Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Protecting God’s Word From “Bible Christians”
Crisis Magazine ^ | October 3, 2014 | RICHARD BECKER

Posted on 10/03/2014 2:33:43 PM PDT by NYer

Holy Bible graphic

“Stand firm and hold fast to the traditions that you were taught,
either by an oral statement or by a letter of ours.”
~ St. Paul to the Thessalonians

A former student of mine is thinking of becoming a Catholic, and she had a question for me. “I don’t understand the deuterocanonical books,” she ventured. “If the Catholic faith is supposed to be a fulfillment of the Jewish faith, why do Catholics accept those books and the Jews don’t?” She’d done her homework, and was troubled that the seven books and other writings of the deuterocanon had been preserved only in Greek instead of Hebrew like the rest of the Jewish scriptures—which is part of the reason why they were classified, even by Catholics, as a “second” (deutero) canon.

My student went on. “I’m just struggling because there are a lot of references to those books in Church doctrine, but they aren’t considered inspired Scripture. Why did Luther feel those books needed to be taken out?” she asked. “And why are Protestants so against them?”

The short answer sounds petty and mean, but it’s true nonetheless: Luther jettisoned those “extra” Old Testament books—Tobit, Sirach, 1 and 2 Maccabees, and the like—because they were inconvenient. The Apocrypha (or, “false writings”), as they came to be known, supported pesky Catholic doctrines that Luther and other reformers wanted to suppress—praying for the dead, for instance, and the intercession of the saints. Here’s John Calvin on the subject:

Add to this, that they provide themselves with new supports when they give full authority to the Apocryphal books. Out of the second of the Maccabees they will prove Purgatory and the worship of saints; out of Tobit satisfactions, exorcisms, and what not. From Ecclesiasticus they will borrow not a little. For from whence could they better draw their dregs?

However, the deuterocanonical literature was (and is) prominent in the liturgy and very familiar to that first generation of Protestant converts, so Luther and company couldn’t very well ignore it altogether. Consequently, those seven “apocryphal” books, along with the Greek portions of Esther and Daniel, were relegated to an appendix in early Protestant translations of the Bible.

Eventually, in the nineteenth century sometime, many Protestant Bible publishers starting dropping the appendix altogether, and the modern translations used by most evangelicals today don’t even reference the Apocrypha at all. Thus, the myth is perpetuated that nefarious popes and bishops have gotten away with brazenly foisting a bunch of bogus scripture on the ignorant Catholic masses.

Nothing could be further from the truth.

To begin with, it was Luther and Calvin and the other reformers who did all the foisting. The Old Testament that Christians had been using for 1,500 years had always included the so-called Apocrypha, and there was never a question as to its canonicity. Thus, by selectively editing and streamlining their own versions of the Bible according to their sectarian biases (including, in Luther’s case, both Testaments, Old and New), the reformers engaged in a theological con game. To make matters worse, they covered their tracks by pointing fingers at the Catholic Church for “adding” phony texts to the closed canon of Hebrew Sacred Writ.

In this sense, the reformers were anticipating what I call the Twain-Jefferson approach to canonical revisionism. It involves two simple steps.

The reformers justified their Twain-Jefferson humbug by pointing to the canon of scriptures in use by European Jews during that time, and it did not include those extra Catholic books—case closed! Still unconvinced? Today’s defenders of the reformers’ biblical reshaping will then proceed to throw around historical precedent and references to the first-century Council of Jamnia, but it’s all really smoke and mirrors.

The fact is that the first-century Jewish canon was pretty mutable and there was no universal definitive list of sacred texts. On the other hand, it is indisputable that the version being used by Jesus and the Apostles during that time was the Septuagint—the Greek version of the Hebrew scriptures that included Luther’s rejected apocryphal books. SCORE: Deuterocanon – 1; Twain-Jefferson Revisionism – 0.

But this is all beside the point. It’s like an argument about creationism vs. evolution that gets funneled in the direction of whether dinosaurs could’ve been on board Noah’s Ark. Once you’re arguing about that, you’re no longer arguing about the bigger issue of the historicity of those early chapters in Genesis. The parallel red herring here is arguing over the content of the Christian Old Testament canon instead of considering the nature of authority itself and how it’s supposed to work in the Church, especially with regards to the Bible.

