|
Users viewing this topic:
none
|
|
Login  | |
|
RE: Catholic Vs. Protestant Bible - 7/18/2007 5:05:04 PM
|
|
|
kelman
Posts: 3742
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: gpaatfwc
The Greek Septuagint up until the time of Jamnia, had all of the seven disputed books. That is pure conjection, there is no evidence of this since we have no copies prior to the 4th century. What we do have is Athanasius, bishop of Alexandria (where the Septuagent was translated), and he did not include the Apocrypha as part of the OT canon.
In a letter, Athanasius listed the 22 Old Testament books and the 27 canonical books of the New Testament. Athanasius clearly declared the canonical Scriptures alone were to be used for determining doctrine, while the apocrypha were sanctioned for reading only, but were not considered part of the canon. (Philip Schaff and Henry Wace, "Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers," Second Series, vol. IV, St. Athanasius, "Letter 39.6" (Grand Rapids:Eerdmans, 1953), p. 552)
Now these the divinely-inspired Scriptures of both the Old and New Testament teach us...Learn also diligently, and from the Church, what are the books of the Old Testament, and what those of the New...Read the Divine Scriptures, the twenty-two books of the Old Testament,…. Of these read the two and twenty books, but have nothing to do with the apocryphal writings. (NPNF2,, Vol. 4, Athanasius, Letter 39.2-7).
You labor under the misapprehension that because some quoted from the Apocrypha they are indicating it is a part of the canon of inspired Scripture - clearly they are not.
J.N.D. Kelly confirms: “The view which now commanded itself fairly generally in the Eastern church, as represented by Athanasius, Cyril of Jerusalem, Gregory of Nazianzus and Epiphanius was that the deutero-canonical books should be relegated to a subordinate position outside the canon proper.” (J.N.D. Kelly, Early Christian Doctrines (San Francisco: Harper, 1960), pp. 54-55).
_____________________________
“beware lest you lose the substance by grasping at the shadow”
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Catholic Vs. Protestant Bible - 7/18/2007 5:57:10 PM
|
|
|
kelman
Posts: 3742
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORINGINAL: gpaatfwc
Protestant Arnold Sundberg verifies that the canon of the Jews was not settled until well after the first century.
What difference does that make? To say the Jews had no idea what was contained in their Bible in patently ridiculous; and, contrary to history. They weren't guessing which books should go into their Bible - they simply "fixed" or closed their canon. Turretinfan makes a very excellent observation:
“Furthermore, stating that the Jews did not know which books were Scripture simply because they held a council on the subject is a bit like saying that Christians didn't know that Jesus was God, because they held a council on the subject.”
"Unlike the books of the Old Testament, which are in Hebrew, with some portions in Aramaic, the apocryphal productions are in Greek ... The Jewish Church considered them uninspired, and some of their writers disclaim inspiration, (prologue to Ecclesiasticus; 11 Macc.2:23; 15:38).
The Apocrypha and Pseudopigrapha were produced between about 250 B.C. and somewhere in the early Christian centuries. They are not found in the Hebrew canon: they are never quoted by Jesus; and it cannot with certainty be affirmed that the apostles ever directly allude to them ..." (Davis, John D. and Henry Snyder Gehman: The Westminster Dictionary of the Bible; Philadelphia: Westminster Press (1944), p. 33)
It is clear that the traditional Jewish numeration of 22 books was accepted as the “inspired” books of the OT. From Hilary of Poitiers to Josephus, including Jerome, Athanasius, Origen, Clement of Rome, Cyril of Jerusalem, Gregory of Nazianzus and Epiphanius. And from Jerome to the Reformation. Basically the same listing of books with only the occassional deviation of a book or two. A few of their comments are:
This is the twenty-second work of God. Jewish and Christian exegetes say that God performed twenty-two works……On account of this they enumerate their entire Old Testament in twenty-two books. (Anastasius of Antioch, In Hexameron, VII. PG 89.940. Translation by Benjamin Panciera, The Medieval Institute, University of Notre Dame).
Let’s contrast the “earliest” and the “latest” lists of the OT by Christians, not Jews.
The earliest list of the OT was by Melito of Sardis who died about 180AD. He went to Palestine to catalogue the Hebrew Bible and he listed 22 books, which concurs with the number given by Josephus.
Cardinal Cajetan, who opposed Luther at Augsburg, as late as 1518 published “A Commentary on all the Authentic Historical Books of the Old Testament”. His commentary, however, did not include the Apocrypha.
Read his writing to get an understanding of how the "canon" was viewed - there were two concepts of the term canonical as it applied to the OT. It's too long to post; if, you're interested you'll find it here: (Commentary on all the Authentic Historical Books of the Old Testament, In ult. Cap., Esther. Taken from A Disputation on Holy Scripture by William Whitaker (Cambridge: University, 1849), p. 48. See also B.F. Westcott A General Survey of the History of the Canon of the New Testament (Cambridge: MacMillan, 1889), p. 475.).....easier still, just google it.
Cyril of Jerusalem(mid 4th cent.) also catalogues the OT books and he did not include the Apocrypha. He states that this listing is the authoritative canon which was handed down by the Church. Secondly, he states that the canon he gave came from the Septuagint, but it excluded most of the books of the Apocrypha. (NPNF2,, Vol. 7, Cyril of Jerusalem, Catechetical Lectures IV.33-36)
Athanasius of Alexandria also gave a list of the OT canon. Like Cyril he listed the number of books at twenty-two and cited their identity. He mentions that the books he listed were those that had been handed down by tradition in the Church.
“The Wisdom of Solomon, and the Wisdom of Sirach, and Esther, and Judith, and Tobit, and that which is called the Teaching of the Apostles and the Shepherd. But the former, my brethren, are included in the Canon, the latter being merely read” (NPNF2,, Vol. 4, Athanasius, Letter 39.2-7).
The overwhelming historical evidence, from the history of the Jews to the history of the early church is that the Apocrypha was never considered inspired. These historical facts fly directly in the face of the false claims by Rome to the contrary.
_____________________________
“beware lest you lose the substance by grasping at the shadow”
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Catholic Vs. Protestant Bible - 7/18/2007 6:23:47 PM
|
|
|
kelman
Posts: 3742
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: gpaatfwc
quote:
ORIGINAL: kelman
Now that's just patently ridiculous - they "err" all the time. You can believe God entrusted the OT to your denomination; I'll believe what God says on the matter. Actually, your comment is rather unsound since you seem to think that the Church of the living God "err" all the time... Not "unsound" in the least; one simply need only look at the anti-biblical doctrines espoused by your denomination to recognize it "errs" very very frequently; and, frankly, of late - all the time.
Neither 1 Tim 3:15 or Matthew 16:18 is saying the church cannot be in error. Your church merely uses that inaccurate interpretation with the hope of adding credence to its anti-biblical doctrines. It uses the Apocrypha for the same reason.
quote:
quote:
.......because that unto them were committed the oracles of God.
