Posted on 02/15/2017 5:19:25 AM PST by Gamecock
“[Jesus] said to them, ‘These are my words that I spoke to you while I was still with you, that everything written about me in the Law of Moses and the Prophets and the Psalms must be fulfilled.’ ” - Luke 24:44
Facing the prospect of losing Europe to Protestantism, Roman Catholics convened a council to respond to the Protestant Reformers and their ideas. This gathering, the Council of Trent, met on and off from 1545 to 1563. Trent is one of the most important councils Rome has ever held, as it codified Roman Catholic dogma regarding justification, the sacraments, and other subjects.
One of the key questions Trent was tasked to answer for the church of Rome was the extent of the canon of Scripture—the list of books that the church acknowledges as divinely inspired and thus considers to be sources of theology. Against the Protestants, Trent declared that in addition to the thirty-nine books of the Old Testament that the Reformers received as Scripture, the Apocryphal or Deuterocanonical books are also canonical for the Roman Catholic Church. But in stating that Apocryphal/Deuterocanonical books such as 1–2 Maccabees, Tobit, Judith, and others are Scripture, the Council of Trent also went against church tradition. The top Bible scholars in church history, including Jerome, did not believe the Apocryphal books were Scripture, and even many Roman Catholics who attended the Council of Trent did not want Rome to declare those books canonical.
When we look to Jesus and the Apostles, it is clear that the Protestants were right. Every time Jesus and the Apostles quote from a book they regard as Scripture, they introduce the quote with a formula such as “it is written” or “Scripture says” (for example, Matt. 4:4; Rom. 10:11). Sometimes, the New Testament refers to Apocryphal books, but such books are never quoted as if they are Scripture (for example, Jude 14–15).
Today’s passage shows us clearly that Jesus’ Old Testament canon included only the books in our Protestant canon. He refers to “the Law of Moses and the Prophets and the Psalms” (Luke 24:44), which corresponds to the traditional Jewish canon that contains the same books as our Old Testament canon, albeit in a different order. The Law refers to Genesis–Deuteronomy. The Prophets are Joshua, Judges, Samuel, Kings, and Isaiah–Malachi minus Daniel and Lamentations. The Writings are everything else in our Old Testament; sometimes first-century Jews called this section “the Psalms” because Psalms is the largest and most famous book in the Writings.
Coram Deo
Jesus is our Lord, so if we are to be faithful to Him, we do not want to have an Old Testament canon that is any different than the one He had. The Apocryphal books can be useful as historical works and even as repositories of human wisdom, but they are not divinely inspired and cannot determine doctrine. We must derive our theology only from divinely inspired works, so let us be careful to prove all of our beliefs by the inspired Scriptures.
Passages for Further Study
Daniel 9:1 In the first year of Darius the son of Ahasuerus, by descent a Mede, who was made king over the realm of the Chaldeans— 2 in the first year of his reign, I, Daniel, perceived in the books the number of years that, according to the word of the Lord to Jeremiah the prophet, must pass before the end of the desolations of Jerusalem, namely, seventy years.
Nehemiah 8:1 And all the people gathered as one man into the square before the Water Gate. And they told Ezra the scribe to bring the Book of the Law of Moses that the Lord had commanded Israel. 2 So Ezra the priest brought the Law before the assembly, both men and women and all who could understand what they heard, won the first day of the seventh month. 3 And he read from it facing the square before the Water Gate from early morning until midday, in the presence of the men and the women and those who could understand. And the ears of all the people were attentive to the Book of the Law. 4 And Ezra the scribe stood on a wooden platform that they had made for the purpose. And beside him stood Mattithiah, Shema, Anaiah, Uriah, Hilkiah, and Maaseiah on his right hand, and Pedaiah, Mishael, Malchijah, Hashum, Hashbaddanah, Zechariah, and Meshullam on his left hand. 5 And Ezra opened the book in the sight of all the people, for he was above all the people, and as he opened it all the people stood. 6 And Ezra blessed the Lord, the great God, and all the people answered, “Amen, Amen,” zlifting up their hands. And they bowed their heads and worshiped the Lord with their faces to the ground. 7 Also Jeshua, Bani, Sherebiah, Jamin, Akkub, Shabbethai, Hodiah, Maaseiah, Kelita, Azariah, Jozabad, Hanan, Pelaiah, the Levites, helped the people to understand the Law, dwhile the people remained in their places. 8 They read from the book, from the Law of God, clearly, and they gave the sense, so that the people understood the reading.
Matthew 7:12 “So whatever you wish that others would do to you, do also to them, for this is the Law and the Prophets.
John 1:45 Philip found Nathanael and said to him, “We have found him of whom Moses in the Law and also the prophets wrote, Jesus of Nazareth, the son of Joseph.”
“Your self righteous pride will be your undoing.”
