Posted on 01/05/2007 6:50:55 AM PST by Ottofire
This is a source for the 'old lie', and I would like to hear the opposing arguments from the Catholic side.
Let us not get to riled up in this; but rather show decorum, and show our Christian love for each other. Please support your statements with references.
Otto
This will be an interesting discussion. To clarify, could you please post the definition being used for the term "apocrypha". Catholics and non-Catholics do not use the same definition and that has previously led to confusion. Thanks.
Ping for an interesting read
Are you furnishing free HAZMAT suits and a run through a car wash after every 10 posts?
Here you go.
Ping 4 later
bookmark
It's really quite simple. If the Church didn't have authority, then no one did. Why? Because there must be a unified voice for authority to be licit, and that unified voice was the Church of Rome until Luther broke things up and started the Church of Me.
Further, it doesn't matter whether or not Jerome accepted the Apocrypha. He's wasn't imbued with the authority to speak infallibly on the matter in the first place. His work was monumentally valuable, but it's not of consequence to the Magisterium's ultimate definition of the canon.
Thanks for an informative read.
This is a surreal statement, especially in view of the fact that Jerome didn't follow the "judgement of Jerome" when he translated the OT deuterocanonicals in obedience to the Pope and included them in the Vulgate, and when he rejected in his reply to Rufinus that he was doing anything more than reporting the negative opinions of the Jews about the Greek portions of Daniel.
It's also surreal to suppose that an ecumenical council 80 or so years before the reformation explicitly endorsed a canon that was contrary to "the universal practice of the church as a whole up to the time of the reformation".
Fascinating article. Thank you.
This statement of Jerome's speaks volumes.
Here's the fuller quotation that he's editing:
What sin have I committed in following the judgment of the churches? But when I repeat what the Jews say against the Story of Susanna and the Hymn of the Three Children, and the fables of Bel and the Dragon, which are not contained in the Hebrew Bible
These are the deuterocanonical portions of Daniel.
the man who makes this a charge against me proves himself to be a fool and a slanderer; for I explained not what I thought but what they commonly say against us. I did not reply to their opinion in the Preface, because I was studying brevity, and feared that I should seem to be writing not a Preface but a book. I said therefore, "As to which this is not the time to enter into discussion."
Why was the RCC so determined to keep these in the canon and yet equally determined to keep the 7 Jewish books of the New Testament [the so called NT deuterocanonicals] out of their canon.
-This will be an interesting discussion. To clarify, could you please post the definition being used for the term "apocrypha". Catholics and non-Catholics do not use the same definition and that has previously led to confusion. Thanks.
True about Apocryphical books. Let us use the term dueterocanonical books, books that were 'officialized' at Trent.
Catholic Encyclopedia states : (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01601a.htm)
"It has been employed in various ways by early patristic writers, who have sometimes entirely lost sight of the etymology. Thus it has the connotation "uncanonical" with some of them. St. Jerome evidently applied the term to all quasi-scriptural books which in his estimation lay outside the canon of the Bible, and the Protestant Reformers, following Jerome's catalogue of Old Testament Scriptures -- one which was at once erroneous and singular among the Fathers of the Church -- applied the title Apocrypha to the excess of the Catholic canon of the Old Testament over that of the Jews. Naturally, Catholics refuse to admit such a denomination, and we employ "deuterocanonical" to designate this literature, which non-Catholics conventionally and improperly know as the "Apocrypha". "
Note that the CE states that Jerome was alone in rejecting these books, but this is clearly disputed in the article above, with quotes from the ECFs supporting the argument.
I noticed that while William Webster rightfully opposes the canonicity of the deuterocanonicals, he still holds to the authenticity of "the Septuagint" from which those very deuterocanonicals originated, despite the fact that he cites Jerome for his opposition to the deuterocanonicals but then does not follow up on Jerome's opposition to the Septuagint's authority. I am therefore including this excerpt from the Dean Burgon Society that presents a perspective on the Septuagint that Webster and other adherents of the Septuagint might want to consider:
SO, WHAT IS THE GREEK TEXT OF THE OLD TESTAMENT?