This just says that the Jews were committed, or given the oracles of God, or Scripture. It does NOT say that they determine what the content of the Scriptures are, of either the New or Old Testament Riciculous, it could not be "commited" to the Jews if they didn't know what it was that was being "commited." To "commit" in the Greek means to think to be true, to have confidence in, to be persuaded of. The OT books/oralcles were commited to the Jews(Romans 3:2); and, the OT Fathers received the "lively oracles" from God(Acts 7:38).
quote:
The Alexandrian Jews, had the Septuagint, which included the Deuterocanonical books. You do not know that, this is simple conjecture. The historical writings of some of the ECF’s do not bear out your opinion; in fact, they contradict such an opinon. By NT times the Hebrew Bible had a specific number of books and were specifically ordered, Jamina notwithstanding. This is confirmed by many sources:
1. Jesus and the New Testament
2. The Apocrypha
3. The Pseudepigrapha
4. Philo
5. Josephus
6. The Pharisees and Essenes
7. Aquila's Greek Translation of the Hebrew Bible
8. The Early Church Fathers
9. The Rabbinical Literature
quote:
Since Trent? Then accept the canon accepted by His Catholic Church before Trent... Neither Rome or Carthage were "ecumenical" councils even Augustine admitted this.
Rufinus, likewise as did Athanasius, listed the canonical books according to the Jewish numbering. He claimed that the canon he gave was that which had been handed down by tradition through the fathers as authoritative and that the specific books he enumerated were alone to be used for establishing the doctrines of the faith.
He cited the major works of the Apocrypha, specifically the Wisdom of Solomon, Ecclesiasticus, Tobit, Judith, and the Maccabees as books that were not canonical but ecclesiastical. These were appropriate to be read in the Churches but were not authoritative for the confirmation of doctrine. Such, says Rufinus, was the tradition handed down from the fathers.
Significantly, Rufinus expressed this view after the Councils of Hippo and Carthage, demonstrating that they did not possess universal authority for the Church at large. (NPNF2, Vol. 3, Rufinus, Commentary on the Apostles' Creed 36).
The canon given by the Council of Rome differs from that given by Athanasius and Cyril. Both fathers stated that the Church handed down a canon that rejected the major books of the Apocrypha. The Council of Rome and Damasus, on the other hand, taught that the canon handed down to them included the Apocrypha.
So, these fathers among many others, most definitely disagreed with the Council of Rome; and, not surprisingly since it did “err”.
_____________________________
“beware lest you lose the substance by grasping at the shadow”
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Catholic Vs. Protestant Bible - 7/18/2007 8:16:39 PM
|
|
|
JesKlu
Posts: 550
Joined: 4/16/2007
Status: online
|
Hello kelman!
I have found a website which explains the time period of which the Apocryphal books were written.
http://www.tektonics.org/lp/otcanon.html#otapoc
Now, let us consider briefly some Apocryphal books. Rost is our primary source for information, along with Metzger's book on the Apocrypha.
Additions to Esther - These additions are of nine parts: 1) a dream of Mordecai; 2) the conspiracy against Artaxerxes; 3) the edict ordering extermination of the Jews; 4) the prayer of Mordecai; 5) the prayer of Esther; 6) Esther before Artaxerxes; 7) the edict in favor of the Jews; 8) interpretation of Mordecai's dream; and 9) naming of the translator. They are simply embellishments, and may be dated to the first century BC. Some parts of this work conflict with the canonical book of Esther. It was probably originally written in Greek [Comf.OrB, 87], which takes it further from the events it purportedly describes.
Additions to Daniel - There are three of these. Susanna tells how Daniel saves a woman from execution by trapping those who falsely accuse her. Her accusers are punished by "having them thrown from a precipice and struck by a divine thunderbolt." The Prayer of Azariah and the Song of the Three Young Men is an embellishment upon the "fiery furnace" story in Daniel. Bel and the Dragon is a double narrative, both stories focussing on Daniel's cleverness. The first story has Daniel outwitting the priests of Bel, who are ordered slain by the king of Babylon, and their temple destroyed. The second story has Daniel defeating a monster serpent by throwing cakes of pitch, fat and hair into its mouth. Daniel is then thrown into a lion's den, where he lives seven days, being miraculously fed by Habakkuk.
1 Baruch - This book is allegedly by Jeremiah's faithful scribe, but clearly contradicts the Book of Jeremiah itself, inasmuch as it has Baruch present in Babylon during the Exile. Indications are that Baruch was not put together in final form until about 70 AD, although parts of it may be dated earlier. It is notable for "lacking in originality" and was popular in the NT church.
Letter of Jeremiah - This book is a sermon against idolatry. A late date (c. 300 BC) and rather clumsy construction makes it impossible to have been penned by Jeremiah.
Tobit - This book contains medical oddities such as the title character going blind when sparrow droppings fall in his eyes, and using the internal organs of fish for medicine. It shows no familiarity with the geography and political situation of eastern Mesopotamia, where the story is alleged to have taken place, and "teems with chronological, historical, and geographical improbabilities and downright errors." It is dated c. 190-170 BC.
Judith - A Jewish heroine, Judith, deceives Nebuchadnezzar's general, Holofernes, and assassinates him, saving Jerusalem from certain doom. The book contains a gross historical error, identifying Nebbie as king of Assyria rather than Babylon - an error so obvious, may we suggest, that it is intended as a hint to the reader that the contents are not to be taken seriously! It also does not reflect what we know of the general Holofernes. Minor internal evidence dates it after 300 B.C.
1 Esdras - This book is a mix of verses from 2 Chronicles, Ezra, and Nehemiah, along with a wisdom story concerning three guards who are challenged to decide what is the most powerful thing on earth. All three answer, "wine, the king, and women," but one guard wins by adding to this a fourth, "truth." Metzger says of this book: "the list of repetitions, errors, and inconsistencies of the book is a long one." It was assembled c. 150 B.C and favored by Josephus, who apprently appreciated its superior Greek style.
2 Esdras - This book contains seven visions written of by Ezra while in Babylon. It dates to the end of the first century AD, and thus obviously cannot have been written by Ezra.
Ecclesiasticus - This is a book of wisdom, and is considered the most highly esteemed of the apocryphal literature. It contains nothing in the way of absurdities, but was clearly written around 190-180 BC.
Wisdom of Solomon - This book in three parts 1) shows that wisdom shall be granted to the righteous man; 2) contains Solomon's admonition to the kings to seek wisdom, and how his own wisdom has been beneficial to him; 3) recounts the actions God has taken in history to deliver His people and punish their foes. Since the work uses Daniel, Enoch, and Tobit, and contains some influences from Greek philosophy, it obviously cannot be from the hand of Solomon, unless the wise king was prescient as well as wise! This, of course, immediately disqualifies the book for canonicity. It is normally dated between 100 BC and 40 AD. It and Ecclasiasticus, however, are quite useful for establishing background data for the NT, especially Wisdom theology.
Prayer of Manesseh - This is based on the text of 2 Chronicles 23:11-14, and contrary to the book of Kings, has the wicked King Manasseh undergoing a conversion in Babylon. It was written in the 3rd century BC. [Beck.OTNT, 340]
I, II, III, and IV Maccabees - #1 of this set is a history from Alexander (c. 330 BC) to the death of Simon Maccabee (135 BC). It is useful as history, but is obviously written too late for canonical inclusion, as were the other three. #2 of the set "takes considerable liberties with the actual course of history." There is therefore no grounds for including it in the canon. #3 of the set recounts events from c. 217 BC concerning Ptolemy IV Philopater. This rotten fellow gets in a bad mood when, in response to his desire to enter the inner Temple, a prayer to God sends him into convulsions and paralysis. After recovering in Egypt, he brings the Jews from throughout Egypt into a stadium where he plans to have them trampled by 500 elephants made mad with incense and wine. Ptolemy is thwarted from his purpose thrice: once when he oversleeps, a second when God blanks his memory, and the third when the elephants are turned on his own forces by the appearance of a pair of angels! After that, Ptolemy wisely changes his mind about persecuting the Jews and instead honors them with a banquet - also giving them permission to slay apostate Jews! #4 of the set is a philosophical treatise that examines the conduct of Jacob, Joseph, and David, and of Simon the high priest from the Maccabeean era.