It’s only self-righteous pride if it’s untrue. Otherwise, as is the case, it is simply a statement of fact.
“May God have mercy upon you.”
He already did - that’s why I’m not a Protestant.
I thought St. Luther hated Jerome.
Exhibit seen again ...
As the article states, not shows. The Assumption of Moses, for example, was never considered to be scripture by anyone except perhaps a few eccentrics, so no quotation of it would could be thought of as a quotation of scripture. The 7 books, on the other hand, were held as canon by the majority of Jews at the time. Christ’s treatment of them as scripture, in line with the majority of Jews at the time, is obviously different than Him quoting what were considered apocryphal even at the time.
“Nonsense, Protestants include them in their Bibles as well, they just don’t hold them to be on the same level as the Old Testament,”
Perhaps some Anglicans do, but what other Protestant group does on a regular basis? I own a Lutheran Study Bible. They are not in there. I own at least 20 or so KJVs and only two of them have them. I own several NIVs. None of them have them. I own Bibles produced by well known Evangelicals like MacArthur and the Blackaby family. They don’t have them. I owned several old RSVs. None of them have them. When they added the Deuterocanonicals and Apocryphal books that came out as a special edition for study. I have at least 3 or 4 copies of that. What is distinctive about it is that it is DISTINCTIVE. In other words, it was NOT standard practice for a Protestant publishing effort. Again, you seem to have no clue as to what you’re talking about.
“a view that was entirely acceptable in the church at large until AFTER the Protestants departed from the Catholic church.”
Not really. All anyone had to do was look at an earlier council.
“Now you’re accusing me of ignoring things you never posted to me?!?”
So you’re admitting you entered an argument without even bothering to read the earlier posts? Again and again you keep proving you have no idea of what you’re talking about.
“I never claimed to have read the book,”
I never claimed you did. I said, “Most importantly, however, is the fact that you just demonstrated that you have never read the book but insist you know what you’re talking about.”
“and I’m not about to go buy it and read it just because you seem enamored with it.”
No, you would rather just keep posting even though you apparently know nothing about the subject.
“The fact is, all the really relevant sources as to what the churches believed in ancient times about the canon are in the PUBLIC DOMAIN because they are centuries or millenia old, so there really is no need to be focusing on your favorite amazon page when it comes to this subject.”
That’s not necessarily true. Breen might be in the public domain age wise: https://archive.org/details/generalintroduct00breeuoft but unless someone takes the time to read it he simply will have no idea what he is talking about. Let me guess: You’ve never read Breen either, right? It’s in the public domain, but if you haven’t read it, it’s still a closed book to you. No matter what is or isn’t in the public domain, if you haven’t read these books you still have no real idea of what you’re talking about. Also, if you knew what you were talking about you would know that Soloviev’s book is quite old and is in the public domain. You can read French, right Mr. Public Domain? https://archive.org/details/larussieetleglis00solo Oh, wait. It’s available in English too: http://www.strobertbellarmine.net/books/Solovyev—Russia_Universal_Church.pdf I’m sure you were all over that, right Mr. Public Domain?
“Bwahahaha! This as fine example of pretzel logic as I’ve ever seen.”
Where, in the public domain?
“So the heretic who left the Orthodox church,”
He never left.
“.. and you, a non-Orthodox, get to decide what Orthodox doctrine is, instead of the actual authorities and members of the Orthodox church. Sure, that sounds legit.”
In Soloviev’s case it’s more legit than anything you’ve done so far, Mr. Public Domain. Keep not reading and not learning. It suits you.
Oh, and by the way, put up or shut up. I said: All the ancient Churches used the Deuterocanonicals to one degree or another. Only Protestants - who only go back 500 years - are out of step on this issue.
All of that is irrefutable. You can’t refute any of it, right? You can keep avoiding it I suppose.
If you actually make an attempt at a refutation, let me know.
“Exhibit seen again ...”
What I said was true. The fact that you can’t or won’t refute it is not a reflection on me. It’s just you.
You poor little person, you are completely unable to see your self-righteous pride on display. sad that ...
Not necessarily any facts at all...It is understood by may that Origen or likely Esebius was the actual author of your supposed Apocrypha long after the New Testament was written and inserted words and phrases that copied the New Testament...
“You poor little person, you are completely unable to see your self-righteous pride on display. sad that ...”
You poor little person, you are completely unable to see how you project self-righteous pride while displaying self-righteous pride.
But not as capital "S" Scripture.
There is also some scholarship which suggests there are indications Jerome was likely not the actual translator of those portions he referred to as (OT) Apocrypha. Those books were eventually included and delivered to his patron (a 'pope' of the Church at Rome) but did include the precautionary prologues indicating those writings outside of canon of Scripture.
Bwaahaaha! Rent free, baby!
