Posted on 04/26/2005 9:00:20 AM PDT by TheTruthess
In case anyone is interested in what the Church Fathers thought about the OT Deuterocanonicals, here is my research where they mention explicitly alongside other Protocanonical Scripture, thus, considering the former the inspired Word of God.
OT Deuterocanonicals explicitly accepted as Scripture
Epistle of Barnabas Wisdom
Clement of Rome Wisdom
Didache Sirach
Polycarp Tobit
Melito of Sardes gives a list including Daniel and Wisdom, possibly Baruch
Irenaeus Daniel (*see below) and Baruch
Tertullian Wisdom, Daniel, and Baruch
Muratorian Fragment gives a list including Wisdom in the NT
Clement of Alexandria Sirach, Baruch, Tobit and Wisdom
Hippolytus (** see below)Maccabees, Tobit, Wisdom, Baruch and Daniel
Origen Maccabees, Wisdom, Baruch, Daniel, Tobit and Sirach
Cyprian Maccabees, Wisdom, Daniel, Tobit and Sirach
Dionysius the Great Wisdom, Sirach
Lactanius Sirach
Alexander of Alexandria Sirach
Aphraates the Persian Sage Maccabees and Sirach
Cyril of Jerusalem includes a “canon” list with 2nd Esdras Daniel and Baruch. He later calls Wisdom Scripture, indicating that canon does not equal Scripture, as we define it. Canon means those books to be proclaimed at Mass.
Athanasius Baruch, Daniel, Sirach and Tobit he calls Scripture explicitly. He also lists Wisdom, Judith, Tobit as among those to be read for new converts. Note Tobit is on both lists, so he, like Cyril, does not equate canon with Scripture as we do today. The second list are not to be proclaimed during the Liturgy.
Basil Maccabees, Judith, Wisdom, Baruch, Daniel and Sirach
Hilary of Poitiers Daniel, Baruch, Maccabees, and Wisdom. He also lists Tobit and Judith in his list of Scripture.
Gregory of Nazianzen Daniel, Maccabees, Wisdom, Judith
Gregory of Nyssa Wisdom, Daniel
Ambrose Wisdom, Judith, Daniel, Baruch, Maccabees, Tobit and Sirach
Council of Rome, Decree of Pope Damasus (A.D. 382). All Deuterocanonicals of Roman Catholic Church included.
John Chrysostom Tobit, Baruch, Wisdom, Sirach, Maccabees, and Daniel
Jerome lists 1st Maccabees and later Sirach (called “Parables” in Hebrew form) as Scripture and discounts the other Deuterocanonicals SOLELY on the grounds that there are no Hebrew versions of them (this is why he includes 1st Maccabees and later Sirach). He also equates Baruch with Scripture right along with Ezekiel.
Council of Hippo, Canon 36 (A.D. 393).
Council of Carthage III, Canon 397 (A.D. 397).
* (all references to Daniel refer to the longer Septuagint, not Hebrew version.)
** (all references to Maccabees refers to in most cases either 1st or 2nd Maccabees, although a couple explicitly considered both)
I stop at 400 AD. The above shows that there was a developing idea of these books and whether they were inspired works of God. As time continues, we see more of the Deuterocanonicals were declared as inspired Scripture, right alongside other Protocanonicals. A Father’s failure to mention a book as Scripture is not evidence of his exclusion. Also, there is NO evidence to suggest, besides Jerome, that ANY Father thought that the Deuterocanonicals were NOT inspired or Scripture. I have not found one instance of this negative being mentioned explicitly (besides Jerome, whose basis is whether something is in Hebrew. considering he was writing in Judea surrounded by Jewish influence, is this surprising?). With the evidence, it becomes clear that we can safely conclude that the Catholic Church correctly decided to incorporate the Deuterocanonicals into the Bible and declare all books thus as Scripture and inspired by God. We have no reason to believe that they were poorly informed or purposely mislead the future Church on the subject of what was Scripture.
It becomes apparent that continuing to hold to this idea shows a philosophy without justification.