Obviously, there is no good reason for any of these to have been included in the OT, as they are each subject to one of the following constraints: 1) they were written too late - and thus beyond the cessation of prophecy as determined by some (not all) Jews; 2) they were not written by the person to whom they are attributed; 3) they contain errors and absurdities; 4) they are of obviously lower literary quality than the canonical books. It might be added that, unlike the NT situation, things here are pretty clear: Many like Philo do not cite the Apocryphal books as authoritative, and "there is no evidence whatever that any of the Apocrypha ever had a place in any of the three divisions." [Beck.OTNT, 385]
Malachi, who was the last of the Prophets, wrote his prophecy around 400 B.C. Which was the last of the canonical books of the Old Testament. All these Apocryphal writings were written between 300 B.C to the end of the first century A.D, which right there alone disqualifies these books as scripture.
Your sister in Christ Jesus,
Jessica
_____________________________
And calling to him a child, he put him in the midst of them and said, "Truly, I say to you, unless you turn and become like children, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Catholic Vs. Protestant Bible - 7/18/2007 10:26:43 PM
|
|
|
gpaatfwc
Posts: 531
Joined: 8/10/2005
Status: offline
|
Kelman,
I wrote, quote:
Protestant Arnold Sundberg verifies that the canon of the Jews was not settled until well after the first century.
To which you replied, quote:
What difference does that make? To say the Jews had no idea what was contained in their Bible in patently ridiculous; and, contrary to history. They weren't guessing which books should go into their Bible - they simply "fixed" or closed their canon. Turretinfan makes a very excellent observation:
“Furthermore, stating that the Jews did not know which books were Scripture simply because they held a council on the subject is a bit like saying that Christians didn't know that Jesus was God, because they held a council on the subject.”
It makes quite a difference if you acknowledge what Arnold Sundberg wrote. If the canon was entrusted to these Jews you're constantly referencing, and if the OT canon was already determined prior to our Lord’s first advent, why in the world would they have to meet at all on that matter?
Remember that during the time of the apostles... the Sadducees only accepted the first five books of the Bible, the Pentateuch. The Alexandrian Jews, had the Septuagint, which included the Deuterocanonical books. In fact many within that tradition thought that even the translation of all the books was inspired. There was also the Pharisaic tradition. Essene Jews had a different canon. Ethiopian Jews had and have a different canon...
Also recall the following info written by J.N.D. Kelley... "J.N.D. Kelley, the well-known Protestant historian, and author of the book, Early Christian Doctrines, admits in that book that the Deuterocanonicals were commonly accepted by the early church as scripture (pages 53-55).:
"... The reason for this is that the Old Testament which passed in the first instance into the hands of Christians was the Greek translation known as the Septuagint. .. . most of the Scriptural quotations found in the New Testament are based upon it rather than the Hebrew..."
Explain why most Scriptural quotations found in the NT are based upon the Septuagint rather than the Hebrew?
In regards to you referencing the Early Church Fathers, i've addressed most of them already and I don't recall seeing you address those fathers who had direct communication with the apostles... for example, quotations from Wisdom occur in 1 Clement and Barnabas. . . Polycarp cites Tobit, and the Didache [cites] Ecclesiasticus. Irenaeus refers to Wisdom, the History of Susannah, Bel and the Dragon [i.e., the Deuterocanonical portions of Daniel], and Baruch. The use made of the Apocrypha by Tertullian, Hippolytus, Cyprian and Clement of Alexandria is too frequent for detailed references to be necessary".
What do you mean by "Jewish Church"? Christ has only One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church... ref Matthew 16:18...
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Catholic Vs. Protestant Bible - 7/19/2007 4:26:15 AM
|
|
|
kelman
Posts: 3742
Status: offline
|
Hi Jessica, thanks for that site. I've already used a few references from it to make additional points.
I think between the two of us here lately, we've pretty much have said all that's necessary to establish the fact the Apocrypha is not Scripture....not that there isn't a lot more evidence out there :)
_____________________________
“beware lest you lose the substance by grasping at the shadow”
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Catholic Vs. Protestant Bible - 7/19/2007 4:29:14 AM
|
|
|
kelman
Posts: 3742
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: gpaatfwc
It makes quite a difference if you acknowledge what Arnold Sundberg wrote. No, I meant it didn't make a difference that he was a Protestant. Being in error is not restricted to any particular denomination.
quote:
If the canon was entrusted to these Jews you're constantly referencing, If? Are you denying what God said?
quote:
and if the OT canon was already determined prior to our Lord’s first advent, why in the world would they have to meet at all on that matter? I've gone over all this in the last four posts to you. Now, you don't want to read them fine; but, please stop asking the same questions over and over. Questions to which I've already given answers. Those posts and those of Jessica's fully debunk the Apocrypha as Scripture theories.
A few additional points:
Josephus lists the OT canon at 22 books and here indicates a canon that has been decided upon and closed for quite some time, for he says: "...for although such long ages have now passed, no one has ventured either to add, or to remove, or to alter a syllable." Josephus' Roman readers would have been able to "check out" such an extraordinary claim. [Leim.CHS, 33]
Often cited as a concrete step in the OT canonization procedure is the Council of Jamnia. But this seems to have been more a discussion group or college confirming what was already known rather than a canon council. [Beck.OTNT, 276] In terms of the canon, the most that Jamnia did was ratify "what the most spiritually sensitive souls in Judaism had been accustomed to regard as being Scripture." [Metz.Apoc, 8]
quote:
What do you mean by "Jewish Church"? Christ has only One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church... ref Matthew 16:18... Even a cursory acquaintance with Scripture would have given you that answer.
_____________________________
“beware lest you lose the substance by grasping at the shadow”
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Catholic Vs. Protestant Bible - 7/19/2007 11:01:07 AM
|
|
|
gpaatfwc
Posts: 531
Joined: 8/10/2005
Status: offline
|
Dear kelman,
I wrote.quote:
If the canon was entrusted to these Jews you're constantly referencing,
to which you wrote, quote:
If? Are you denying what God said?
No i'm not denying what God said however; I am contending with what you're saying... notice that I used the word "if the canon" NOT "if the oracles" and I also wrote " these Jews you're constantly referencing" There are other Jews who thought differently than the ones you reference... e.g. Alexandrian Jews, Ethiopian Jews...
You wrote,
quote:
I've gone over all this in the last four posts to you. Now, you don't want to read them fine; but, please stop asking the same questions over and over. Questions to which I've already given answers. Those posts and those of Jessica's fully debunk the Apocrypha as Scripture theories.
If you feel the questions are the same, then it is probably because your answers were not sufficient to me...
For example. I wrote quote:
The Alexandrian Jews, had the Septuagint, which included the Deuterocanonical books. to which you wrote quote:
You do not know that, this is simple conjecture.
That is not my personal speculation... I provided reference that showed that the Septuagint included the Deuterocanonical books... the source of the statement appears credible to me ...
You're trying to assert that the hebrew list of books was the only accepted listing by the Jews yet, there are other Jews who during the time of Christ and the apostles did not go by such a list of OT books...
The Sadducees only accepted the first five books of the Bible, the Pentateuch. The Alexandrian Jews, had the Septuagint, which included the Deuterocanonical books. In fact many within that tradition thought that even the translation of all the books was inspired. There was also the Pharisaic tradition. Essene Jews had a different canon. Ethiopian Jews had and have a different canon...
