Posted on 03/16/2006 5:51:01 AM PST by NYer
They are equally well reasoned.
>> Which part of the Apocrypha are you looking at? None of this appears in my Bible. <<
Like I said, the "reformers" were very much threatened by it. It is the 13th chapter of Daniel, and it is contained in pre-Christian AND post-Christian canons. Your use of the term, "apocrypha" is very ironic in this sense, because the word means "hidden" in Greek. Your bible has been censored by Protestant "reformers" who were afraid of the truth. Try an Orthodox, Catholic, or Coptic bible.
>> That said, corraborative evidence can be found elsewhere in the Bible. "One witness is not enough to convict a man accused of any crime or offense he may have committed. A matter must be established by the testimony of two or three witnesses." Deuteronomy 19:15<<
That's corroborative TESTIMONY. The three men corroborated in their lies about Susanna. But, yes, of course, Daniel did not supplant Mosaic law, and I would never have meant to suggest he did. My point was that absent Daniel's detective-work, Susanna would be in a lot of hot water. In the reformation era, many civil judges were quite happy to accept testimony without finding corroborative evidence, asserting that had fulfilled their biblical mandate. The Inquisition argued that such was not enough.
Here is the story of Susanna, although not from one of my preferred translations:
1 In Babylon there lived a man named Joakim,
2
who married a very beautiful and God-fearing woman, Susanna, the daughter of Hilkiah;
3
her pious parents had trained their daughter according to the law of Moses.
4
Joakim was very rich; he had a garden near his house, and the Jews had recourse to him often because he was the most respected of them all.
5
That year, two elders of the people were appointed judges, of whom the Lord said, "Wickedness has come out of Babylon: from the elders who were to govern the people as judges."
6
These men, to whom all brought their cases, frequented the house of Joakim.
7
When the people left at noon, Susanna used to enter her husband's garden for a walk.
8
When the old men saw her enter every day for her walk, they began to lust for her.
9
They suppressed their consciences; they would not allow their eyes to look to heaven, and did not keep in mind just judgments.
10
Though both were enamored of her, they did not tell each other their trouble,
11
for they were ashamed to reveal their lustful desire to have her.
12
Day by day they watched eagerly for her.
13
One day they said to each other, "Let us be off for home, it is time for lunch." So they went out and parted;
14
but both turned back, and when they met again, they asked each other the reason. They admitted their lust, and then they agreed to look for an occasion when they could meet her alone.
15
One day, while they were waiting for the right moment, she entered the garden as usual, with two maids only. She decided to bathe, for the weather was warm.
16
Nobody else was there except the two elders, who had hidden themselves and were watching her.
17
"Bring me oil and soap," she said to the maids, "and shut the garden doors while I bathe."
18
They did as she said; they shut the garden doors and left by the side gate to fetch what she had ordered, unaware that the elders were hidden inside.
19
As soon as the maids had left, the two old men got up and hurried to her.
20
"Look," they said, "the garden doors are shut, and no one can see us; give in to our desire, and lie with us.
21
If you refuse, we will testify against you that you dismissed your maids because a young man was here with you."
22
"I am completely trapped," Susanna groaned. "If I yield, it will be my death; if I refuse, I cannot escape your power.
23
Yet it is better for me to fall into your power without guilt than to sin before the Lord."
24
Then Susanna shrieked, and the old men also shouted at her,
25
as one of them ran to open the garden doors.
26
When the people in the house heard the cries from the garden, they rushed in by the side gate to see what had happened to her.
27
At the accusations by the old men, the servants felt very much ashamed, for never had any such thing been said about Susanna.
28
When the people came to her husband Joakim the next day, the two wicked elders also came, fully determined to put Susanna to death. Before all the people they ordered:
29
"Send for Susanna, the daughter of Hilkiah, the wife of Joakim." When she was sent for,
30
she came with her parents, children and all her relatives.
31
Susanna, very delicate and beautiful,
32
was veiled; but those wicked men ordered her to uncover her face so as to sate themselves with her beauty.
33
All her relatives and the onlookers were weeping.