Regards
"Alexandria, with its elastic Scriptures, had from the beginning been a congenial field for apocryphal literature, and St. Athanasius, the vigilant pastor of that flock, to protect it against the pernicious influence, drew up a catalogue of books with the values to be attached to each. First, the strict canon and authoritative source of truth is the Jewish Old Testament, Esther excepted. Besides, there are certain books which the Fathers had appointed to be read to catechumens for edification and instruction; these are the Wisdom of Solomon, the Wisdom of Sirach (Ecclesiasticus), Esther, Judith, Tobias, the Didache, or Doctrine of the Apostles, the Shepherd of Hermas. All others are apocrypha and the inventions of heretics (Festal Epistle for 367)."
Obviously, Athanasius considered the deut books he listed to be merely suitable for reading to catechumens (church newbies) for edification and instruction. Kind of like CCD texts. Equally obviously, he considered books like Maccabees to be "the invention of heretics". You can yell all you want. You can accuse me of whatever you want. But you remain wrong. Take it up with your church.
On a side note, Athanasius does not include Tobit in his list of the 22 Books of the Old Testament. He places it solely as a book to be read to new converts. Furthermore, Cyril of Jerusalem specifically forbids all books to be read privately which are not read in the churches. So if you want to argue that his definition of Canon means only those books that are read in church, and that there are other books that he considered Scripture, but not suitable for reading in church, than that is fine. But then you must acknowledge that he forbids reading all those other books he might consider Scripture. So I don't think your argument is valid.
Oh boy, here we go again...
"Take your arguments up with the authors of the Catholic Encyclopedia"
They are not the "Church". Are you saying the Catholic Encyclopedia is infallible? Also, the quote you give me from Festal Letter 39 is missing something...
Here is what Athanasius wrote...
"But for greater exactness I add this also, writing of necessity; that there are other books besides these not indeed included in the Canon, but appointed by the Fathers to be read by those who newly join us, and who wish for
instruction in the word of godliness. 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; nor is there in any place a mention of apocryphal writings. But they are an invention of heretics, who write them when they choose, bestowing upon them their approbation, and
assigning to them a date, that so, using them as ancient writings, they may find occasion to lead astray the simple.
In this, I would like you to note that he DOES NOT include the Deuterocanonicals as part of the Apocryphal books (which Protestants are in error)! No, they have their use by the Church. (By the way, your CCD comparison is off. CCD books are systematic theology books - interpretations, if you will, of basic theology. They are not inspired. As I have shown over and over, Athanasius considered the Deuts inspired. Your analogy is incorrect, as CCD books are not considered inspired)
Now, what else did Athanasius say in Festal 39?
In proceeding to make mention of these things, I shall adopt, to commend my undertaking, the pattern of Luke the Evangelist, saying on my own account: 'Forasmuch as some have taken in hand(4),' TO REDUCE INTO ORDER FOR THEMSELVES THE BOOKS TERMED APOCRYPHAL, AND TO MIX THEM UP WITH THE DIVINELY INSPIRED SCRIPTURE, concerning which we have been fully persuaded, as they who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and ministers of the Word, delivered to
the fathers;
This, he writes before the section where he lists his "canon". Notice he classifies two writings...one, apocryphal, the other divine Scriptures. In this, we see his classification is different then you impose. Now, I will continue to show proof of my position, that Athanasius considers the Deuts inspired by God, Sacred Scripture, but not part of the canon. He defines canon differently then we do, as has been made apparent over and over...
"[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
BARUCH IS WRITTEN BY A SACRED WRITER!
"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
BARUCH AND DANIEL IS WRITTEN BY A SACRED WRITER!
"But if this too fails to persuade them, let them tell us themselves, whether there is any wisdom in the creatures or not? If not how is it that the Apostle complains, 'For after that in the Wisdom of God the world by wisdom knew not God?’ [1 Cor 1:21] or how is it if there is no wisdom, that a 'multitude of wise men' [Wisdom 6:24] ARE FOUND IN THE SCRIPTURE? for 'a wise man feareth and departeth from evil;’ [Prov 14:16] and 'through wisdom is a house builded;’ [Prov 24] and the Preacher says, 'A man's wisdom maketh his face to shine;' and he blames those who are headstrong thus, 'Say not thou, what is the cause that the former days were better than these? for thou dost not inquire in wisdom concerning this.’ [Eccl 8:1,7:10] BUT IF AS THE SON OF SIRACH SAYS, 'He poured her out upon all His works; she is with all flesh according to His gift, and He hath given her to them that love Him,'[Sirach 1:8,9]" [7] Athanasius the Great: Discourses Against the Arians, 2:79 (A.D. 362), in NPNF2, IV:391
WISDOM AND SIRACH ARE PART OF SCRIPTURE!