I also fail to see how His One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church could err in telling us what the correct OT canon is. For instance. What OT canon was the church using in, say between 500 A.D. to 1500 A.D.? If it was NOT the hebrew list/Protestant canon you hold to today, how then do you explain the Christian faithful having what you protestants would call the wrong canon for such a period of time?
You wrote quote:
Often cited as a concrete step in the OT canonization procedure is the Council of Jamnia. But this seems to have been more a discussion group or college confirming what was already known rather than a canon council. [Beck.OTNT, 276] In terms of the canon, the most that Jamnia did was ratify "what the most spiritually sensitive souls in Judaism had been accustomed to regard as being Scripture." [Metz.Apoc, 8]
The council of Jamnia - let's say for dialogue sake - took place around 90AD. My question is, for such a council, why was the apostle John not there to show his blessing? If there is a living apostle around and a council takes place discussing the written word of God without him, wouldn't that raise a red flag? There is no evidence that I’m aware of that would lead me to believe that the mystic apostle John was either there, or sent his blessing in writing, or even sent a faithful member of the church to such an event, etc...
In short, the council of Jamnia is not authoritative to me. They, from what I read, even rejected the gospel accounts... hmmm I wonder why they're rejecting the gospel accounts... hmm I wonder why the apostle John is not there... hmm could it be that this council had a motive against Christianity?
In regards to the early church fathers, reference post 291 as a start.
In regards to Josephus listing... his listing is NOT the listing of the Church of the living God... and I don't recall Josephus being a member of the Church during the time of his writings which you reference... but hopefully, he is with the Almighty...
I follow Christ and recognize the authority He gave to His One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church...
< Message edited by gpaatfwc -- 7/19/2007 3:33:49 PM >
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Catholic Vs. Protestant Bible - 7/19/2007 2:59:27 PM
|
|
|
gpaatfwc
Posts: 531
Joined: 8/10/2005
Status: offline
|
Dear JesKlu,
You wrote, quote:
Malachi, who was the last of the Prophets, wrote his prophecy around 400 B.C. Which was the last of the canonical books of the Old Testament. All these Apocryphal writings were written between 300 B.C to the end of the first century A.D, which right there alone disqualifies these books as scripture.
You sure Malachi was the last of the Prophets?
(Luke 2:25-), “Now there was a man in Jerusalem whose name was Simeon. This man was righteous and devout, awaiting the consolation of Israel, and the holy Spirit was upon him. It had been revealed to him by the holy Spirit that he should not see death before he had seen the Messiah of the Lord. He came in the Spirit into the temple; and when the parents brought in the child Jesus to perform the custom of the law in regard to him.”
go some verses from there and you will read, (Luke 2:36), "There was also a prophetess, Anna, the daughter of Phanuel, of the tribe of Asher." Seems like Simeon was considered a prophet and Anna was considered a prophetess...
And what of John the Baptist? Jesus said he came in the Spirit of Elijah...
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Catholic Vs. Protestant Bible - 7/20/2007 6:25:17 PM
|
|
|
kelman
Posts: 3742
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: gpaatfwc
No i'm not denying what God said however; I am contending with what you're saying... notice that I used the word "if the canon" NOT "if the oracles" and I also wrote " these Jews you're constantly referencing" There are other Jews who thought differently than the ones you reference... e.g. Alexandrian Jews, Ethiopian Jews...
You do NOT know whether the Alexandrian Jews included the Apocrypha; in fact, most evidence indicates they did not.
What God gave Israel He called "the oracles of God". This would mean "all" His oracles. This would mean God gave to the Jewish nation inspired and authoritative writings. This would mean the Jewish canon. There is a significant body of evidence indicating that the Jewish canon was to all intents and purposes “recognized” if not “closed” by the time of Christ.
The Palestinian Jews listed in their canon the 22 or 24 books with the three fold division. This is what they indicated God authoritatively communicated. This is what Christ and the apostles used, this is what Jerome attested to, this is what Philo translated, this is what Josephus attested to.
The Ethiopian Jews? Don’t know much about them other than their legends includes the Ark following the son of the Queen of Sheba home – of its own accord, no less. Anyway, would these be the same Hebrews Paul refers to when he says the oracles of God were given to our “fathers’? Considerably doubtful the “true” oracles would be given to these islolated Jews and not the “fathers” which make up the majority of Hebrews.
quote:
I also fail to see how His One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church could err in telling us what the correct OT canon is. What’s not to see? They “err” all the time. And, besides you do realize that “catholic” means universal and not the Roman church, don’t you?
quote:
For instance. What OT canon was the church using in, say between 500 A.D. to 1500 A.D.? If it was NOT the hebrew list/Protestant canon you hold to today, how then do you explain the Christian faithful having what you protestants would call the wrong canon for such a period of time? What’s to explain? What was inspired was settled as Jerome and many ECF’s declare. And, the Apocrypha was read also in many churches; but, it was understood then that it was not suitable for making doctrine since it was not inspired.
quote:
The council of Jamnia - let's say for dialogue sake - took place around 90AD. My question is, for such a council, why was the apostle John not there to show his blessing? Huh? I can only surmise that a Hebrew council was not interested in inviting a Christian – go figure.
quote:
That is not my personal speculation... I provided reference that showed that the Septuagint included the Deuterocanonical books... the source of the statement appears credible to me ... I didn’t say the Septuagint did not contain some apocrypha books, those of the fifth century did. I said there is NO evidence that the Bible Christ used contained any apocrypha books.
quote:
In short, the council of Jamnia is not authoritative to me. No one said it should be; but it does offer proof positive of a closed canon at the time of Jesus. The discussion never centered on whether the apocrypha books were Scripture.
quote:
They, from what I read, even rejected the gospel accounts... Uh, yeah, otherwise they’d be called Christians, don’t ya think?
quote:
They, from what I read, even rejected the gospel accounts... hmmm I wonder why they're rejecting the gospel accounts... hmm I wonder why the apostle John is not there... hmm could it be that this council had a motive against Christianity? Gotta be joking here, right? Sure, the Hebrews, to whom God gave His oracles, who considered Scripture sacred above sacred - tossed that which “made the hands unclean” into the garbage…why?…just to spite some upstart Christians. Seems a paranoid conclusion at best.
quote:
In regards to Josephus listing... his listing is NOT the listing of the Church of the living God.. Hmm, guess you think Jerome and all the other church fathers are not a part of the “Church of the living God” either.
quote:
I follow Christ and recognize the authority He gave to His One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church... Uh, no, you simply follow the teachings of your denomination; apparently, undaunted by its ever straying from the truths declared by God.
_____________________________
“beware lest you lose the substance by grasping at the shadow”
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Catholic Vs. Protestant Bible - 7/20/2007 9:14:22 PM
|
|
|
gpaatfwc
Posts: 531
Joined: 8/10/2005
Status: offline
|
Dear kelman,
You wrote,
quote:
You do NOT know whether the Alexandrian Jews included the Apocrypha; in fact, most evidence indicates they did not.
Please present this evidence that indicates the Alexandrian Jews did NOT include the Apocrypha... according to what i've read, they used the Septuagint and here's some references regarding the Septuagint...