34
In the midst of the people the two elders rose up and laid their hands on her head.
35
Through her tears she looked up to heaven, for she trusted in the Lord wholeheartedly.
36
The elders made this accusation: "As we were walking in the garden alone, this woman entered with two girls and shut the doors of the garden, dismissing the girls.
37
A young man, who was hidden there, came and lay with her.
38
When we, in a corner of the garden, saw this crime, we ran toward them.
39
We saw them lying together, but the man we could not hold, because he was stronger than we; he opened the doors and ran off.
40
Then we seized this one and asked who the young man was,
41
but she refused to tell us. We testify to this." The assembly believed them, since they were elders and judges of the people, and they condemned her to death.
42
But Susanna cried aloud: "O eternal God, you know what is hidden and are aware of all things before they come to be:
43
you know that they have testified falsely against me. Here I am about to die, though I have done none of the things with which these wicked men have charged me."
44
The Lord heard her prayer.
45
As she was being led to execution, God stirred up the holy spirit of a young boy named Daniel,
46
and he cried aloud: "I will have no part in the death of this woman."
47
All the people turned and asked him, "What is this you are saying?"
48
He stood in their midst and continued, "Are you such fools, O Israelites! To condemn a woman of Israel without examination and without clear evidence?
49
Return to court, for they have testified falsely against her."
50
Then all the people returned in haste. To Daniel the elders said, "Come, sit with us and inform us, since God has given you the prestige of old age."
51
But he replied, "Separate these two far from one another that I may examine them."
52
After they were separated one from the other, he called one of them and said: "How you have grown evil with age! Now have your past sins come to term:
53
passing unjust sentences, condemning the innocent, and freeing the guilty, although the Lord says, "The innocent and the just you shall not put to death.'
54
Now, then, if you were a witness, tell me under what tree you saw them together."
55
2 "Under a mastic tree," he answered. "Your fine lie has cost you your head," said Daniel; "for the angel of God shall receive the sentence from him and split you in two."
56
Putting him to one side, he ordered the other one to be brought. "Offspring of Canaan, not of Judah," Daniel said to him, "beauty has seduced you, lust has subverted your conscience.
57
3 This is how you acted with the daughters of Israel, and in their fear they yielded to you; but a daughter of Judah did not tolerate your wickedness.
58
Now, then, tell me under what tree you surprised them together."
59
"Under an oak," he said. "Your fine lie has cost you also your head," said Daniel; "for the angel of God waits with a sword to cut you in two so as to make an end of you both."
60
The whole assembly cried aloud, blessing God who saves those that hope in him.
61
They rose up against the two elders, for by their own words Daniel had convicted them of perjury. According to the law of Moses, they inflicted on them the penalty they had plotted to impose on their neighbor:
62
they put them to death. Thus was innocent blood spared that day.
63
Hilkiah and his wife praised God for their daughter Susanna, as did Joakim her husband and all her relatives, because she was found innocent of any shameful deed.
64
And from that day onward Daniel was greatly esteemed by the people.
Righteously spoken.
It's good we debate history. It's wrong to rewrite it.
In a 66 book tome like the Bible 2000 errors really is not that many... Knowing a little about the original languages too each of the words you mentioned ARE valid literal translations of those words: Baptism does mean literally "washing," the word for ghost or Spirit does literally mean "wind," bishop does actually mean "overseer," priest (or minister) is another word for "elder," deacon can indeed mean "minister," heresy is from the word "choice," and martyr does actually mean "witness."
If those are examples of Tyndale's errors, and this is into modern English, not that of 400 years ago..., then there were far less than 2000!
Tyndale & his translators (he himself did not do all the translating) were under constant real threat of being burned alive, because of the lovely harmless little Roman Catholic church. Is it any wonder they identified that institution's head with the worst of evils? (keep in mind too, they did not hold the literalist view of today of one person being THE anti-Christ, rather the pope of that day they and the corrupt institution he headed they called anti-Christ or anti-Christian.) After that kind of tyranny, we call the Reformers terrorists?