I mean, even if we can settle what the canon should include, we don’t have the autographs (original documents) from any biblical books anyway. While we affirm the Church’s teaching that all Scripture is inspired and teaches “solidly, faithfully and without error that truth which God wanted put into sacred writings” (DV 11), there are no absolutes when it comes to the precise content of the Bible.

Can there be any doubt that this is by God’s design? Without the autographs, we are much less tempted to worship a static book instead of the One it reveals to us. Even so, it’s true that we are still encouraged to venerate the Scriptures, but we worship the incarnate Word—and we ought not confuse the two. John the Baptist said as much when he painstakingly distinguished between himself, the announcer, and the actual Christ he was announcing. The Catechism, quoting St. Bernard, offers a further helpful distinction:

The Christian faith is not a “religion of the book.” Christianity is the religion of the “Word” of God, a word which is “not a written and mute word, but the Word is incarnate and living.”

Anyway, with regards to authority and the canon of Scripture, Mark Shea couldn’t have put it more succinctly than his recent response to a request for a summary of why the deuterocanon should be included in the Bible:

Because the Church in union with Peter, the pillar and ground of the truth (1 Timothy 3:15) granted authority by Christ to loose and bind (Matthew 16:19), says they should be.

Right. The Church says so, and that’s good enough.

For it’s the Church who gives us the Scriptures. It’s the Church who preserves the Scriptures and tells us to turn to them. It’s the Church who bathes us in the Scriptures with the liturgy, day in and day out, constantly watering our souls with God’s Word. Isn’t it a bit bizarre to be challenging the Church with regards to which Scriptures she’s feeding us with? “No, mother,” the infant cries, “not breast milk! I want Ovaltine! Better yet, how about some Sprite!”

Think of it this way. My daughter Margaret and I share an intense devotion to Betty Smith’s remarkable novel, A Tree Grows in Brooklyn. It’s a bittersweet family tale of impoverishment, tragedy, and perseverance, and we often remark how curious it is that Smith’s epic story receives so little attention.

I was rooting around the sale shelf at the public library one day, and I happened upon a paperback with the name “Betty Smith” on the spine. I took a closer look: Joy in the Morning, a 1963 novel of romance and the struggles of newlyweds, and it was indeed by the same Smith of Tree fame. I snatched it up for Meg.

The other day, Meg thanked me for the book, and asked me to be on the lookout for others by Smith. “It wasn’t nearly as good as Tree,” she said, “and I don’t expect any of her others to be as good. But I want to read everything she wrote because Tree was so wonderful.”

See, she wants to get to know Betty Smith because of what she encountered in A Tree Grows in Brooklyn. And all we have are her books and other writings; Betty Smith herself is gone.

But Jesus isn’t like that. We have the book, yes, but we have more. We still have the Word himself.



TOPICS: Apologetics; Catholic; Evangelical Christian; Theology
KEYWORDS: apocrypha; bible; calvin; christians; herewegoagain; luther
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 1,021-1,0401,041-1,0601,061-1,0801,081-1,086 next last
To: Rumplemeyer

It appears that it is you that fail to understand, but carry on, as I know you will...


1,041 posted on 10/12/2014 6:11:02 PM PDT by editor-surveyor (Freepers: Not as smart as I'd hoped they'd be)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 958 | View Replies]

To: Springfield Reformer

I think the reason you chafe at Nicolaitan is becoming more and more obvious.

In Yeshua’s assembly, all are equal, he told us so, and those that wish to be MORE equal will find themselves at the bottom of the pile.
.


1,042 posted on 10/12/2014 6:15:32 PM PDT by editor-surveyor (Freepers: Not as smart as I'd hoped they'd be)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 949 | View Replies]

To: CynicalBear

Said Forrest Gump.


1,043 posted on 10/12/2014 6:16:26 PM PDT by editor-surveyor (Freepers: Not as smart as I'd hoped they'd be)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 950 | View Replies]

To: boatbums

>> “Why don’t you ever post proof of the contentions you make?” <<

I have posted the lengthy proof numerous times.

Those that have the understanding from the Holy Spirit, read it and think. The rest haven’t the patience to read it, and pretend that they never saw it.
.


1,044 posted on 10/12/2014 6:21:24 PM PDT by editor-surveyor (Freepers: Not as smart as I'd hoped they'd be)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 956 | View Replies]

To: boatbums

>> “At the time Paul was around, there already WAS a Greek translation of the Hebrew books of Moses” <<

.
And Paul, being a student of Torah, knew that it was of no consequence, since as he stated, the oracles of God are committed only unto his people.