"...and from indignation at his deliverance venture on still more atrocious schemes against him, and are ready with an accusation, fearless of the WORDS IN HOLY SCRIPTURE, 'A false witness shall not be unpunished;’ [Proverbs 19:5] AND, 'The mouth that belieth slayeth the soul;' (Wisdom 1:11) we therefore are unable longer to hold our peace, being amazed at their wickedness and at the insatiable love of contention displayed in their intrigues. [Athanasius the Great: Defence Against the Arians, 3 (A.D. 362), in NPNF2, IV:101
WISDOM ARE THE WORDS OF HOLY 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
THE SPIRIT COMMANDS IN SIRACH!
But this wearied them, for they were not anxious to understand, 'for had they known, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory(1 Cor. 2:8).' And what their end is, THE PROPHET FORETOLD, CRYING, 'Woe unto their Soul, for they have devised an evil thought, saying, let us bind the just man, because he is not pleasing to us’(Wis. 2:12). The end of such abandonment as this can be nothing but error, as the Lord, when reproving them, saith, 'Ye do err, not knowing the Scriptures(Mt. 22:29).’ [Athanasius the Great: Letter 19:5 (A.D. 347), in NPNF2, IV:546
THE PROPHETS WORDS NOTED IN THE SCRIPTURE OF WISDOM!
According as the WISDOM OF GOD TESTIFIES beforehand when it SAYS, "The devising of idols was the beginning of fornication." (Wis. 14:12)Against the Heathen, 9 (A.D. 347), in NPNF2, IV:9.
GOD'S WORD SAYS WISDOM IS INSPIRED!
With the actual outlook of St. Athanasius on those books in practice, it is obviously a misreading of St. Athanasius in the 39th festal letter to say that his list of the canon is meant to be a list of all the Books that he considers Scripture. Included here we have seen citations from Baruch, Wisdom, Sirach, and the Deuterocanonical portions of Daniel. He calls the books Scriptures, calls the books as written by prophets, and uses it in proving doctrine.
A side note is that as I said earlier he does not list Esther as part of the canon, and is ‘noncanonical’ but he does refer to the book a couple of times in the Schaff edition. (NPNF2, Vol. 4, pp. 516, 531) He does not say ‘It is written’ about Esther and makes no distinguishing from that book from other ‘canonical’ books. That is the same way he mostly refers to the Deuterocanonical books. He doesn’t feel he has to ‘prove’ they are Scripture, he assumes it. He quotes it in support of what he is saying, without the need in many cases to say "It is written" or ‘As scripture says’. That is the same way he mostly refers to the non-Deuterocanonical books (without saying ‘As Scripture says’ or "it is written’, or ‘fearless words of Scripture.’) That is the same as with other Fathers.
Many times St. Athanasius doesn’t say those distinguishing comments at all (i.e. ‘Scripture says’, or ‘It is written’) but takes for granted that the Deuterocanonicals are Scripture (the same way he speaks of the Protocanonicals). He goes to these noncanoncal books but still considers them Scripture. All these books are Scripture, and treated as Scripture, so it is obvious that the term ‘canon’ does not mean ‘the full extent of Scripture.’
Canon is used only in reference to its use in a liturgical context. It makes perfect sense with the book of Esther. He excluded Esther from the liturgical canon. In fact, since the book of Esther never even uses the word ‘God’ it would make perfect sense to not use it in the Liturgical worship where worship of God is the focus. However, that does not mean that St. Athanasius saw either Esther or the Deuterocanonicals as uninspired. We’ve seen St. Athanasius use words unhesitatingly ascribing the Deutercanonicals as the ‘fearless words of Holy Scripture.’
