Skip to comments.But Seriously — Who Holds the Bible’s Copyright?
Posted on 04/03/2013 3:43:07 PM PDT by NYer
Q: Okay, so what is the Christian account of how revelation occurred?
As Elmer Fudd might say, Vewy, vewy swowly. Divine revelation didnt happen in a blinding flashsuch as God dropping the Summa Theologiae on top of a mountain and waiting for people to invent the Latin language so they could read it. (Though He could have given them magical spectacles that would translate it for them .) It seems that God preferred to slowly unfold His personality and His will for us through the course of tangled, messy human history. We might wonder why, and call up the divine customer service line to ask why in heck human nature arrived in the mail without the instructions. I dont pretend to know what He was thinking here, but I find it aesthetically fitting that our knowledge of God evolved in much the way that animal species did, over a long time and by fits and starts, with sudden leaps whenever God saw fit, until finally the world was ready to receive the final product: in creation, man, in revelation, the Son of Man. God seems to prefer planting seeds to winding up robots.
So we start with traces of a primitive monotheism among some scattered peoples of the worldwhich might have been long-faded memories of what Adam told his children about the whole apple incident, combined with crude deductions that boil down to Nothing comes from nothing. But mankind pretty much wandered around with no more than that for quite some time, and this was when he employed the inductive method to discover the hemorrhoid god.
The first incident in Jewish-Christian scriptures that suggests God revealed Himself to us after that is the rather discouraging narrative of Noah. According to the story, the human race went so wrong so fast that God decided to backspace over most of it, leaving only a single righteous family, trapped on a stinky boat with way too many pets. When they landed, they had no more idea of what to do with themselves than the cast of Gilligans Island, so God gave them instructions: We call this the Covenant of Noah. The Jews believe that these are the only commandments God gave to the Gentiles7 of them, instead of 613and that the rest of us can please God just by keeping them. Thats the reason that Jews dont generally try to make converts. (Who are we to run around making things harder for people? Feh!) The Jewish Talmud enumerates the 7 laws of Noah as follows:
Most of this sounds fairly obvious and commonsensicalthough we might wonder why it was necessary to tell people to stop pulling off pieces of live animals and eating them. They must have gotten into some pretty bad habits while they were still stuck on that ark.
Q: That ark must have been the size of Alabama
I know, I know.
Q. to fit all those elephants, hippos, rhinos, tree sloths, polar bears, gorillas, lions and moose
Okay, smart guy.
Q. not to mention breeding pairs of more than 1,000,000 species of insects. Sure theyre mostly small, but those creepy-crawlies add up.
Spoken like a true-believing member of Campus Crusade for Cthulu, complete with a bad case of acne and involuntary celibacy. Maybe you should focus on Onan instead of Noah.
Look, theres a reason why Catholics dont read the bible in an exclusively literal sense, and havent since the time of Origen (+253). The Church looks at the books of scripture according to the genres in which they were written (history, allegory, wisdom, prophecy, and so on). And this story, clearly, was intended as allegorywhich means that on top of some historical content (and theres flotsam from flood-narratives in the basement of most ancient cultures) the writer piled up details to make a point. Unlike liberal Protestants, we dont use this principle to explain away Jesus miracles and the moral law. Nor are we fundamentalists who take everything in the bible literallyexcept for This is my body, (Luke 22: 19) Thou art Peter, (Matthew 16: 18) and No, your pastor cant get divorced. (Cleopatra 7: 14) The Church responded to biblical criticism with appropriate skepticism at first, and accepted the useful parts (like reading original languages and looking for ancient manuscripts), without throwing out the traditional mode of reading the bible in light of how the Church Fathers traditionally understood it.