George Washington and the Continental army burned down loyalist houses and buildings--were they terrorists too? Lincoln, through his generals, obliterated much of Georgia...torching everything, was he also kin to the Taliban?
I think we need to be very careful comparing bad things done to the evils of Islamic fanatics--their's is an entirely different reasoning and scale.
My argument from the other two passages is that the story of Daniel you quoted adds nothing new. The evidence should have been looked into regardless ("The judges must make a thorough investigation..."), as you see in the second passage (that you conveniently failed to quote). I am not diminishing Daniel's importance in that specific instance in the least, I am saying that this adds no precedence that did not already exist.
Being a Protestant, I do not acknowledge the extra verses in the Book of Daniel.
I find the "Taliban" line a bit much, It may be the new "Nazi", who knows. However, Lincoln is not the Honest Rail-Splitter that ideological historians have given us, he actually ignored much of the Constitution that he was sworn to protect.
Just for your information, before the Reformation, the canonicity of what you call the deuterocanonical books had not been officially decided by Rome. Loyal Roman Catholic scholars were on both sides of the issue. Since Judaism had excluded these pre-Christian Jewish texts from their canon in about 100 AD, there was a good argument for Christians to follow suit--but other Christian scholars said that BECAUSE the unbelieving-in-Jesus Jews had thrown them out, that made their reasoning irrelevant, and the books should be kept.
At the Council of Trent, seemingly because Luther had agreed with the Jewish scholarly consensus to exclude the apocryphal books from authoritative canon, Rome officially included them...but even then calling them secondary-canonical (the literal meaning of deuterocanonical).
I for one am happy to stand with the Jews on what is the valid canon of the Jewish portion of the Bible.
They are good for history and understanding ancient Jewish culture, but do not have the authority of God's word.
Just read the book of Tobit, and tell me that doesn't read like a fairy tale. Bears no resemblence to authentic scripture, but it does help us understand the Jewish mindset at the time of Jesus.
As to the issue of the flexibility of Mosaic law--it is true that it was more case law based and flexible, than many early Protestants were able to understand. I agree with you that many early (particularly 2nd generation) reformation Protestants were too literalist. (this in my opinion, is where the baptist controversy sprang from...since the bible no where explicitly show's infant baptism, they said (and say) you CAN'T do it...I think tradition needs to be given its due, and a more positive attitude toward God's permissivness needs to be taken--contra fundamentalism.) On the other hand, the explicit commands of the bible should be obeyed without question--understanding of course we are under the New Covenant.
They're not "extra" verses -- they're ones that were deleted by Protestant "reformers."
Know thy Bible version history, kid.
I do know it. They are extra because they are not in the Protestant Bible. Snippy today, aren't you?
A man being swallowed and then regurgitated by a whale doesn't? God and Satan gambling with the fidelity of a righteous man doesn't sound "like a fairy tale"?
SD
E. Five solas alone.
My point is that is the only answer for me.
My posts are just an effort to show the lunacy of this flamebait thread. Nothing else. I totally agree with you post on keeping a scorecard. I am just attempting to show that they are not the poor innocent victims.
What is wrong with the Five Solas? Do you know what they even are?
True, but the meaning is still obfuscated. It is true (give or take nuances of Aramaic) that St. John the Baptist literally said "I wash you with water, but Christ will wash you with the Holy Wind". The uttering was probably incomprehensible to those near him, but the experience of the Church filled his words with meaning and developed a clear terminology to match the new realities of the Gospel. While John had no better words to express himslef, we do, -- we should use them. Tyndale sought to remove the clarity that comes with the proper translation.
>> Just for your information, before the Reformation, the canonicity of what you call the deuterocanonical books had not been officially decided by Rome <<
Absolutely false. Ecumenical councils do not invent doctrine, they discern what has always been recognized. Hence, Trent, common to Protestant apologetics, did not invent the canon, rather it recognized what had alwats been seen; it found no credible evidence that any church anywhere had ever rejected the deuterocanonicals as unfit for use in worship.
The only confusion revolves around the books of Esdras. Certain early Christian communities recognized the books of Esdras which became known as Ezra and Nehemiah. Others chose to use a book which has come to be referred to as "Greek Esdras" which was, in essence, a summation of both books into a shorter book. Since Sola Scriptura is a Protestant invention, the issue of a canon is sort of a response to the Protestant crisis. Scripture, for the Catholic church, has two key elements: that it contains essential doctrines, and that it is used in mass. Since there are no doctrines in Greek Esdras, and it is unused in mass, it was allowed to slip into a sort of canonical-status limbo, so to speak.
Likewise, there are a few other "apocrypha" which historical records suggests have been used in certain liturgical contexts, although they possess no unique doctrine, such as 3 Maccabees, and "Psalm 151." They may be found in certain Orthodox and Coptic bibles, but are not typically reprinted in the Catholic bibles.
You will find that the Council of Trent did not so much say, "These books are in the bible, and these are out." Rather, it said, "Catholics are obliged to uphold the doctrines in these books." (I'm paraphrasing because I'm too busy to look the quotes up.)
Your argument about what non-believing Jews should be upheld comes largely from paranthetical notes written by St. Jerome. You will also find that St. Jerome vigorously denied that these notes must not be taken to suggest that they are not inspired scripture; as far back as the 4th-century, St. Jerome felt morally compelled to refute what he plainly considered a heretical notion that the deuterocanonicals were not scriptural. 1,000 years later, with no historical basis to suppose so, Luther would teach that St. Jerome must have been tortured, but that is a self-defeating argument: If St. Jerome said what he did because of torture, that would only further the argument that to deny the canonicity of the deuterocanonical books was officially regarded as heresy by the 4th-century popes.
Finally, the issue as to whether certain early Christians felt that Jews should not be required to ascent to the deuterocanonicals as a requirement for conversion is quite beside the point. Regardless of evangelization tactics, those communities made extensive use of deuterocanonicals in their worship. The book of Wisdom, for instance, has been referred to since the first century during church lenten and Easter services, since it so vividly details the nature of the execution of Jesus Christ. So well, in fact, that anti-Catholic apologists asserted it couldn't possibly be authentic Old-Testament scripture, since its authors had to have witnessed the death of Jesus. And yet, manuscripts of it were found in the Qumran collections which predated Christ.
On the other hand, foreign words like "episcopos"/bishop, "presbyteros"/priest, could obscure the plain meaning of the sentences. The one who speaks in an unknown tongue, speaks mysteries -- but the one who wants to be understood, translates it into the vernacular.
While John had no better words to express himslef, we do, -- we should use them.
Incomprehensible. They're the same words,just translated.
Tyndale sought to remove the clarity that comes with the proper translation.
You can judge Tyndale's motives at such a distance of time and space?
>> The evidence should have been looked into regardless ("The judges must make a thorough investigation..."), as you see in the second passage (that you conveniently failed to quote). I am not diminishing Daniel's importance in that specific instance in the least, I am saying that this adds no precedence that did not already exist. <<
Like I said, the prophet Daniel did not surpass Mosaic law, but rather demonstrated a techniques of investigation which had not been common: cross-examination and crime-scene investigation. Without demonstration of the need for these practices, even the judges in Daniel's time failed to discover the truth. (You'll note that Daniel was not a judge at the time.)
>> Being a Protestant, I do not acknowledge the extra verses in the Book of Daniel. <<
My point exactly. But aren't you even curious why this one chapter was excluded, suddenly, in the 16th century, when it had been included for 1800 years?
I am. I have been doing my own research on the matter. I am open to any objective data (or reasonable close to it; I am reasonable; we all have our biases) you can provide.
Not in Tyndale England, when "bishop" and "priest" were everyday words.
the same words,just translated
Words mean things. Meanings change. "I was washed as an infant" is idiotic. "I was baptized as an infant" makes sense. Take any news story and see if it would make much sense if you replace "president" with "first sitter", "Congress" with "meeting", "constitution" with "arrangement", etc.
You can judge Tyndale's motives?
Outcomes matter regardless of motives; besides, his contemporaries saw through it before I did.
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.