I humbly submit this with the hope that you will see that Athanasius was among many Church Fathers who saw the Deutercanonicals as the inspired word of God. Although some did not find them suitable for Liturgical use (like Esther), they are still refered to as Scripture.
"Take it up with your church."
LOL!!! I agree with my Church! What is the matter with you? The Catholic Encyclopedia doesn't speak for the Church!!! Until you can give me some proof that the Church purposely covered up the idea that the Deuts were not Scripture (I suppose in support of some idiotic Protestant claim that the Fathers foresaw the Reformation's disregard for them 1200 years later...), or that they were way off in their compiliation during 380-400, you are going to have to follow the implications of this study:
Go out and buy a Catholic Bible to get the total Word of God.
Regards
"If a church father accepting a single Deuterocanonical book as Scripture is enough for all the Deuts to be considered such, then the Didache, the Sheperd of Hermes, Maccabees 3 and 4, and a few others must obviously be considered Scripture as well. Why then, did the Catholic Church decide to "throw them out"?"
Maccabees 3 is considered canon by the Orthodox. By the way, the Egyptian Jews consider the Alexandrian Septuagint to be their canon - which includes the seven Catholic Deuterocanonicals. Some local churches held other books as inspired for many years afterwards, such as 1 Clement. The Church, the community of God, determines what is Scripture. When the universal Church (Catholic Church) made that DEFINITION at Trent, the canon was set for them. How would that effect the Orthodox or the Coptics? As to why the Catholic Church "tossed out" Didache, apparently, there weren't enough of the bishops that thought they were Scripture. The bishops ruled apparently depended on majority decision. One bishop didn't override the majority in this case. Otherwise, we would include Didache. I choose to believe that the Bishops at those Councils operated in good faith. That is normal historical convention. Until you prove otherwise, we give historical figures' decisions the benefit of the doubt.
Regards
Finally, you made this comment in your earlier post, ""the Church are a bunch of liars", you said on several occasions. How are we supposed to believe you are not biased with such statements?" Not only have I not made that statement "on several occasions." I have NEVER made that statement. To paraphrase your own question, how am I supposed to believe anything you say when you have proven a willingness to make things up? This isn't the first time you've "quoted" me saying something I haven't said. I've asked you to stop before. I'm asking again. If Athanasius were alive, he'd probably ask you too. If you are going to quote somebody...quote something they actually said.
So is Maccabees 4. And Odes. And Psalms of Solomon. All of them are Deuterocanonical books not found in the Catholic Bible. All of them were part of the Septuagint. Yet, you seem to be implying in some of your earlier posts that because some church fathers refer to some Deuterocanonical books as Scripture, we should infer that all Deuterocanonical books are Scripture. Obviously, the Catholic Church does not agree.
"I choose to believe that the Bishops at those Councils operated in good faith."
I agree.
"you seem to be implying in some of your earlier posts that because some church fathers refer to some Deuterocanonical books as Scripture, we should infer that all Deuterocanonical books are Scripture."
Ah, OK.
From my limited knowledge of manuscripts (be forewarned, I am not an expert on this subject) is that there were 3 families of Septuagint manuscripts: the Hexaplaric (Origen reproduced at Caesarea), Hesychian (Alexandria), and Lucianic (Antioch). There seems to be a hopeless intermingling of these various manuscripts, so it is difficult to determine the original influence of each of the manuscript families.
The Codexes, also, are different. There are four great codices of the Greek Bible, Vaticanus, Sinaiticus, Alexandrinus, and Ephraemi. The Codexes used in the East were different than Vaticanus, used in the West - not only in verse composition, but in the books inserted themselves. This explains why there are the differences that you notice throughout the various Christian Canons.
It may be said that the Vatican Codex, written in the first half of the fourth century, represents the text of one of those recensions of the Bible which were current in the third century, and that it belongs to the family of manuscripts made use of by Origen in the composition of his Hexapla (according to the Catholic Encyclopedia).