J.N.D. Kelley, the well-known Protestant historian, and author of the book, Early Christian Doctrines, admits in that book that the Deuterocanonicals were commonly accepted by the early church as scripture (pages 53-55).:
It should be observed that the Old Testament thus admitted as authoritative in the Church was somewhat bulkier and more comprehensive than the [Protestant Old Testament] . . . It always included, though with varying degrees of recognition, the so-called Apocrypha or deutero-canonical books. The reason for this is that the Old Testament which passed in the first instance into the hands of Christians was the Greek translation known as the Septuagint. .. . most of the Scriptural quotations found in the New Testament are based upon it rather than the Hebrew.. . . In the first two centuries. . . the Church seems to have accept all, or most of, these additional books as inspired and to have treated them without question as Scripture.
Moises Silva and Karen Jobes, good Protestants both, make this statement in their book, 'Invitation to the Septuagint" page 81, "However, the Catholic Old Testament includes additional books found in the Septuagint, but not in the Hebrew Bible, or the Protestant canon." In the same work, on page 85, they say, "Recognizing the esteem fiven these books by ancient Jews and Christians, the Roman Catholic and the Eastern Orthodox churches consider them to be (deutero)canonical."
Henry Barclay Swete, D.D., another good Protestant, in his book, "An introduction to the Old Testament in Greek", page 265, says,"The MSS and many of the lists of the Greek Old Testament include certain books which find no place in the Hebrew Canon."
Martin Hegel, in his book, "The Septuagint as Christian Scripture", says on page 3, "For the question of the textual history of canonical Scripture, the 'Alexandrian canon' may be assumed to be a reliable basis: originating in pre-Christian Judaism--although differing in size in the Christian manuscript tradition--and accepted by the primitive Christian church as "Holy Scripture."
you wrote
quote:
What God gave Israel He called "the oracles of God". This would mean "all" His oracles. This would mean God gave to the Jewish nation inspired and authoritative writings. This would mean the Jewish canon. There is a significant body of evidence indicating that the Jewish canon was to all intents and purposes “recognized” if not “closed” by the time of Christ.
The Palestinian Jews listed in their canon the 22 or 24 books with the three fold division. This is what they indicated God authoritatively communicated. This is what Christ and the apostles used, this is what Jerome attested to, this is what Philo translated, this is what Josephus attested to.
Most Scriptural quotations found in the NT are based upon the Septuagint rather than the Hebrew...
The Jews were indeed through Moses and the prophets given the Word of God and preserved it. Now, does that mean that the Jews were entitled to determine the limits of the Old Testament after they rejected their Messiah? That is a question that must be determined. First, however, the Romans text does not say that the Jews would override the Church established by Christ in determining the canon. The specific point that Paul speaks of here is the advantage of circumcision.
Circumcision was necessary to enter the old covenant family of God. At the same time, the Jews were entrusted in the old covenant with the oracles of God as well. However, Paul goes on to write that circumcision is no longer necessary to enter the covenant with God (Rom. 3&4, cf., Gal. 3, 4, 5). The basis on which he makes his statement on the oracles is in reference to circumcision. As Paul makes the tie-in with the Jews being entrusted with the oracles of God with circumcision, which is done away with as a necessity for entrance into God’s family, it is a tremendous stretch to say that this gives the Jews the Ok to determine the extent of the canon, while ignoring the Church that Jesus established.
Just as circumcision is done away with as a necessity, so the Jews no longer had the authority to determine the extent of the canon. The Church that accepted Jesus and who Jesus gave authority to bind and loose on earth that which is in heaven (Mt. 16:18, 18:18) certainly had more authority to determine the extent of the canon. Jesus or Paul did not give the Pharisees the authority to determine the canon. Of course, in the Old Covenant, the Jews had been entrusted with God’s inspired Scripture, but Romans 3:2 does not mandate that the Church accepts whatever Judaism proclaimed as its canon.
Of course the Sadduccees had one canon. The Pharisees had another canon. The Greek speaking Jews had another canon. We know from history that the Ethiopian Jews had and maintain a different canon. There was no unanimous Jewish canon in Jesus’ time
the Jews were given the oracles of God directly from God himself (Our Lord Jesus Christ). In fact our Lord gave the Church the power to proclaim to his followers the extent of the canon, through the binding authority given it (Mt. 16:18, 18:18): Whatsoever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven. Whatsoever, would include the canon that had not been decided by the Jews in any case.
the presumption that Judaism had settled on those assumptions are false. AC Sundberg, a Lutheran historian shows that there are several things wrong with each of those assumptions. He has written several works on this issue. (Here is an article online that discusses this issue. http://department.monm.edu/classics/Speel_Festschrift/sundbergJr.htm References that I give here are available online at this url.)
We have some writings from early second century which shows that in no way as of even 120 AD was it settled on what was the inspired writing for the Jews. Included in this writing is 4 Ezra, written approximately 120 AD. Sundberg points to these facts in Ezra 4:
4 Ezra has a fabulous story of Ezra and five companions rewriting (by inspiration) ninety-four books, twenty-four of which were to be published for the reading of the worthy and the unworthy (the Hebrew canon). He also was to keep seventy books to deliver to the wise, "For in them is the spring of understanding, the fountain of wisdom, and the stream of knowledge." Thus, 4 Ezra (ca. 120 C.E.) is the earliest witness to the closed Hebrew canon of twenty-four books. However, so far as this author was concerned, inspired writing was not limited to the canonical books; he viewed another seventy books also as inspired and to held in secret by the wise for understanding, wisdom and knowledge. 21
The oblique reference to seventy other books in 4 Ezra raises the question of extra-canonical books. Apocalyptic writings appeared in Judaism from the Maccabean times to the end of the first century C.E. According to the consensus, these were completely ignored (except for Daniel) by the rabbinical leaders. However, they enjoyed great popularity among some circles. Clearly, the writers and readers of these books did not hold that inspiration had ceased. Also for Greek-speaking Jews of the Diaspora, especially in Alexandria, the canon was thought to have been considerably enlarged. The influence of these additional writings circulating in Alexandrian and Diaspora Judaism was greatly felt in early Christianity. There are quotations from a number of these writings in the New Testament. According to Jerome, Matt. 27.9 quotes an apocryphal writing of Jeremiah. 1 Cor. 2.9, according to Origen, and Eph. 5.14, according to Epiphanius, quote the apocalypse of Elijah. Jude 14-16 names and quotes Enoch 1.9. There are quotations from unknown sources in Jn. 7.38; Lk 11.49 and Jas. 4.5 f. Without making direct quotations, Sirach 5.11 is used in Jas. 1.19; 2 Macc. 6-7 in Heb. 11.35 f.; the Assumption of Moses in Jude 9 (according to Origen). 2 Tim. 3.8 cites the Book of Jannes and Jambres. Probably Heb. 11.37, "they were sawn asunder," refers to the Martyrdom of Isaiah. It is evident, therefore, that the New Testament writers made use of a wider selection of Jewish writings then the Hebrew canon (Pfeiffer 1941:66).
The consensus agreed that Christians had already adopted their scriptures and separated from Judaism before the Council of Jamnia. Since the church became increasingly Greek, it was the Septuagint, with its additional books, that they adopted.
Sundberg:
It has become evident that the Septuagint circulated in Palestine. This inference was suggested to Semler (1771:1.124-128) by the use of the Septuagint in the earliest Christian writings of the New Testament. As noted, Murabaât produced fragments of six Minor Prophets (Micah, Jonah, Nahum, Habakkuk, Zephniah and Zechariah) in Greek. Barthélemy has shown that the text of these fragments, assigned to the end of the first century C.E., is most probably a recension of the Septuagint and is very similar to Justins Old Testament quotations (Barthélemy 1953). This shows that a Greek text type used among Christians of the second century was current among Jews in Palestine in the first century C.E. Similarly, K. Stendahl (1954:177-180) has provided support for Swetes suggestion that the venue for the text of the New Testament quotations from the Old is to be found in a Palestinian Septuagint tradition. Pfeiffer was probably right saying that the Christians took their Old Testament in Greek before the closing of the canon at Jamnia. But the implication of the above is that the Greek Old Testament adopted by the Christians was received from Palestinian rather than Diaspora Judaism (Cross 1995:128, n. 2).