Q. Why should the Church be the interpreter of the bible?
In the case of the New Testament, the Church had transcribed the books; shouldnt we own the copyright to our own memoirs? When the list of accepted gospels and epistles was drawn up, there were more surplus candidates milling around than in downtown Manchester, New Hampshire, before a primarysome of them inspirational but probably inauthentic, like the Protoevangelium that tells the story of Marys childhood; others creepily gnostic, like the Gospel of Thomas, which has Jesus using His superpowers to wreak revenge on His schoolmates. (That gospel is always popular, since it shows Jesus doing exactly what each of us would really do in His place.) The decision on which books were divinely inspired was based largely on the evidence of the liturgy: which books had been used in churches for services in the most places for the longest. As I like to tell Jehovahs Witnesses who come to my door: that bible youre waving at me was codified by a council of Catholic bishops who prayed to Mary and the saints, baptized infants, and venerated the Eucharist. So you could say that as the original, earthly author and editor, the Church has a better claim of knowing how to read it than the reporters at National Geographicwho every Christmas or Easter discover some new and tantalizing scrap of papyrus containing gnostic sex magic tips or Judas To-do list.
In the case of the Old Testament, the Church draws heavily on how Jews traditionally read their own scripturesbut with one important and obvious difference. We are the descendants of the faction of Jews who accepted Christ as the Messiah and evangelized the gentiles, all the while considering themselves the faithful remnant whod remained true to the faith of Abraham. So we see throughout the Old Testament foreshadowings of Christ, for instance in Abrahams sacrifice, and Isaiahs references to the suffering servant. The Jews who were skeptical of Jesus believed that they were heroically resisting a blasphemous false prophet whod tempted them to idolatry. As the Church spread and gained political clout, and Christians began to shamefully mistreat the people from whom theyd gotten monotheism in the first place, there surely was genuine heroism entailed in standing firm. I often wonder how many Jews would be drawn to Jesus if they could separate Him from the sins committed against their great-grandparents in His name .
The version of the Old Testament that Catholics and Orthodox use is different from what Jews use today. Our version, based on the Septuagint translation into Greek, is somewhat longer, and includes some later documents that Jews accepted right up to the time Saint Paul convertedbooks that illustrate a lot of the mature developments in Judaism which led up to the coming of Christ. The very fact that Christian apostles were using these books may have led the rabbis to eventually reject them. (Since the biblical references to Purgatory can be found in these books, Martin Luther and the Anglicans also excluded them.) Ironically, the Book of Maccabees exists in Catholic bibles but not Jewish ones, and right up until Vatican II we had a Feast of the Maccabeeswhich means that you could call Chanukah a Catholic holiday. But dont tell the judges in New York City, or theyll pull all the menorahs out of the schools.
“we might wonder why it was necessary to tell people to stop pulling off pieces of live animals and eating them. They must have gotten into some pretty bad habits while they were still stuck on that ark.”
Well, it kind of makes a bit of sense. You’ve only got 8 people to feed, on a boat full of animals with no refrigeration. If you kill a whole cow, most of it’s going to go bad before you can eat it. If you just amputate one leg and cauterize it, well, problem solved.
Good responses. However, the interpretative methods Christians used at the time of Origen predate Christian scriptures. They actually borrowed this from Jewish scriptural scholarship.
Philo of Alexandria and others were already fusing Greek methods of critical thought with the Jewish Religious scriptures well before the time of Jesus.
This is why a practice of detailed exegesis was already relevant in the discussions Jesus made in the gospels.
“Since the biblical references to Purgatory can be found in these books, Martin Luther and the Anglicans also excluded them.”
That’s an easy poke in the eye to Protestants, but it really isn’t the main reason the books were excluded. They were separated from Scripture by Protestants for much the same reasons that they were always kept separate from the NT and OT by the Catholics themselves, mainly because they were written after God had caused the spirit of prophecy to depart from Israel, therefore their inspired nature is rightfully suspect.