The Greek translation was unreadable by Greeks, due to its Hebrew syntax. It was written for Hebrews in Egypt.


1,045 posted on 10/12/2014 6:26:19 PM PDT by editor-surveyor (Freepers: Not as smart as I'd hoped they'd be)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 955 | View Replies]

To: editor-surveyor

No, what I chafe at is invented meanings with no basis in fact. That’s how we got in trouble with Rome in the first place. I’m not interested in replacing one error with another error. When you are ready to make your case that Nicolaitan, in context, is a reference to clergy lording it over the laity (or whatever other meaning you wish to show), just ping me. I have in other posts vigorously opposed and rejected the institution of a priestly class for the New Covenant. Just not on the basis of that one word. It doesn’t work.

Peace,

SR


1,046 posted on 10/12/2014 6:46:56 PM PDT by Springfield Reformer (Winston Churchill: No Peace Till Victory!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1042 | View Replies]

To: Springfield Reformer
this actually supports his conclusion that the "wider Alexandrian canon," as he calls it was a Christian, and not a Jewish development. The evidence drawn from the various canonical debates of the Jewish period do not revolve around the deuterocanonicals,...

So whatever Beckwith's hypothesis is, and evidence for it is, they is not applicable to the books in focus of the thread, the Deuterocanonical books.

Agree about affiliation alone not amounting to much, -- except maybe when a Catholic supports a Protestant doctrine or vice versa.

1,047 posted on 10/12/2014 7:23:24 PM PDT by annalex (fear them not)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1032 | View Replies]

To: boatbums
Like I've said already, if some wish to believe God breathed the words of the Apocrypha, they will have to explain how the Holy Spirit could have possibly made so many mistakes and contradicted Himself like these books often did.

The "all scripture" that Timothy knew from infancy was a certain version of the Septuagint. Not the apocrypha.

1,048 posted on 10/12/2014 7:25:52 PM PDT by annalex (fear them not)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1033 | View Replies]

To: Springfield Reformer

That’s fine.


1,049 posted on 10/12/2014 7:26:33 PM PDT by annalex (fear them not)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1034 | View Replies]

To: Syncro; Elsie
Jesus is her [Eve's] seed as well as Mary's

That is of course true but Jesus is uniquely one born of Mary Who uniquely defeated Satan, so it is the "seed" of Mary and not Eve that makes the reference to Jesus complete and precise. Otherwise Genesis 3:15 would be saying that every one shall crush the serpent because everyone is Eve's seed.

Read the scripture frequently and use your brain when doing so.

1,050 posted on 10/12/2014 7:31:32 PM PDT by annalex (fear them not)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1036 | View Replies]

To: sasportas; Syncro; Elsie; CynicalBear
how this prophetic crushing of the seed of the woman’s head is supposed to work out in real time?

Christ is born of Mary (of woman's "seed" alone), grows up, founds the Church, is killed by the Jews, rises up giving us life everlasting and so: the seed of Mary crushed Satan. Read Luke 1,2 and the final chapters of the Gospels. You'll be surprised what you'll learn.

1,051 posted on 10/12/2014 7:37:07 PM PDT by annalex (fear them not)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1037 | View Replies]

To: annalex
So whatever Beckwith's hypothesis is, and evidence for it is, they is not applicable to the books in focus of the thread, the Deuterocanonical books.

Um, that seems to be a compete misunderstanding of what I said. Beckwith's effort was to show that the Alexandrian canon that supposedly included the deuterocanonicals early on was in fact an unsustainable hypothesis, and that the Jewish canon of the First Century distinctly lacked the deuterocanonicals. I am uncertain how one can get from that to "not applicable to the books in focus of the thread, the Deuterocanonical books." Nope, I'm not seeing how you got there. Sometimes I can speculate on how a correspondent gets to a conclusion, even if I disagree with it. In this case, I'm not even that far along. I have no idea how you're getting that out of what I said. I am open to elucidation.

Peace,

SR

1,052 posted on 10/12/2014 7:41:57 PM PDT by Springfield Reformer (Winston Churchill: No Peace Till Victory!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1047 | View Replies]

To: Springfield Reformer
Ah, thanks. Then how does Beckwith go around the fact that Origen, Irinaeus, Justine Martyr, Hippolytus, etc. made comments about Deuterocanonical books? They can't be written in 4th century then, as Beckwith contends.