Further rescensions of the Greek text in the fourth century are attested. Hesychius (fl. 3/4th c.) is said to have created a rescension for the Church in Egypt; Lucian (d. 312 CE), in Antioch. Some scholars posit other rescensions from this period. Thus, we find some Greek Church Fathers varying widely amongst themselves in their Old Testament citations. The Oriental versions and Greek manuscripts of the period have all the deuterocanonicals and, in some cases, certain apocrypha.
"There is no indication, however, that this was troubling to Church leadership. The insistence on letter-for-letter, word-for-word accuracy in the Scriptures was a feature that was not to emerge in Christian thought for many centuries, and then in imitation of Jewish and Islamic models. As far as early Christians were concerned, any Greek version of the Old Testament read in the Church merited the term Septuagint."
This information is from "The Septuagint Online", which has various access to the different texts of the Septuagint.
http://students.cua.edu/16kalvesmaki/lxx/
A side bar...Scholars vary as to their explanation for the differences between the Hebrew and the LXX, but in many cases, they suggest that the LXX reflects a very early Hebrew text no longer available to us...this much seems certain: the MT changed over time, and the LXX is a crucial witness to this process. Interesting for those holding to the MT as THE source for the OT.
And to clear the air regarding the Catholic Encyclopedia, I read the article "Canon of the Old Testament" for the first time, and it is in line with what I have been saying all along about the development of the canon. Athanasius, for example: "...Following the precedent of Origen and the Alexandrian tradition, the saintly doctor (Athanasius) recognized no other formal canon of the Old Testament than the Hebrew one; but also, faithful to the same tradition, he practically admitted the deutero books to a Scriptural dignity, as is evident from his general usage".
I hope that I have given you ample evidence of this.
You said "...I choose to believe that the Bishops at those Councils operated in good faith."
I said "I agree"
See, there is hope! It seems a very risky affair to try to second-guess what was happening 1700 years ago, considering there is no consensus on the manuscripts themselves, and there are many rescensions within them. I think that the various Codexes and manuscripts explains the different books that make up the LXX, however. Remember, we are talking about 350 AD, so it is not surprising that churches separated by so many miles would not have identical codexes.
Regards
You said "Therefore, you vehemently disagree with some of the most noted experts in the Catholic Church"
Perhaps you should have read the entire article. I addressed this in my previous post. It agrees with the gist of my entire argument.
You said "...the Church are a bunch of liars", you said on several occasions. How are we supposed to believe you are not biased with such statements?" Not only have I not made that statement "on several occasions." I have NEVER made that statement.
Perhaps. Here is what happened one time...
I said..."the Jews of 30 years after he died who set the OT canon to exclude the Deuts and the Gospels"
You said..."That is a lie most often perpetuated by members of the Catholic Church. The truth is, the college at Jamnia had no authority to define anything."
Oh boy. Here we go again with the Church is lying again. Been reading the Da Vinci Code again?
From post 78 "How to study the Bible..."
I didn't bother going back to find where exactly "the Church is lying again" quote that prompted me to say that. Also, you have said over and over that the Church cannot be trusted. Is that fair to say that you believe that? Basically, this is calling the Church liars, as well. Since they claim that Jesus Christ established the Church and gave the keys to Peter, etc., what other words may I use for you to deny this claim? They are sadly mistaken? They are poorly informed? They are unintentionally misleading? Well. The results are the same - if you feel that you must conduct research because the Church is incompetent or liars or whatever. And when I give you clear evidence to the contrary regarding different Church Fathers and what they thought that disrupts your conclusions, you brush them away.
Are you out to find any little fault with the Church because your mind is made up that they are incompetent or liars or misguided, or are you trying to make a legitimate effort to find the truth. I am having a difficult time, after reading some of your posts, to believe the latter. When we first began, you seemed sincere in trying to find the truth. What more will you require to accept the truth?
If I am wrong, I humbly ask for your apology. I have no desire to alienate fellow Christians, but I can't help but think there are other motives beyond your search. The main reason behind this is your refusal to understand the implications of applying your requirements of acceptance as Scripture equally to OT and NT Deuts. I accept the research already done on this. If you find universal acceptance of the NT Deuts, then let me know that I was wrong. Your acceptance of one naturally should lead to the acceptance of the other. Your refusal to address this says a lot on what is behind this.