The Westminster Confession on the subject:
“I. Although the light of nature, and the works of creation and providence, do so far manifest the goodness, wisdom, and power of God, as to leave men inexcusable; yet are they not sufficient to give that knowledge of God, and of his will, which is necessary unto salvation; therefore it pleased the Lord, at sundry times, and in divers manners, to reveal himself, and to declare that his will unto his Church; and afterwards for the better preserving and propagating of the truth, and for the more sure establishment and comfort of the Church against the corruption of the flesh, and the malice of Satan and of the world, to commit the same wholly unto writing; which maketh the holy Scripture to be most necessary; those former ways of God’s revealing his will unto his people being now ceased. “
The Bible speaks of itself:
“All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness”
2 Timothy 3:16
As it survives today, Codex Sinaiticus comprises just over 400 large leaves of prepared animal skin, each of which measures 15 inches by 13.5 inches (380 millimeters by 345 millimeters). It is the oldest book that contains a complete New Testament and is only missing parts of the Old Testament and the Apocrypha.
The 4th-century book, written in Greek, has been digitally reunited in a project involving groups from Britain, Germany, Russia and Egypt, which each possessed parts of the 1,600-year-old manuscript.
They worked together to publish new research into the history of the Codex and transcribed 650,000 words over a four-year period.
The Codex was both a key Christian text and “a landmark in the history of the book, as it is arguably the oldest large-bound book to have survived,” McKendrick said.....
That term is most often associated with LDS and Seventh Day Adventists they both differ in its meaning. What context are you referring to it?
So when did the spirit of prophecy depart Israel? Wasn't John the Baptist a prophet?
Peace be with you
“that they were always kept separate from the NT and OT by the Catholics themselves, mainly because they were written after God had caused the spirit of prophecy to depart from Israel, therefore their inspired nature is rightfully suspect.”
Which is why the definitive Latin version of scripture excluded them. Oh wait. No, it didn’t.
The Vulgate included them. As of 400 AD.
Sinaiticus has an older brother. Codex Vaticanus. :)
No, they weren't. St. Jerome included them in the OT, they are in the ordinary OT order in the Vulgate and in the Douay-Rheims (the contemporary of the KJV).
More importantly, they were in the Septuagint, which was the Hebrew scripture in common use at the time of Christ. When Jesus Himself quotes Scripture, he quotes from the Septuagint.
The KJV cut the "Apocrypha" out because they translated the OT directly from the Hebrew, and by the time the KJV picked up the Hebrew scriptures, the Jews had rejected these books for reasons of their own (mostly having to do with the mention of eternal life and the Messiah). Luther didn't like them either because of the prayers for the dead.
The manuscript is believed to have been housed in Caesarea in the 6th century, together with the Codex Sinaiticus, as they have the same unique divisions of chapters in the Acts. It came to Italy probably from Constantinople after the Council of Florence (14381445).
The manuscript has been housed in the Vatican Library (founded by Pope Nicholas V in 1448) for as long as it has been known, appearing in the library’s earliest catalog of 1475 (with shelf number 1209), and in the 1481 catalog. In a catalog from 1481 it was described as a “Biblia in tribus columnis ex memb.”
***No, they weren’t. St. Jerome included them in the OT,****
Jerome wanted to exclude them but was told by the Pope to keep them in.
It is interesting that some other books were written into early Greek manuscripts that we do not consider “scripture” such as THE SHEPHERD OF HERMAS.
Some parts were also excluded such as the last verses of Mark although one bible did leave a blank area so it could be added later. It wasn’t.
“St. Jerome included them in the OT”
“On the other hand, Jerome (in Protogus Galeatus) declared that all books outside the Hebrew canon were apocryphal. In practice, Jerome treated some books outside the Hebrew canon as if they were canonical, and the Western Church did not accept Jerome’s definition of apocrypha, instead retaining the word’s prior meaning (see: Deuterocanon). As a result, various church authorities labeled different books as apocrypha, treating them with varying levels of regard.”
“More importantly, they were in the Septuagint, which was the Hebrew scripture in common use at the time of Christ.”