As to what the Jewish canon (whatever that means) was at the time is simply irrelevant. Obviously they used Hebrew scriptures in their worship. We know that the deuterocanonicals specifically are inspired because St. Paul made a reference to "all scripture" without excluding anything and without qualifying the language, -- so that was then the Septuagint of the 1st century that is wholly inspired.

1,053 posted on 10/12/2014 7:58:35 PM PDT by annalex (fear them not)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1052 | View Replies]

To: Springfield Reformer

That is just my point.

Any other meaning than the plain meaning is what is invented.

Why do you scoff at the plain meaning of the word?

It is supported by one of Yeshua’s principle positions WRT his assembly: Total Equality. He hated uppityness.

He totally denounced every facit of Phariseeism, both in oration, and through his miracles, each of which demolished one of their Takanot.
.


1,054 posted on 10/12/2014 8:02:13 PM PDT by editor-surveyor (Freepers: Not as smart as I'd hoped they'd be)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1046 | View Replies]

To: annalex

No, you’ve misunderstood. As I said before, Beckwith processes those patristic mentions. There is no contention that the books were individually written 4th Century. I didn’t say that, and Beckwith doesn’t say that. The contention is that their inclusion into any kind of canonical status didn’t happen First Century under the Jewish magisterium, but in the 4th Century, under ostensibly Christian scholarship. This precludes them from being part of the corpus of canonical text to which Paul was referring in his epistle to Timothy.


1,055 posted on 10/12/2014 8:37:41 PM PDT by Springfield Reformer (Winston Churchill: No Peace Till Victory!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1053 | View Replies]

To: editor-surveyor
Any other meaning than the plain meaning is what is invented.

I am waiting for you to prove what you consider the plain meaning, in context. From what I can see, in context, the screaming plain meaning is this is about Jesus condemning a group of people promoting the eating of meat offered to idols, and fornication. It was a cult with a name. If we said Herbert Armstrong's cult was really about "strong arms," because that's the "etymology," you would have to admit that was an erroneous way to find out what the error of the group actually was. You'd have to know what they taught. And in Revelation, we are explicitly told what the error of this group is. We don't have to guess based on hidden meanings in the name of the group. The error is the defilement of Christian conscience through idol meat and fornication. See? No guess work. And we didn't even have to solve a hidden "Bible code" to get it. Jesus spells it out. Isn't that enough?! It is for me.

Peace,

SR

1,056 posted on 10/12/2014 8:52:27 PM PDT by Springfield Reformer (Winston Churchill: No Peace Till Victory!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1054 | View Replies]

To: Springfield Reformer

Seriously?

I think you have hacked Springfield Reformer’s account!
.


1,057 posted on 10/12/2014 9:08:13 PM PDT by editor-surveyor (Freepers: Not as smart as I'd hoped they'd be)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1056 | View Replies]

To: editor-surveyor

LOL! ES, I think we’re done for now. You haven’t the provided evidence I asked for, so you’re giving me nothing to work with. Your choice.

Peace,

SR


1,058 posted on 10/12/2014 9:34:58 PM PDT by Springfield Reformer (Winston Churchill: No Peace Till Victory!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1057 | View Replies]

To: editor-surveyor

I have YET to see any “proof” from you, lengthy or otherwise. How about a link...I have a lot of patience.


1,059 posted on 10/12/2014 11:20:16 PM PDT by boatbums (God is ready to assume full responsibility for the life wholly yielded to Him.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1044 | View Replies]

To: annalex; Springfield Reformer
As to what the Jewish canon (whatever that means) was at the time is simply irrelevant. Obviously they used Hebrew scriptures in their worship. We know that the deuterocanonicals specifically are inspired because St. Paul made a reference to "all scripture" without excluding anything and without qualifying the language, -- so that was then the Septuagint of the 1st century that is wholly inspired.

I can't believe I'm arguing this topic on two threads today!

You cannot come to the conclusion that every book that was in the Greek Septuagint automatically made them "wholly inspired". Are you forgetting that there were not seven but FIFTEEN books that were noncanonical for the Jews yet were included in the Septuagint? Is it your contention that Paul included them as well as inspired by God? That is a leap that not even your church would make into the Council of Trent fifteen HUNDRED years after Paul wrote to Timothy!

1,060 posted on 10/12/2014 11:30:43 PM PDT by boatbums (God is ready to assume full responsibility for the life wholly yielded to Him.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1053 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 1,021-1,0401,041-1,0601,061-1,0801,081-1,086 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson