| − | *[http://www.bible-researcher.com/rufinus.html Rufinus of Aquileia on the Canon] (bible-researcher.com)</ref> Jerome affirmed that he was in fact being consistent with the choice of the church regarding which version of the deuterocanonical portions of Daniel to use, which the Jews of his day did not include:<blockquote>What sin have I committed if I followed the judgment of the churches? But he who brings charges against me for relating the objections that the Hebrews are wont to raise against the Story of Susanna, the Song of the Three Children, and the story of Bel and the Dragon, which are not found in the Hebrew volume, proves that he is just a foolish sycophant. For '''I was not relating my own personal views, but rather the remarks that they''' [the Jews] '''are wont to make against us.''' (''Against Rufinus'', 11:33 [A.D. 402] ''boldface emphasis added'').</ref></blockquote> | + | *[http://www.bible-researcher.com/rufinus.html Rufinus of Aquileia on the Canon] (bible-researcher.com)</ref> Jerome affirmed that he was in fact being consistent with the choice of the church regarding which version of the deuterocanonical portions of Daniel to use, which the Jews of his day did not include:<blockquote>What sin have I committed if I followed the judgment of the churches? But he who brings charges against me for relating the objections that the Hebrews are wont to raise against the Story of Susanna, the Song of the Three Children, and the story of Bel and the Dragon, which are not found in the Hebrew volume, proves that he is just a foolish sycophant. For '''I was not relating my own personal views, but rather the remarks that they''' [the Jews] '''are wont to make against us.'''<ref>''Against Rufinus'', 11:33 [A.D. 402] ''boldface emphasis added''.</ref></blockquote> |
| | Some who oppose the fundamentalist view say that anything which was translated B.C. into Greek, which fundamentalists claim "eventually made it" into the Vulgate, is, by definition, part of the LXX. But fundamentalist Christians do not agree at all, pointing out that this is [[Logical fallacy#Proof by assertion|proof by definition, or assertion]], which is not a good form of proof; but their disagreement with this point is itself an example of the [http://www.webpages.uidaho.edu/~morourke/404-phil/Summer-99/Handouts/Philosophical/Self-Sealing-Arguments.htm self-sealing fallacy] which excludes as invalid the evidence presented—the fact that texts are included in the Septuagint is not regarded as [[admissible evidence]], but is held to be wholly irrelevant (the [[fallacy of exclusion]], also called "[[cherry picking]]" ). Fundamentalist scholars insist that the parts of the Greek/Jewish literature which are to be accepted are those parts of the Greek Bible (and therefore the parts of the LXX) which were accepted by the '''Jews''', for example, at the Council of Jamnia, after the establishment of the Christian Church, and not the whole of the Septuagint (LXX) Old Testament of the Greek Bible accepted and read by Greek-speaking Jews in Palestine and throughout the [[diaspora]] at the time of Christ and by Christians in their worship services (Hebrew was not used in Christian readings to the congregation). There is no absolutely clear cut list or canon that all Jews accepted, but the consensus of A.D. the first centuries among the Palestinian Jews is that ''Ecclesiasticus, Bel and the Dragon'', etc. are not inspired. Fundamentalists point out that neither Jesus nor the NT writers ever quoted even a single time from ''Ecclesiasticus, 1 Maccabees, Tobit, Bel and the Dragon'', but that they did quote extensively from "virtually every OT book" in the Jewish and Protestant canon. They insist that the only exception is a possible quote or at least a direct reference to Enoch in Jude. Yet the books quoted by Jesus and the New Testament writers do not include ''Ezra, Nehemiah, Esther'' and ''Song of Songs'' (''Song of Solomon''). This does not mean they are not inspired scripture. | | Some who oppose the fundamentalist view say that anything which was translated B.C. into Greek, which fundamentalists claim "eventually made it" into the Vulgate, is, by definition, part of the LXX. But fundamentalist Christians do not agree at all, pointing out that this is [[Logical fallacy#Proof by assertion|proof by definition, or assertion]], which is not a good form of proof; but their disagreement with this point is itself an example of the [http://www.webpages.uidaho.edu/~morourke/404-phil/Summer-99/Handouts/Philosophical/Self-Sealing-Arguments.htm self-sealing fallacy] which excludes as invalid the evidence presented—the fact that texts are included in the Septuagint is not regarded as [[admissible evidence]], but is held to be wholly irrelevant (the [[fallacy of exclusion]], also called "[[cherry picking]]" ). Fundamentalist scholars insist that the parts of the Greek/Jewish literature which are to be accepted are those parts of the Greek Bible (and therefore the parts of the LXX) which were accepted by the '''Jews''', for example, at the Council of Jamnia, after the establishment of the Christian Church, and not the whole of the Septuagint (LXX) Old Testament of the Greek Bible accepted and read by Greek-speaking Jews in Palestine and throughout the [[diaspora]] at the time of Christ and by Christians in their worship services (Hebrew was not used in Christian readings to the congregation). There is no absolutely clear cut list or canon that all Jews accepted, but the consensus of A.D. the first centuries among the Palestinian Jews is that ''Ecclesiasticus, Bel and the Dragon'', etc. are not inspired. Fundamentalists point out that neither Jesus nor the NT writers ever quoted even a single time from ''Ecclesiasticus, 1 Maccabees, Tobit, Bel and the Dragon'', but that they did quote extensively from "virtually every OT book" in the Jewish and Protestant canon. They insist that the only exception is a possible quote or at least a direct reference to Enoch in Jude. Yet the books quoted by Jesus and the New Testament writers do not include ''Ezra, Nehemiah, Esther'' and ''Song of Songs'' (''Song of Solomon''). This does not mean they are not inspired scripture. |