“Some apocryphal books were included in the Septuagint, a Greek translation of the Hebrew Scriptures compiled around 280 B.C., with little distinction made between them and the rest of the Old Testament. Origen, Clement and others cited some apocryphal books as “scripture,” “divine scripture,” “inspired,” and the like. On the other hand, teachers connected with Palestine and familiar with the Hebrew canon excluded from the canon all of the Old Testament not found there. This view is reflected in the canon of Melito of Sardis, and in the prefaces and letters of Jerome. A third view was that the books were not as valuable as the canonical scriptures of the Hebrew collection, but were of value for moral uses, as introductory texts for new converts from paganism, and to be read in congregations. They were referred to as “ecclesiastical” works by Rufinus.”
Despite the recent attempts by Catholics to paint the Apocrypha as universally accepted before Luther came along and cut them out because of some not so noble motives, it’s simply not true. The books were always a matter of some controversy in the church, from the early days up until the Reformation. It’s just convenient for you to now whitewash those facts in order to have another charge to level at Protestants.
Okay, exactly where does the Bible tell you 2 Timothy is scripture?
Yes, I was mistaken, sorry about that. See my other response above, however. Included or not, they were still disputed as to whether they carried the full wait of the universally accepted Hebrew scriptures, from the early days of the church. The notion that something was different about these books didn’t start with Luther, and therefore attributing some peculiarly Protestant motive for their exclusion isn’t accurate.
“Okay, exactly where does the Bible tell you 2 Timothy is scripture?”
It is written by the apostle Paul. Apostles were those directly ordained by Jesus to be authoritative teachers of official doctrine.
Of course, we only know that because we see it happening in the gospels, and in Acts. So then, we can dispute their authority, and etc. It is indeed circular reasoning. The Bible claims to be God’s Word; it proves itself; the various books were cited as authoritatively God’s word in other books; its prophecies all came true, except for the ones we still wait upon (Jesus’ second coming), it all agrees with itself; and the Holy Spirit causes us to recognize God’s very voice in it.
Certainly we can see the early church so accepted it. Perhaps this trumps the “Scripture verifies itself” argument in your mind. But even Scripture details failures and want of right doctrine and living in the early church times. So, while the church’s acceptance of the Bible is certainly reassuring, for me I can’t make the church’s acceptance the criteria for believing it. The Bible stands on its own authority.
“That term is most often associated with LDS and Seventh Day Adventists they both differ in its meaning.”
I’m neither of those sects, nor do I put much stock in their peculiar beliefs. I’m basing my assessment on the beliefs of those who probably know best, the Jews themselves. For example:
“God communicated to people through prophecy for nearly the entire biblical period, from Adam until Malachi. According to a prevalent Jewish tradition, prophecy ceased with Malachi, not to be renewed until the messianic age.”
Now, of course I believe John the Baptist was a prophet, but he was a prophet serving a particular purpose: to announce the coming of Christ and prepare Israel to receive Him. So, he is actually the first prophet of the Messianic age, not a prophet of the Old Covenant, even though the Jews failed to fully recognize him.
There was no universal canon in the early church.
The only scriptures at that point in time that were widely used that they would have been familiar with is the Septuagint. And all these books were included in the Septuagint.
“therefore attributing some peculiarly Protestant motive for their exclusion isnt accurate.”
Then why doesn’t Eastern Orthodoxy exclude them? The motivation for their removal was a protestant novelty.
Slight correction; the Septuagint was the Greek translation of the Old Testament, not the Hebrew. It should be noted that it was the Scripture read by the vast majority of the world's first century Jews, most of whom lived outside Israel.
As a side note it was this Scripture that St. Paul referenced when preaching the Gospel to both the Jews and the Gentiles in Asia minor, Greece and Italy. So when the Bereans searched Scripture it was the Septuagint they searched.
Peace be with you
“it proves itself”
As opposed to the Didache?
“The Bible stands on its own authority.”
Except that the Bible accords to itself no such authority. Who wrote the Bible? The early Church. Who put the first bible and the Canon together? The Church with Pope Damasus in 400 AD. Why is scripture authoritative? Because of the Church. You cannot argue that Scripture is authoritative and the Church itself is not anymore so than you can divorce Apostles from the Church.
Thanks for posting.
This link from the article looks extremely promising - for students of all ages:
“There was no universal canon in the early church.”
I didn’t say universally church-accepted canon, I said universally accepted Hebrew canon, meaning the books which all Jews recognized as inspired Scripture.
“Then why doesnt Eastern Orthodoxy exclude them? The motivation for their removal was a protestant novelty.”
You could say the decision to exclude them was a Protestant one, but the motivation certainly wasn’t, since the books were clearly in question for many centuries before Luther lived. Jerome tried to exclude them, was he a Protestant?
Interesting. An electronic copy should be available, but where?
I asked you this question: “Okay, exactly where does the Bible tell you 2 Timothy is scripture?
Do you have an actual verse or not?
“The Bible claims to be Gods Word;”
No. Certains books IN the Bible claim that.
“it proves itself;”
Not on this point it doesn’t.
“the various books were cited as authoritatively Gods word in other books;”
False. The New Testament, for instance, never cited or quoted - if I recall correctly - Ezra, Nehemiah, Esther, Ecclesiastes, or the Song of Solomon.
“its prophecies all came true, except for the ones we still wait upon (Jesus second coming), it all agrees with itself; and the Holy Spirit causes us to recognize Gods very voice in it.”
Do you have a verse about 2 Timothy or not?
“Certainly we can see the early church so accepted it.”
Show me in the Bible where it says the “early church so accepted it.”
“Perhaps this trumps the Scripture verifies itself argument in your mind.”
There is no such argument of any validity really.
“But even Scripture details failures and want of right doctrine and living in the early church times.”
Just show me EXACTLY where it says 2 Timothy is scripture. Can you do it or not?
“So, while the churchs acceptance of the Bible is certainly reassuring, for me I cant make the churchs acceptance the criteria for believing it. The Bible stands on its own authority.”
Show me where the Bible tells you - on its own authority - that Matthew wrote a gospel. After you fail to do that, and you will, show me where the Gospel of Matthew says it is inspired.
Get back to me when you actually can answer the simple questions I asked.
“Except that the Bible accords to itself no such authority.”
Heb 4:12 -
“For the word of God is alive and active. Sharper than any double-edged sword, it penetrates even to dividing soul and spirit, joints and marrow; it judges the thoughts and attitudes of the heart.”
Isaiah 55:11 -
“So shall my word be that goeth forth out of my mouth: it shall not return unto me void, but it shall accomplish that which I please, and it shall prosper [in the thing] whereto I sent it.”
John 1:1-2 - “
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.”
Seems to me that you are forgetting the Word of God is much more than a simple dusty tome compiled by men long ago. The Word of God IS God, and carries all of the authority of God, as God’s authority cannot be diminished.
“since the books were clearly in question for many centuries”
No, they were not. Jerome lived in the 4th century. That was 12 centuries prior to Luther.
“Jerome tried to exclude them, was he a Protestant?”
Jerome did not do that. Jerome’s job was to prepare the Latin Vulgate translation. To prepare the Vulgate, he had to get the best Hebrew and Greek manuscripts. For some books he had Hebrew manuscripts - for others he had Greek Manuscripts. Some of the books in the Old Testament were originally written in Greek - but Jerome didn’t know this. What he did know is that some had Greek manuscripts and others had Hebrew manuscripts.
He expressed his concern that he only had Greek and not Hebrew manuscripts for some and expressed that concern to Pope Damasus. Damasus included them in the canon, where they remained for 12 centuries prior to Luther.
Let me put it another way. Jerome was closer to the founding of the City, than Luther was to Jerome.
And you can infer from those references as to which books ought to be contained in the Canon?
gotta point out....don't catholics argue "we don't PRAY to mary...we ask her to intercede?"
well...seems to be a bit of gray area there.
No, I infer from those references that the Word of God reveals itself to man as it chooses, because the Word is God, and has full authority of God to do His bidding. It won’t return to Him without fulfilling His purpose, and nothing man can do can thwart His purpose.
They tell me that Scripture is self-proving, for God is self-proving. When he stood before Abram, or Noah, or Saul, he didn’t need any stamp of approval from a religious body, and neither does his Word. If a man met Christ and denied Him, it wasn’t because the evidence that Jesus was Christ was missing, and if a man reads the Bible and denies it is the Word of God, neither is that because the evidence of the provenance is missing from the Bible.
Then why do you tear parts out?
Any way you try to slice it, there was a question about the authenticity, and inspiration about the books long before Luther showed up. To paraphrase Mr. Joel, Luther didn’t start the fire.
I didn’t tear anything out. I read the Apocrypha with an open mind, just like I read the Scriptures, and most of the pseudoepigraphia and other related literature. The divine nature of the OT and NT is self-evident, while the others are, at best, partially, and at worst wholly the uninspired work of men.
If there is some vital divine message that is in those other works that I failed to detect, then I am comfortable that God, for His reasons, chose not to reveal it to me.
What do they call it when you dig up something that’s been dead 12 centuries old and then try to bring it back to life?
I thought it was Jesus’ job to intercede for us.
The Apocrypha was part of the King James translation. In fact, it was the first part finished.
“The divine nature of the OT and NT is self-evident, while the others are, at best, partially, and at worst wholly the uninspired work of men.”
By definition if this were so we wouldn’t be having this argument. :)
Unsurprisingly the list of books that you regard as ‘self evidently true’ coincides with the list of books that you regard as authoritative. Since your list differs from my list, I can only conclude that scripture isn’t ‘self-evidently inspired’.
“You cannot argue that Scripture is authoritative and the Church itself is not anymore so than you can divorce Apostles from the Church.”
No, but you can argue as to what the relative degrees of authority are. Christ obviously had greater authority than the Apostles who followed Him, who had greater authority than the disciples who followed them. Similarly, the Scriptures, being the Word of God, carry greater authority than the Church which follows them. You claim the Church “wrote” the Bible, but the Bible is clear that its author is God, and He doesn’t share a credit with anyone else.
So according to this article, the story of Jonah was not a historical account, but simply an allegory.
And consistent with this, RC scholarship also teaches that that Genesis 2 (Adam and Eve and creation details) and Gn. 3 (the story of the Fall), Gn. 4:1-16 (Cain and Abel), Gn. 6-8 (Noah and the Flood), and Gn. 11:1-9 (Tower of Babel are folktales, using allegory to teach a religious lesson.
Also, the story of Balaam and the donkey and the angel (Num. 22:1-21; 22:36-38) was a fable, and the “sons of God” in Gn. 6 are really the celestial beings of mythology.
Furthermore, the records of Gn. (chapters) 37-50 (Joseph), 12-36 (Abraham, Issaac, Jacob), Exodus, Judges 13-16 (Samson) 1Sam. 17 (David and Goliath) and that of the Exodus are stories which are “historical at their core,” but overall the author simply used mere “traditions” to teach a religious lesson.
What this also means is that the Bible’s attribution of Divine sanction to wars of conquest, cannot be qualified as revelation from God, and things like clouds, angels (blasting trumpets), smoke, fire, earthquakes,lighting, thunder, war, calamities, lies and persecution are Biblical figures of speech.
In addition, the sea Moses parted for Israelites to cross over that was the Reed Sea, which was probably a body of shallow water somewhat to the north of the present deep Red Sea. Thus rendered, the miracle would have been Pharaohs army drowning in shallow waters,
They also speculate that some of the miracle stories of Jesus in the New Testament (the fulfillment of of the Hebrew Bible) may be adaptations of similar ones in the Old Testament, and that the Lord may not have actually been involved in the debates the gospel writers record He was in, and thinks that most of which Jesus is recorded as saying was probably theological elaboration by the writers.`
They even cast doubt on much of the Lord’s sayings, teaching that The Church was so firmly convinced that the risen Lord who is Jesus of history lived in her, and taught through her, that she expressed her teaching in the form of Jesus sayings. The words are not Jesus but from the Church.