Sundberg gives further evidence that the Jews were not settled on the canon even in the first century:
There are evidences of a continued use of this apocryphal literature in rabbinic literature of later times. Sirach is quoted three times in the Talmud as scripture. It is twice quoted with the introductory formula, "for so it is written in the Book of Ben Sira."35 Ben Sira is also sometimes quoted as "Writings" when the rabbis were proof-texting, e.g., "This matter is written in the Pentateuch as written. . . , repeated in the Prophets, as written. . . , mentioned a third time in the Hagiographa, as written, (here Sirach 12.15 is quoted), it was learned in the Mishnah, . . . ."36
Thus even well after Jamnia in the second century, the Talmud indicates that the book of Sirach (Ben Sira means the Book of Sirach, which is a Deuterocanonical book) is Scripture.
You wrote,
quote:
Anyway, would these be the same Hebrews Paul refers to when he says the oracles of God were given to our “fathers’? Considerably doubtful the “true” oracles would be given to these islolated Jews and not the “fathers” which make up the majority of Hebrews.
You're entitled to your opinion...
You wrote,
quote:
What’s not to see? They “err” all the time. And, besides you do realize that “catholic” means universal and not the Roman church, don’t you?
Yes I know that "catholic" means universal... what's your point?
You wrote,
quote:
What’s to explain? What was inspired was settled as Jerome and many ECF’s declare. And, the Apocrypha was read also in many churches; but, it was understood then that it was not suitable for making doctrine since it was not inspired.
Throughout Church history, the word "canonical" has been used in several ways... keep in mind that when some fathers speak of a particular book as "non-canonical," they do not necessarily mean that it is not inspired or authoritative... "non-canonical" can mean that:
1) a book is heretical (e.g. the Gospel of Thomas), or
2) That it is a good book with historical and spiritual merit, but uninspired (e.g. the Shepherd of Hermas), or
3) That it is an inspired book, but not used in the Liturgy of a particular city-church or even in the Liturgy of many city-churches ( e.g. Revelation or 2 Maccabees).
Barnabas
"Since, therefore, [Christ] was about to be manifested and to suffer in the flesh, his suffering was foreshown. For the prophet speaks against evil, 'Woe to their soul, because they have counseled an evil counsel against themselves' [Is. 3:9], saying, 'Let us bind the righteous man because he is displeasing to us' [Wis. 2:12.]" (Letter of Barnabas 6:7 [A.D. 74]).
Clement of Rome
"By the word of his might [God] established all things, and by his word he can overthrow them. 'Who shall say to him, "What have you done?" or who shall resist the power of his strength?' [Wis. 12:12]" ( Letter to the Corinthians 27:5 [ca. A.D. 80]).
Polycarp
"Stand fast, therefore, in these things, and follow the example of the Lord, being firm and unchangeable in the faith, loving the brotherhood [1 Pet. 2:17].
. . . When you can do good, defer it not, because 'alms delivers from death' [Tob. 4:10, 12:9]. Be all of you subject to one another [1 Pet. 5:5], having your conduct blameless among the Gentiles [1 Pet. 2:12], and the Lord may not be blasphemed through you. But woe to him by whom the name of the Lord is blasphemed [Is. 52:5]!" ( Letter to the Philadelphians 10 [A.D. 135]).
Irenaeus
"Those . . . who are believed to be presbyters by many, but serve their own lusts and do not place the fear of God supreme in their hearts, but conduct themselves with contempt toward others and are puffed up with the pride of holding the chief seat [Matt. 23:6] and work evil deeds in secret, saying 'No man sees us,' shall be convicted by the Word, who does not judge after outward appearance, nor looks upon the countenance, but the heart; and they shall hear those words to be found in Daniel the prophet: 'O you seed of Canaan and not of Judah, beauty has deceived you and lust perverted your heart' [Dan. 13:56]. You that have grown old in wicked days, now your sins which you have committed before have come to light, for you have pronounced false judgments and have been accustomed to condemn the innocent and to let the guilty go free, although the Lord says, 'You shall not slay the innocent and the righteous' [Dan. 13:52, citing Ex. 23:7]" ( Against Heresies 4:26:3 [A.D. 189]; Daniel 13 is not in the Protestant Bible).
"Jeremiah the prophet has pointed out that as many believers as God has prepared for this purpose, to multiply those left on the earth, should both be under the rule of the saints and to minister to this [new] Jerusalem and that [his] kingdom shall be in it, saying, 'Look around Jerusalem toward the east and behold the joy which comes to you from God himself. Behold, your sons whom you have sent forth shall come: They shall come in a band from the east to the west. . . . God shall go before with you in the light of his splendor, with the mercy and righteousness which proceed from him' [Bar. 4:36—5:9]" (ibid., 5:35:1; Baruch was often considered part of Jeremiah, as it is here).
Origen, [185-253/254 A.D]
Origen terms Sirach, Sacred Scripture
"But he ought to know that those who wish to live according to the teaching of Sacred Scripture understand the saying, 'The knowledge of the unwise is as talk without sense,' [Sirach 21:18] and have learnt 'to be ready always to give an answer to everyone that asketh us a reason for the hope that is in us.' [1 Pt 3:15] " Origen, Against Celsus, 7:12 (A.D. 248),in ANF, IV:615
He uses the phrase, "As is written", in reference to Tobit. The phrase "It is written" always is a reference to Scripture, both in Scripture itself as well as its use by the Fathers. Thus, Origen sees Tobit as Scripture.
[A]s is written in the book of Tobit: 'It is good to keep close the secret of a king, but honourable to reveal the works of God,' [Tobit 12:7]--in a way consistent with truth and God's glory, and so as to be to the advantage of the multitude." Origen, Against Celsus, 5:19( A.D. 248),in ANF,IV:551.
Notice how Origen uses the following for proof of the doctrine that God made everything out of nothing. He calls Maccabees Holy Scripture and uses it to prove doctrine.
But that we may believe on the authority of holy Scripture that such is the case, hear how in the book of Maccabees, where the mother of seven martyrs exhorts her son to endure torture, this truth is confirmed; for she says, ' ask of thee, my son, to look at the heaven and the earth, and at all things which are in them, and beholding these, to know that God made all these things when they did not exist.' [2 Maccabees 7:28] " Origen, Fundamental Principles, 2:2 (A.D. 230),in ANF, IV:270
Origen notes that what Sirach says, is a commandment of God. That is Scripture. If it was merely something that was not Scripture, it could not be a commandment from God. Then he quotes Elijah from the Book of Kings in the same vein. No distinction in authority between the two books.
And as a general principle observe the expression "behind"; because it is a good thing when any one goes behind the Lord God and is behind the Christ; but it is the opposite when any one casts the words of God behind him, or when he transgresses the commandment which says "Do not walk behind thy lusts." (Sirach 18:30) And Elijah also in the third Book of Kings, says to the people "How long halt ye on both your knees? If God is the Lord, go behind Him, but if Baal is the Lord, go behind him." (1 Kings 18:21) Origen, Commentary on Matthew 23 Origen, 22, in ANF, IX:463 AD 254
St. Athanasius [295-373 A.D.]