But if I am wrong - I apologize for misrepresenting you.
Regards
"Following the precedent of Origen and the Alexandrian tradition, the saintly doctor (Athanasius) recognized no other formal canon of the Old Testament than the Hebrew one; but also, faithful to the same tradition, he practically admitted the deutero books to a Scriptural dignity, as is evident from his general usage"
I have actually quoted that to you in an earlier post. It is in line with what you are saying with one rather significant difference. It does not say he considers the Deuts to be Scripture. Practically admitting the Deutero books to Scriptural dignity is not the same as calling them Scripture. Luther did essentially the same thing by placing the Deuts between the Old and New Testaments. Thus, placing them with Scripture while obviously not considering them Scripture. The same can be said of St Cyril, St. Epiphanius, Eusebius, St Hilary, Rufinus and as you've already mentioned, Jerome. The article implies this "middle ground" seems to have remained throughout the Middle Ages. Regarding the Deuts in the Middle Ages it states, "There is a current friendly to them, another one distinctly unfavourable to their authority and sacredness, while wavering between the two are a number of writers whose veneration for these books is tempered by some perplexity as to their exact standing, and among those we note St. Thomas Aquinas. Few are found to unequivocally acknowledge their canonicity." Again, it is no wonder it is so difficult to sort things out today.
With regard to the NT Deuts. I haven't gotten that far. I am still learning about the OT Deuts. It has been a good and profitable study.
"Practically admitting the Deutero books to Scriptural dignity is not the same as calling them Scripture. Luther did essentially the same thing by placing the Deuts between the Old and New Testaments. Thus, placing them with Scripture while obviously not considering them Scripture."
Well, we agree that there is a different level of acceptance of the Deuts. Hence, the distinction of calling them "Deuterocanonicals" - 2nd Canon. From what I have seen, just on Athanasius (which I have posted recently) and his various teachings on the Trinity, etc., I find his intermingling of Protocanonical with Deuterocanonical verses as a solid proof that he considered them as the inspired by God. It seems strange that Athanasius would quote from non-inspired writings alongside inspired ones to prove that the Arians were wrong, don't you think? I am not making the connection that "not having the same dignity as Scripture" means they are not inspired. They are not to be read in Mass. That's it. Again, nowhere does Athanasius say that the Deuts are NOT the inspired Word of God. When writing, he uses them WITHOUT DISTINCTION! That speaks volumes to his opinion of the Deuts as being inspired.
I still stand with my opinion that Athanasius, living in Alexandria, the "home" of apocryphal literature, would be very protective of what would be read during the Mass. Unfortunately, Catholics, even still today, get most of their Scripture during the Mass. Should be more often, I agree. The majority of people, then, would only hear Athanasius' list of "canon" writings during the Sacred Liturgy. However, more learned men (those whom he wrote to) or the newly catechised, while under the auspice of teachers to explain things, would receive the "second canon" writings, considered Scriptural and inspired. (I teach RCIA - for people becoming Catholics ((catechumens)), and when those people are done, they know more about the faith than 90% of the Catholics from birth. I am not that great of a teacher, just the life-long Catholics are often at the 3rd grade theologically speaking).
With this in mind, I think it is safe to say that the Church Fathers did consider the Deuterocanonicals as Scripture, inspired Words of God, but not meant for the majority of the unlearned Catholics.
"Again, it is no wonder it is so difficult to sort things out today."
That is why I was skeptical of this in the first place. I hadn't previously realized it was THIS difficult - and it forces me to rely on the Church's decision that much more. So much for the self-attestation of Scripture.
I don't know if you have read any of the Deuts, but I would strongly suggest looking at Wisdom. The 2nd half of Chapter 2 is eerie in the prophesy of the Synoptic Gospel version of the Crucifixion. John gets his prologue to the Gospel from Chapter 9, no doubt. Substitute "Christ" for "Wisdom" throughout, and you will find why the Church Fathers constantly referred their readers to this wealth on the Logos, the pre-existing Divine Wisdom. And Paul takes a lot from Wisdom, too. Perhaps once you read it, you may come to an agreement that the Church considered Wisdom as inspired for reasons of its content alone.
Regards
"I do except the truth. I except the one thing we both agree is true. That is the inspired Word of God."
I am presuming, correct me if I am wrong, but don't you also believe in things that the Bible is ambiguous on? Such as the Trinity and Christ's relation to man? What about the idea that there will be no further public revelation (no more Scripture)? Do you do the sign of the cross on yourself? It is an ancient tradition not found in the Bible. And of course, to be saved, we must be Baptized, at least, correct? The Bible doesn't tell us how, does it?
Whether you realize it or not, you also have Traditions that you continue to hold besides the above. The point is that God's Word is not found ONLY in Scripture. This, itself, is a man-made presumption.
Thanks for getting me going on another subject...
Regards
"I do except the truth. I except the one thing we both agree is true. That is the inspired Word of God"
I have been reading Pelikan's seminal study on the Development of Christian Doctrine, in particular, Volume 1, 100-600, the Emergence of Catholic Doctrine. I will quote Pelikan as he speaks of the paradox of Grace and Augustine's view on the matter. Quotes within quotes are Augustine.
"Those who accepted "the authority of Scriptures as preeminent" should also acknowledge "that authority which from the time of the earthly presence of Christ, through the dispensation of the apostels and through a regular succession of bishops in their seats, has been preseerved to our own day throughout the world". This authority of orthodox catholic Christian, "inaugurated by miracles, nourished by hope, enlarged by charity, established by antiquity," was so powerful as even to validate the very authority of the Bible. "For my part", says Augustine, I should not believe the Gospel except as moved by the authority of the Catholic Church". At the same time (Pelikan continues), he (Augustine) distinguished sharply between the authority of the Bible, which never needed to be corrected but obeyed, and that of later bishops, who needed to be corrected by it. Someone who failed to support his position from the Bible "need not detain us very long". But between the authority of the Bible and the authority of the Catholic Church (which was present within, but was more than, the authority of its several bishops past and present) there could not in a real sense be any contradiction. Here one could find repose in "the resting place of authority", not in the unknown quantity of the company of the elect, but in the institition of salvation that could claim foundation by Christ and succession from the apostles [Emergence of Catholic Tradition, page 304-305, Jaroslav Pelikan - written while still a Lutheran]
I find this quote very current to the topic at hand. If you accept the authority of the Church to determine the Scriptures, then we must submit to the authority given to it in other matters when defined officially. I would like you to note Augustine's requirement that such definitions are to be found implied in Scripture and in tune with the Apostolic Traditons of interpretation. Note, there is no dichotomy between Scripture and Tradition, as Pelikan notes. Both are the Word of God.
I believe our research into the Deuterocanonicals has borne this to be a fact - accepting the authority of the Church regarding Scripture should lead us to the Church itself. Without this authority, you will never reach a satisfactory decision on what is Scripture.
Good night and God Bless
1. Such as the Trinity and Christ's relation to man?
Not sure what you mean about Christ's relation to man, but with regard to the Triune God, the Bible is full of references to the relationship of each member of what we call the Trinity. If I had never read the Nicene Creed, it is not beyond my comprehension to understand God is one God with three parts. There are many verses that explains our Triune God, but I'll list a few. Read Matthew 28:19. Christ directs His disciples to baptize all nations in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. In John 10:30, Christ says, "I and my Father are one." In Acts 5:3, Peter asks Ananias why he lied to the Holy Ghost and then tells him that he lied not to men but to God. Yet, the Bible also says very clearly there is only one God. Therefore, one God with three parts. The Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost.
2. "What about the idea that there will be no further public revelation (no more Scripture)?"
The authorship and revelation of the Scripture is from God. I don't believe the church determined the composition of the Bible anymore than I believe Paul wrote his epistles without inspiration from God. Paul tells us the Old Testament was committed to the Isrealites. The Hebrew Canon is sufficient for me. The New Testament describes the New Covenant in Jesus Christ. It presents the Gospel of Christ to His church. That despite all its variations, the Christian community shares a single New Testament Canon is sufficient evidence for me that our New Testament is complete.
3. "Do you do the sign of the cross on yourself?"
No.
4. "And of course, to be saved, we must be Baptized, at least, correct? The Bible doesn't tell us how, does it?"
Sure it does. We are to be baptized with water in the Name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost.
"The point is that God's Word is not found ONLY in Scripture."
If you can direct me to an infallible source of God's Word outside the Bible, I'd be interested to witness it. I mean that sincerely. In the meantime, do a search in the New Testament for what Christ says about tradition. It ain't pretty. As a contrast, do a search for what He says about the Word of God. What a contrast indeed.
We can agree to disagree here. We certainly wouldn't be the first. But I am curious why you think God would breathe His Words and Wisdom to man, but not intend for all men to read them? We are all His children, and equal in His sight. Even Peter, "the keeper of the keys" tells the unsaved Gentile Cornelius "I myself also am a man." Later he tells us "God is no respecter of persons". Do you have any Scriptural evidence that God intended for His Word to reach only learned Catholics?
I will read the Deuts. I think that is good advice. I should have done it already.
I don't. The authority to determine Scripture rests in God's hands. He uses whatever tools He needs to make that happen. Accepting those Scriptures does not lead me to the Church. It leads me to God.
Good night to you as well, and I'm glad we have returned to a more civil tone.
OK.
Let's get down to the million dollar question, then.
Knowing, from our experience regarding the OT Deuterocanonicals, (that we can't know by scholarly research for sure) how do you know what specifically is Scripture? The Bible only gives vague references. Without reference to the Church's authority, how can we KNOW what is the Word of God, and whether any was left out?
This is the direction we need to go, as our beliefs are based on authority from someone. Either ourselves, another entity, etc. God Himself doesn't speak to us except by faith. How can we know decisively what is Scripture, since it is not self-attesting?
Being someone who mistrusts the Church's authority, how are you so sure that the 66/73 books of the Bible are God's Word?
Regards
"We can agree to disagree here. We certainly wouldn't be the first. But I am curious why you think God would breathe His Words and Wisdom to man, but not intend for all men to read them?"
Nothing as insidiuous as you that. I suppose the shepherds of the flock realize that an experienced person is required to explain particular writings. Jesus didn't teach everything to all the followers - some was taught directly to the Apostles. Peter talks about some who twist Paul's meaning in his Scripture. Also, Paul talks about spiritual "milk" for the immature. You wouldn't expect someone to read Kant as their first book on philosophy, would you?
God gives different gifts to different people. Apparently, Athanasius and others were concerned about some of the writings in the Deuterocanonicals.
Regards
"If I had never read the Nicene Creed, it is not beyond my comprehension to understand God is one God with three parts. There are many verses that explains our Triune God, but I'll list a few. Read Matthew 28:19. Christ directs His disciples to baptize all nations in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. In John 10:30, Christ says, "I and my Father are one."
LOL!!! Wow, Athanasius sure could have used you against the Arians...
I don't want to start another thread, this is just to show you that you are overlooking the ambiguity of Scripture on this subject. You don't need to reply to it, as I would rather hear what you have to say on a different subject for now. We can return to this later to see the importance of Apostolic Teaching.
First, Matthew 28. In the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, says nothing about God being three persons. Without Tradition, I can interpret that as: God the Father, Jesus the Archangel, and the Holy Spirit, a force but not a person. Without proper interpretation, you wouldn't have a clue that this refers to the Three Persons of the Trinity!
Second, John 10. LOL! How about Jhn 14:20: "In that day you will know that I am in my Father, and you in me, and I in you." So, does that mean we are God, too?
Next, what about Proverbs 8:22-23: The LORD created me at the beginning of his work, the first of his acts of old. Ages ago I was set up, at the first, before the beginning of the earth." The Arians used this very thing to say that there was a time that the Logos had not existed yet. Therefore, He couldn't be God.
And of course, we have the several verses where Jesus says He is subordinate to the Father.
Really, without the Apostlic Tradition, you wouldn't know God as you currently take for granted.
Again, no need to reply yet, just something to keep in mind while we discuss how you know what Scripture is. Then, we can discuss how do you know that your interpretation is correct.
Regards
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.