose papism & the filoque over the faithful apostolic interpretations of the Scriptures.
@Jugulum: ah yes, Jerome, the church father that set the wheels in motion that resulted in separating the Septuagint Old Testament books not found in the 2nd century AD Jewish canon from the western Bible. Jerome did not like the books because original Hebrew copies of them could not be found (in the 4th century AD). But guess what was discovered amongst the Dead Sea scrolls? Hebrew versions of the Septuagint Old Testament!
@Jugulum: look in your NIV in Luke chapter 4. Follow the footnotes. Jesus was quoting from the Septuagint Old Testament.
more info: http://www.scripturecatholic.com/septuagint.html
(If I have offended anyone because of the direct language of my posts, I apologize.)
@Pete: You misunderstood. (I didn’t elaborate, so I’m not blaming you for misunderstanding.)
I didn’t ask for evidence that Jesus used the Septuagint; I know that the NT cites OT variants from the Septuagint. I asked for evidence that Jesus “used a manuscript of the Septuagint that included the Aprocrypha”.
In other words, on what basis do you say that in Jesus’ time, the Septuagint included the Apocrypha? I wasn’t aware we had any manuscripts from that time. I thought that the earliest were Vaticanus & Sinaiticus, from the early 4th century.
And those actually contain different parts of the Apocrypha, as well as books that even the Catholic Church does not consider canonical–like the Epistle of Barnabas and the Shepherd of Hermas, and 3 & 4 Maccabees.
@Pete: The older I get and the longer I live, the more I realize I don’t know much, certainly about God Almighty, but I am glad that I can “know” HIM, who is life itself: Christ Jesus! We redeemed, by grace and glory, will worship our Triune God (Eph. 2:18). I would agree about the “filoque”…the Father is the regal & the monarchy of the Godhead! 🙂
Pete,
Last paragraph (I got cut off).
So why do you assume that Jesus’ copy of the Septuagint had the Apocrypha? And even if it did, why would you think this implies that the books are canonical, when you don’t think some of the other books in those manuscripts are canonical?
Pete,
On Jerome: Can you cite Jerome saying that it was the lack of Hebrew manuscripts that made him question the Apocryphal books’ inspiration? (Note: Pay attention to the specific question I asked. It needs to be a quote that indicates “this is the reason”, not simply “this is supporting evidence”.)
@Jugulum, I’m afraid that nothing I will write will satisfy you, because you didn’t seem to try to look up the Luke Chapter 4 passages. Anyway, here they are:
Luke 4:18 / Isaiah 61:1 – “and recovering of sight to the blind” (matches the Greek Septuagint OT). Hebrew Masoretic text: the opening of prison to them that are bound.
Luke 4:18 / Isaiah 58:6 – “to set at liberty those that are oppressed (or bruised)” (matches the Greek Septuagint OT). Hebrew Masoretic text: to let the oppressed go free.
The Hebrew Masoretic text is the Protestant OT.
Jesus is quoting Isaiah, which is a book contained in both the Greek Septuagint OT and the Masoretic text.
“Apocrypha” is the Protestant term for the books that were removed from the Septuagint OT. To the early Christians, there was no “Apocrypha”, just “the Scriptures”. Even “Bible” is a late 4th century term (thank you John Chrysostom!).
Septuagint texts found in the Dead Sea Scrolls pre-date
Vaticanus.
Pete,
I said, “I didn’t ask for evidence that Jesus used the Septuagint; I know that the NT cites OT variants from the Septuagint.” Perhaps you skimmed and missed that or misread it. (It happens.)
I’ll say it another way: I know that Jesus quotes an Old Testament passage where the Septuagint reads differently than the Hebrew text. And he quotes the Septuagint version. Conclusion: Jesus was using the Septuagint.
Now that I’ve clarified, do you understand that I was saying, “Yes, Jesus used the Septuagint”? (Really. Is that clear now?)
Yes, the Dead Sea Scrolls includes Greek translations that fit the Septuagint, and it includes the Aprocrypha. It also include lots of non-canonical religious literature, including 3 & 4 Maccabees–just like Vaticanus & Sinaiticus. The same questions that I asked about them apply to the DSS, too.
Please, now that I’ve clarified, are you willing to go back, reread the comment, and try responding again?
Also, I’m still hoping for a source for what you said about Jerome.
P.S. To make it a bit easier, remember that the last paragraph (which I had to post in a second comment) summarized my questions:
“So [considering what I just pointed out] why do you assume that Jesus’ copy of the Septuagint had the Apocrypha? And even if it did, why would you think this implies that the books are canonical, when you don’t think some of the other books in those manuscripts are canonical?”
And to rephrase that last sentence: Why doesn’t your argument prove that 3 & 4 Maccabees are canonical? (And if you think the the Dead Sea Scrolls are relevant to your argument, why doesn’t your argument prove that all of the books in the DSS are canonical?)
@Jugulum, OK thanks for summarizing, I think I understand what you are asking (it’s been a long week) 🙂
Q1: “Prove that the Septuagint OT always contained Tobit, Wisdom of Solomon, Maccabees, etc”.
Answer: “Vaticanus” and all early remaining copies contained most of these non-Masoretic OT books. The church fathers (Athanasius, Basil, both Gregories, Origin, etc) quoted them frequently and considered them Scripture. No one in the east every considered them as “separate”. It has been one canon in the east for almost 2,000 years.
Q2: “Prove that they are canonical”.
Answer: does this help?:
http://www.bible-researcher.com/carthage.html
Q3: Jerome.
Answer: does this help?
http://www.biblequery.org/apoc.htm
“The Rest of The Bible” by T. Mathis is a good book.