I notice that you later, down-thread, amended that statement by tacking on/including "...to one degree or another" whereby truckloads of stuff which does serve to plainly refute notion that (from earliest time of the church? you did say "ancient") the books of the so-called "deuterocanon" were ever fully accepted as fully "canonical" and without :degrees: of differentiation compared to the rest of the OT, by all -- ALL OF THEM-- the man shouted.
Did you pound the table too, while popping "caps" at us?
The shot missed hitting us... passed right near us it did, I could hear the wind of it, I swear, then heard the thwang of it as it ricocheted off the walls, back all the way around the room 'till ka-thunk! got yourself right in backside of the Chair-y!
Too bad, so sad.
That's news to me. Wouldn't make much difference for what I posted, though. I made no mention of Luther.
“It is understood by may that Origen or likely Esebius was the actual author of your supposed Apocrypha long after the New Testament was written and inserted words and phrases that copied the New Testament...”
You’re completely wrong. We know this because the Dead Sea Scrools predate Origen and Eusebius and they contain at least three Deuterocanonical books that I know of:
“In 1947 cashes of ancient manuscripts were discovered in 11 caves along the cliffs of the northern end of the Dead Sea. This collection of what will probably prove to be 1,000 volumes of text when they are finally all transcribed, are known as The Dead Sea Scrolls [DSS]. Discovered among the Dead Sea Scrolls, which included all books in part or whole copies of the Old Testament books, commentaries on Sacred Scripture, and secular documents relating to the community located near the caves, there were also Greek Septuagint translations which included copies of the books of the Old Testament included in Catholic Bibles today. Several copies of the Septuagint found among the Dead Sea Scrolls on leather scrolls date from the 2nd century BC to the early 1st century AD, while other earlier copies were found on fragments of papyri which date to the 2nd or early 3rd century BC. The seven deuterocanonical books which are included in Catholic Bibles but which are missing from Jewish and Protestant Bibles are included among the scrolls discovered [The Meaning of the Dead Sea Scrolls, James VanderKam and Peter Flint, Harper-San Francisco, 2002, page 97]. These precious scrolls were hidden in caves near a settlement close to the Dead Sea which scholars and archaeologists refer to as “Qumran”. The settlement was abandoned circa 68AD during second year of the First Jewish Revolt against the Roman Empire, which began in 66AD [see endnote # 2]. With the discovery of the DSS and the copies of the deuterocanonical texts found among them, a number of prominent Protestant biblical scholars have conceded that these texts should no longer be excluded from the Protestant and Jewish Old Testament canons. Among this minority of evangelical Protestant scholars who have called for a reassessment of the place of these books in the canon is Hartmut Gese, who boldly asserts the deuterocanonical texts are essential to understanding the New Testament documents: “One simply cannot, to name only one example, understand John 1 without Sir [Ecclesiasticus] 24.” [ Alttestamentliche Studien, H. Gese (Tübingcn, 1991) p. 27, quoted by Martin Hengel in The Septuagint as Christian Scripture. Its Prehistory and the Problem of its Canon, transl. Mark E. Biddle (Edinburgh & New York: T &T Clark, 2002), page 110 and Henri Blocher, “Helpful or Harmful? The Apocrypha and Evangelical Theology,” European Journal of Theology 13.2 (2004): 81-90].” http://www.agapebiblestudy.com/documents/SEPTUAGINT_VS_JAMAIAN_OLD_T.htm
“But not as capital “S” Scripture.”
He did. No matter what his personal view, he included them in the main text of his translation.
http://matt1618.freeyellow.com/jerome.html
http://taylormarshall.com/2011/09/did-st-jerome-reject-deuterocanoical.html
http://shamelesspopery.com/st-jerome-on-the-deuterocanon/
http://matt1618.freeyellow.com/deut.html
I have never met Napoleon
but I plan to find the time...
[yes I do] 'Cuz he looked so fine
Upon that hill
They tell me he was lonely
he's lonely stillThose days are gone forever
Over a long time ago [oh yeah]
“hint; for long ages they simply were not”
a) statement contrary to fact
b) protestant dissembling
c) the reason protestants are now reaping the whirlwind
d) all of the above
PS when you use words like: “hint”, “ages” and “simply” it is easy for folks to dismiss as rubbish.
no one needs your “hint”
NOTHING lasts for “ages”
and nothing is “simply” anything
AMDG
There are other religious themed writings among those discovered thus far that are not Jewish OT texts, or are "Deuteronanical books" either, whom no religious sect persisting to this day hold as being capital S "canonical" Scripture.
The argument promoted at the page you supplied link to, regarding the Qumran scrolls aspect (alone), is essentially; the Jews who were of the Sanhedrin, and of the Temple, did not rightly know what it was they considered as being their own Holy Writ (or that the Hebrew canon was not "officially closed" etc., until the badly dated Jamnia "conference" ---which was not like a Church Council where religious leaders got together to decide what their 'canon' of Scripture was, but instead was work to rebuild the schools of religious instruction which had existed prior to the overthrow of Jerusalem and the then further scattering of Jewish peoples hither and yon among the civilize world of the survivors of that catastrophe).