They ask, Can we discover at least some words of Jesus that have escaped such elaboration? Bible scholars point to the very short sayings of Jesus, as for example those put together by Matthew in chapter 5, 1-12 - http://peacebyjesus.witnesstoday.org/Ancients_on_Scripture.html#Remarks
Now how many traditional RCs subscribe to this?
All of which impugns the overall literal nature the O.T. historical accounts, and as Scripture interprets Scripture, we see that the Holy Spirit refers to such stories as being literal historical events (Adam and Eve: Mt. 19:4; Abraham, Issac, Exodus and Moses: Acts 7; Rm. 4; Heb. 11; Jonah and the fish: Mt. 12:39-41; Balaam and the donkey: 2Pt. 2:15; Jude. 1:1; Rev. 2:14). Indeed the serpent beguiled Eve through his subtlety (2Cor. 11:3; Rev. 12:9), and if Jonah did not spend 3 days and 3 nights in the belly of the whale then neither did the Lord, while Israel’s history is always and inclusively treated as literal.
How was that not the purpose of all the prophets?
Peace be to you
yup. true. ends there.
“By definition if this were so we wouldnt be having this argument. :)”
Okay, perhaps self-evident is not exactly the correct term. Self-revealing is a better representation of what I mean.
The Word reveals itself, to whom God wills to reveal it. It’s a good thing too, that God did not rely on His Word being proved by the evidences of man, otherwise the Bible would have no more claim to authority than any other book written by men but claimed to be divine.
“Unsurprisingly the list of books that you regard as self evidently true coincides with the list of books that you regard as authoritative.”
Of course it’s unsurprising. It would be surprising if I put my faith in books that seemed to be quite obviously not the work of God. That would be foolishness.
“How was that not the purpose of all the prophets?”
I suppose you can make that statement in the general sense, but each prophet had particular circumstances they were sent to address in their present times. Since none but John the Baptist were sent in proximity to Christ’s birth, then none of those particular missions were to prepare Israel for Christ’s immanent arrival. Jeremiah, Isaiah, etc, all had more immediate matters happening in their own lifetimes to attend to.
The author of the article and many posters here seem to forget the role of God in communicating His Word to each and every believer in their human spirit.
He is a living God, not a dead God, nor does He leave the sanctification of our souls to those also dead or out of fellowship with Him.
As you have already been shown, the fact is that while the apocrypha was generally accepted, debate and doubts about books continued right into Trent, and until then there was no infallible, indisputable canon for Luther to and some RCs to dissent from.
Meanwhile, the EOs and other Catholics have a different canon than Rome's but that never seems to be much of problem with RCs.
That said, i would say the wisdom of Solomon , if it was indeed written prior to the resurrection, seems to come close to being inspired of God, though apparently falsely attributed to Solomon.
Good post. I’d also like to point out that there is no consistent contextual basis for separating out the “non-historical” from the “historical”, like the author of the article suggests.
The parts which modernists wish to regard as “non-historical” are simply the parts that they find inconvenient to defend in the face of attack by humanists, rationalists, atheists, etc. For example, there is no distinction in the text between the parts of Genesis that are accepted as “historical” and the parts they want to view as “non-historical”. It’s a single narrative written as if the entire work is a history, with no indication in the text that any of it is allegorical. Yet, somehow, all the parts that are most heavily ridiculed by nonbelievers just happen to be the ones that meet the mysterious standards to be deemed “non-historical”. It stretches the bounds of reason to imagine that this is just a coincidence produced by a sound exegetical method.
This written by a Roman Catholic is a joke right ?
I think the bible source text predates copyright laws.
Translations of it; however; are the PROPERTY of the TRANSLATORS.