He terms the Sacred Writings, which include Hebrews, Psalms, and Jeremiah, with Baruch as well. He refers to Baruch as Sacred Writings which are thus, inspired Scriptures
"[T]he sacred writers to whom the Son has revealed Him, have given us a certain image from things visible, saying, 'Who is the brightness of His glory, and the Expression of His Person;' [Heb 1:3] and again, 'For with Thee is the well of life, and in Thy light shall we see lights;' [Ps 36:9] and when the Word chides Israel, He says, 'Thou hast forsaken the Fountain of wisdom;' [Baruch 3:12] and this Fountain it is which says, 'They have forsaken Me the Fountain of living waters' [Jer 2:13]" [3] Athanasius the Great: Defense of the Nicene Faith,2 (A.D. 351), in NPNF2, IV:158.
In the same breath that St. Athanasius speaks of Sacred Writings in Isaiah and Hebrews, he speaks of the Story of Susanna, only found in the Catholic Bible, and Baruch. He speaks in the same language of the other three Biblical citations. He preaches here on the doctrine of the Son's eternal status. He makes no distinctions between the books. Unquestionably St. Athanasius sees these writings as Scripture, as only Scripture can be termed authored by 'sacred writers.'
"And where the sacred writers say, Who exists before the ages,' and 'By whom He made the ages,' [Heb 1:2] they thereby as clearly preach the eternal and everlasting being of the Son, even while they are designating God Himself. Thus, if Isaiah says, 'The Everlasting God, the Creator of the ends of the earth;' [Is 40:28] and Susanna said, 'O Everlasting God;' [Daniel 13:42-Susanna] and Baruch wrote, 'I will cry unto the Everlasting in my days,' and shortly after, 'My hope is in the Everlasting, that He will save you, and joy is come unto me from the Holy One;' [Baruch 4:20,22]" Athanasius the Great: Discourses Against the Arians , 1:4 (A.D. 362), in NPNF2, IV:313
The Holy Spirit inspires Scripture, as all Christians agree (2 Tim. 3:16). St. Athanasius sees the Scripture of Sirach where the Spirit 'commands', through the book of Sirach. If Sirach was unscriptural, how could it 'command'? Obviously St. Athanasius sees Sirach as Scripture.
The Spirit also, who is in him, commands, saying, 'Offer unto God the sacrifice of praise, and pay to the Lord thy vows. Offer the sacrifice of righteousness, and put your trust in the Lord (Sir. 18:17). ') [Athanasius the Great: Letter 19, 5 (A.D. 333), in NPNF2, IV:546
St. Cyril of Jerusalem, [315-386 A.D.]
Just as St. Athanasius saw the author of the Deuterocanonical book of Wisdom as a prophet, St. Cyril also sees Baruch as a prophet. Thus, this is clearly Scripture in St. Cyril's eyes.
Hear the Prophet saying, 'This is our God, none other shall be accounted of in comparison with Him. He hath found out every way of knowledge, and given it to Jacob His servant, and to Israel His beloved. Afterwards He[she] was seen on earth, and conversed among men' [Baruch 3:35-37]. Cyril of Jerusalem, Catechetical Lectures, 9:15(A.D. 350),in NPNF2, VII:68
St. Hilary of Poitiers, [315-367/368 A.D.]
What is the clear sense of Scripture? What Maccabees says is clear Scripture and is the word of a Prophet, according to St. Hilary. It proves that God made everything out of nothing. This very important doctrine, according to St. Hilary, is proved through the Prophet who writes Maccabees, which he identifies as Scripture. Thus not only does St. Hilary affirm Prophet Status for a Deuterocanonical book, but Scriptural status.
Such suggestions are inconsistent with the clear sense of Scripture For all things, as the Prophet says [ref 2 Maccabees 7:28], were made out of nothing; it was no transformation of existing things, but the creation into a perfect form of the non-existent." Hilary of Poitiers, On the Trinity, 4:16 (A.D. 359), in NPNF2, IX:76
The book of Wisdom, another Deuterocanonical book, is said to be written by a prophet, according to St. Hilary. The Prophet who writes in Wisdom proves the greatness of God. Again, Wisdom is clearly Scripture.
Then, while the devout soul was baffled and astray through its own feebleness, it caught from the prophet's voice this scale of comparison for God, admirably expressed, 'By the greatness of His works and the beauty of the things that He hath made the Creator of worlds is rightly discerned' [Wisdom 13:5]." Hilary of Poitiers, On the Trinity, 1:7 (A.D. 359), in NPNF2, IX:42
St. Jerome, [347-419/420 A.D]
"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 Son 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]).
St. Jerome himself calls Sirach, which he had referred to as non-canonical, as Scripture. Thus, in practice, to support doctrine, he calls it Scripture. This quotation, even if there were no other quotations from him on the Deuterocanonicals, show that his view on what is and is not Scripture can not be seen from his earlier citation.
Does not the SCRIPTURE say: 'Burden not thyself above thy power' [SIRACH 13:2] Jerome, To Eustochium, Epistle 108 (A.D. 404), in NPNF2, VI:207
Deuterocanonical Quotations from the Ecumenical Councils:
Nicea II: Canon 16 (787) - Sirach 1:25 (scripture)
Constantinople IV: Canon 10 (869) - Sirach 11:7 (scripture)
Lateran IV: Section 70 (1215) - Sirach 2:12, 3:28** (it is written)
Vienne: Section 14 (1311) - Sirach 24:17
Section 24 (1311) - Wisdom 5:6**
Section 38 (1312) - Sirach 24:31, 1:5; Susannah/Daniel 13:42**
Basle/Florence: Session 21(1435) - Sirach 18:23 (scripture)
Session 3 (1438) - Wisdom 10:20 (it is written)
Session 6 (1439) - Tobit 12:20**
Session 7 (1439) - Susannah/Daniel 13:9
Session 9 (1440) - Wisdom 5:21**
The Decree of Pope St. Damasus I, Council of Rome. 382 A.D....
ST. DAMASUS 1, POPE, THE DECREE OF DAMASUS:
It is likewise decreed: Now, indeed, we must treat of the divine Scriptures: what the universal Catholic Church accepts and what she must shun.
The list of the Old Testament begins: Genesis, one book; Exodus, one book: Leviticus, one book; Numbers, one book; Deuteronomy, one book; Jesus Nave, one book; of Judges, one book; Ruth, one book; of Kings, four books; Paralipomenon, two books; One Hundred and Fifty Psalms, one book; of Solomon, three books: Proverbs, one book; Ecclesiastes, one book; Canticle of Canticles, one book; likewise, Wisdom , one book; Ecclesiasticus (Sirach) , one book; Likewise, the list of the Prophets: Isaiah, one book; Jeremias, one book; along with Cinoth, that is, his Lamentations; Ezechiel, one book; Daniel, one book; Osee, one book; Amos, one book; Micheas, one book; Joel, one book; Abdias, one book; Jonas, one book; Nahum, one book; Habacuc, one book; Sophonias, one book; Aggeus, one book; Zacharias, one book; Malachias, one book. Likewise, the list of histories: Job, one book; Tobias , one book; Esdras, two books; Esther, one book; Judith , one book; of Maccabees , two books.