But based largely upon the discoveries in the desert near the Dead Sea, we should all now go with whatever [ahem] OT 'canon' of whichever religious persons initially hid the manuscripts, and that 'canon' be guessed at due to remains of particular writings having been found in the area. Did I mention there were other religious writings, apparently held in high esteem by those who hid them, which are not Jewish OT, and not so-called Dueterocanonical either? The fact is it is not exactly clear (as far as I know) what the person (or persons, some manuscripts could have arrived there, hidden in different place than other writings at some later date) themselves accepted as comprising their own religious tradition --of what was to be considered their own Holy Writ, and what would be lesser writings, not considered on par with "Scripture", though still important to them as religious instructions, and commentary.
What are matt1618’s qualifications? His links didn’t work for his home page.
He did. Did what? "included them"? I am apprised of that, and had written as much, yet those extra books being included with what was eventually delivered still do not make those extra books into being fully Scripture, comparable on one-to one basis equivalency as towards contents of what could be referred to as Jewish Bible (Tanakh).
I perused the first link supplied from an earlier comment you had posted. I've seen that one before too. It's the same old massaging of details, and obscuring of details not convenient to whatever marginal arguments Matt1618, yourself and other here are attempting to make.
I think I've seen Taylor Marshall's specious arguments on this previously -- they're recycled from elsewhere anyway, and truly don't have further time for that guy. He's shallow in regards to many other items of Roman Catholic aplogetic, his arguments easily enough refuted in ending result, once one works through all the usual tangles.
The same probably goes for "Shameless Popery".
I get the idea you are trying to waste my time, trying to get me to focus upon argument you prefer, while yourself refusing to adequately deal with what does refute your own (and many other of the usual RCC apologetic claims) or else just using reply to me as platform for further advertisement of RC apologetic brainwashing
You have no standing with me, to require such a thing, that I dig into those links to "deeply consider" whatever is assembled there. Not you. For you've not shown much effort on your own part to deal in even-handed manner with most anything which goes against whatever arguments you may care to make.
Not even close...
In the early years of the church it drew up various lists of the books it considered to be Old Testament Scripture. The books of the Apocrypha do not appear on any list until late in the fourth century. This demonstrates the acceptance of these writings was not immediate.
The Apocrypha Is Missing From The Earliest List
The earliest existing list of the Old Testament canon comes from a man named Melito, a bishop of Sardis. In approximately A.D. 170 he wrote the following.
When I came to the east and reached the place where these things were preached and done, and learned accurately the books of the Old Testament, I set down the facts and sent them to you. These are their names: the five books of Moses, Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, Joshua the son of Nun, Judges, Ruth, four books of the Kingdom, two books of Chronicles, the Psalms of David, the Proverbs of Solomon and his wisdom, Ecclesiastes, the Song of Songs, Job, the prophets Isaiah, Jeremiah, The Twelve in a single book, Daniel, Ezekiel, Ezra.
This list of Melito is highly instructive. He includes all the books of the present canon except Esther. The reference to the four books of the kingdom would be 1,2 Samuel and 1,2 Kings. Ezra was the common way to refer to Ezra-Nehemiah. Wisdom was merely a fuller description of the Book of Proverbs - not the Apocryphal book by that name. Among ancient writers Proverbs was often called Wisdom.
While including all of the books of the present Old Testament canon (except Esther) Melito nowhere mentions any of the books of the Apocrypha.
They Were Rejected By Most Church Leaders
While a few of the early leaders of the church accepted some of the books of Apocrypha as Scripture, most of the great church leaders did not-Athanasius, Origen, and Jerome, to name a few. Many great church leaders spoke out against the Apocrypha. Those who do cite the Apocrypha as Scripture were few in number.
It is also worth noting that none of the church fathers that quoted the Apocrypha as Scripture knew any Hebrew.
The Clear Testimony Of Athanasius Toward The Apocrypha
In A.D. 367, the great defender of orthodox belief, Athanasius bishop of Alexandria, wrote a letter. In this letter he affirmed all the books of the present Old Testament canon (except Esther) as well as all the books of the present New Testament canon. He also mentioned some of the books of the Apocrypha. Of those he said.
They are not included in the canon, but appointed by the Fathers to be read by those who newly join us, and who wish instruction in the world of godliness.
This is another ancient and powerful testimony that the books of the Apocrypha were not considered to be Holy Scripture.
Really??? The Deuterocanonicals were not a part of the Old Latin texts that Jerome copied from...That's why he didn't want them in the Vulgate but was forced to put them there...
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.