Likewise, the list of the Scriptures of the New and Eternal Testament, which the holy and Catholic Church receives: of the Gospels, one book according to Matthew, one book according to Mark, one book according to Luke, one book according to John. The Epistles of the Apostle Paul, fourteen in number: one to the Romans, two to the Corinthians, one to the Ephesians, two to the Thessalonians, one to the Galatians, one to the Philippians, one to the Colossians, two to Timothy, one to Titus one to Philemon, one to the Hebrews. Likewise, one book of the Apocalypse of John. And the Acts of the Apostles, one book. Likewise, the canonical Epistles, seven in number: of the Apostle Peter, two Epistles; of the Apostle James, one Epistle; of the Apostle John, one Epistle; of the other John, a Presbyter, two Epistles; of the Apostle Jude the Zealot, one Epistle. Thus concludes the canon of the New Testament.
Likewise it is decreed: After the announcement of all of these prophetic and evangelic or as well as apostolic writings which we have listed above as Scriptures, on which, by the grace of God, the Catholic Church is founded, we have considered that it ought to be announced that although all the Catholic Churches spread abroad through the world comprise but one bridal chamber of Christ, nevertheless, the holy Roman Church has been placed at the forefront not by the conciliar decisions of other Churches, but has received the primacy by the evangelic voice of our Lord and Savior, who says: "You are Peter, and upon this rock I will build My Church, and the gates of hell will not prevail against it; and I will give to you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you shall have bound on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you shall have loosed on earth shall be loosed in heaven."
The Fourth Council of Carthage in 419 again reaffirmed the Canons as defined in previous councils...
CANON XXIV. (Greek xxvii.)
"That nothing be read in church besides the Canonical Scripture.
ITEM, that besides the Canonical Scriptures nothing be read in church under the name of divine Scripture. But the Canonical Scriptures are as follows: * Genesis * Exodus * Leviticus * Numbers * Deuteronomy * Joshua the Son of Nun * The Judges * Ruth * The Kings (4 books) * The Chronicles (2 books) * Job * The Psalter * The Five books of Solomon (includes Wisdom and Sirach) * The Twelve Books of the Prophets * Isaiah * Jeremiah * Ezechiel * Daniel * Tobit * Judith * Esther * Ezra (2 books) * Maccabees (2books).
The New Testament: * The Gospels (4 books) * The Acts of the Apostles (1 book) * The Epistles of Paul (14) * The Epistles of Peter, the Apostle (2) * The Epistles of John the Apostle (3) * The Epistles of James the Apostle (1) * The Epistle of Jude the Apostle (1) * The Revelation of John (1 book).
Let this be sent to our brother and fellow bishop, [Pope] Boniface, and to the other bishops of those parts, that they may confirm this canon, for these are the things which we have received from our fathers to be read in church."
You wrote,
quote:
I didn’t say the Septuagint did not contain some apocrypha books, those of the fifth century did. I said there is NO evidence that the Bible Christ used contained any apocrypha books.
To me, as a Catholic, the practice of the Church is the ultimate criterion. What the New Testament writers started the Church Fathers continued. Both groups either quoted from or alluded to the deuterocanonicals from time to time.
Our Lord and the apostles seem to have unquestionably used the Deuterocanonicals, even if the authors do not explicitly say, “It is written”. and apply it to the Deuterocanonicals. Likewise there are allusions to Protocanonical books without the specific phrase ‘It is written’ preceding that. Now a cogent example of a reference to a Deuterocanonical book is that found in Hebrew 11:35:
Women received their dead raised to life again: and others were tortured, not accepting deliverance; that they might obtain a better resurrection .
This is as close to a citation as one could get, as it is obvious that Hebrews 11:35, the second part, is speaking of the brothers in the Maccabees who died in the hope to rise again to a better life. See 2nd Maccabees 7. No Protocanonical book has those events, where someone is tortured, and has the hope of the resurrection of life.
Also, elsewhere there is a borrowing from Deuterocanonicals in the New Testament, even if there are not formal citations which are preceded by “It is written.” Paul for example, in Romans 1:19-32, clearly borrows from Wisdom 13. Wisdom 2:18-20 is clearly referred to in Matthew 27:43 as well. Also, James 1:19 clearly alludes to Sirach 5:11:
James 1:19 Wherefore, my beloved brethren, let every man be swift to hear, slow to speak, slow to wrath.
Sirach 5:11: Be quick to hear, and be deliberate in answering.
There are other references as well. Even if there are not quotations per se, the ideas are intertwined and a borrowing from the Deuterocanonicals is clear. An url that goes into even more allusions and borrowing from the Deuterocanonicals is here (including prophecies): http://scripturecatholic.com/deuterocanon.html Another url that gives plenty of examples of the deliberate use of the Deuterocanonicals are here (at the bottom of the url) http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Forum/3975/deuter.htm
You wrote,
quote:
Hmm, guess you think Jerome and all the other church fathers are not a part of the “Church of the living God” either.
Reference above...
< Message edited by gpaatfwc -- 7/20/2007 9:23:09 PM >
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Catholic Vs. Protestant Bible - 7/20/2007 10:50:52 PM
|
|
|
GoodME_II
Posts: 366
Joined: 12/15/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: JesKlu
Additions to Esther - These additions are of nine parts:
You have your "information" transliterated. The information that you describe was not "added to"; this is your point of reference because you reject the Scriptures that most found authoritative until 1829, where they were REMOVED by a small minority subset of Christianity.
You should re-write this; change the "Added to" to "Removed" and cite why these passges were deleted from the authorized KJV in 1829.
I'll give you a clue - Google "England" and "Catholic Emancipation Act". You will see a secular political event that corresponded to the deletion of this material from Bibles accepted by a small group of Christians.
I'll let you draw your own conclusions as to the coincidence of politics and the definition of the State Religion of England, which is the authority to which you assent, in terms of defining canonical Scriptural content for your Faith practice.
_____________________________
"For where jealousy and selfish ambition exist, there is disorder and every foul practice. But the wisdom from above is...peaceable, gentle, compliant, full of...good fruits...And the fruit of righteousness is sown in peace for those who cultivate peace"
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Catholic Vs. Protestant Bible - 7/20/2007 11:24:43 PM
|
|
|
colliefan
Posts: 2518
Joined: 4/12/2005
From: Raleigh, NC
Status: offline
|
Don't have the time to search the entire thread but want to ask my Cathlolic brethren the origin of the seven deadly sins? Why seven and not some other number?
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Catholic Vs. Protestant Bible - 7/20/2007 11:39:57 PM
|
|
|
GoodME_II
Posts: 366
Joined: 12/15/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: colliefan
Don't have the time to search the entire thread but want to ask my Cathlolic brethren the origin of the seven deadly sins? Why seven and not some other number?
The "seven deadly sins" are the antitheses of the seven capital virtues: Humility, Kindness, Diligence, Forgiveness (Patience), Charity (Liberality), Temperence (Abstinence) and Chastity.
For a fun-filled, rainy-day word game, write down the seven deadly sins and pair them with their antithetical capital virtue (Weeeeeeeee!)
There is also a listing that is a combination of the 4 cardinal virtues (Prudence, Justice, Temperence and Fortitude) with the three theological vurtues (Faith, Hope and Love).
These are harder to cross to the seven deadly sins.
7 is a number associated with wholeness or completeness.
This stuff has been around awhile - Plato recognized (or maybe even originated) the idea of the 4 cardinal virtues.
_____________________________
"For where jealousy and selfish ambition exist, there is disorder and every foul practice. But the wisdom from above is...peaceable, gentle, compliant, full of...good fruits...And the fruit of righteousness is sown in peace for those who cultivate peace"
|
|
| | |
Forum Tools
Printable Version