The questions, probabilities, possibilities, problems and use related to the imaginary Septuagint proposed by individuals such as Karen Jobes, Ph.D., Moises Silva, Ph.D., Henry Barclay Swete, D.D., Sir Lancelot C. L. Brenton, and the International Standard Bible Encyclopedia (ISBE) have been answered by men in the Dean Burgon Society as well as Dean Burgon himself. In addition, what is so appallingly apparent in the liberal’s dialogue is the paucity of discussion of the Received or Traditional Greek and the Masoretic Text by name. They skirt the issue by glancing comments about recensions, but never, ever discuss the possible implications of thousands of texts from many authors and countries in many languages attesting to the preservation of the Received Text.
Dr. Kirk D. DiVietro and Dr. Floyd Jones have written two poignant astute documents, which are available from Bible For Today concerning the so-called Septuagint. They resoundingly trounce the wild assumptions of the modernistic Septuagint scholars by simple clear concise statements.
Dr. Jones makes a clear statement at the beginning of his treatise on the Septuagint about what is known concerning the Septuagint. He states:
"The Septuagint (LXX) is a very old translation of the Hebrew Scriptures (our Old Testament) into Hellenistic Greek. This statement alone is almost the only hard fact concerning this translation that is verifiable."
The other known fact about the misnomer, Septuagint, is that it is a non-entity. The name is adapted from a fraudulent document, Letter of Aristeas. The only extant Letter is an eleventh century document. Today, the manuscript that is generally called the Septuagint is the Old Testament Greek translation constructed by Origin Adamantius, called Codex B (c.245 A.D.). This is the real recension as opposed to the theoretical recensions of the Received Greek and Hebrew Texts. Codex B is the 5th (fifth) column of Origin’s Hexapla, a six column parallel Bible. Origen labeled the 5th (fifth) column the LXX (See the picture on page 5 of this work). This may be observed in the fragment of the Hexapla by Origen found at Milan, Italy in 1896 and published in An Introduction to the Old Testament in Greek by Henry Barclay Swete D.D. in 1902.
Dr. DiVietro says:
"Scholars lie. In the case of the Septuagint, the lie is not as overt as usual…The Septuagint, as it is published today, is basically the text of the Old Testament as it appears in Codex B."
Codex B, the LXX, is a revision of the Greek texts extant during Origin’s time. He used the versions of the Ebonite’s’ Aquilla (c. 128), Symmachus (c. 180-192 A.D.), and Theodotin (c. 161-181) for the Hexapla reconstruction, along with three other anonymous translations that have become known as the Quinta, the Sexta, and Septima. From this point on in this paper the OT Greek text, usually misnamed LXX or Septuagint, will be called the Greek Text of Origen, GTO. A Greek text of the minor prophets found in the Judean desert caves dates to around the time of "the second Jewish revolt in the years 132-135" A.D. by the personal letters of Bar Kokhba. They cannot be claimed with any certainty as part of a B.C. Septuagint. As a matter of fact, they contain translational features found in other A.D. texts such as those of Aquila and of the Quinta.
There have been many revisions of GTO. For example, Hesychius of Alexandria (martyred c. 311 A. D.) and Lucian of Antioch, an Arian, (martyred 311) made revisions. There have been dozens of revisions through the centuries. A few of the more recent revisions are "the 1587 Sixtus, Holmes-Parson, von Tischendorf (Swete, p. 187), Swete, the Brooke-McLean great Cambridge edition, and Rahlfs 1935 edition,"
Jerome (340-420 A.D.), a contemporary of Augustine of Hippo, ridicules the GTO often in his letters. However, the texts he used for his translations for Rome were of "the Alexandrian text type." Before reading the following quotes from Jerome’s works, recall he is removed from Origin (182-251 A.D.) by over 150 years. A comparison is to imagine a student in 2005 trying to reconstruct a particular history in 1850 in America without the aid of computers, phones, extensive libraries, airplane travel, and other modern conveniences. In addition, we must remember Jerome was opposed to the independence of local churches from Rome represented by the Waldensians. Lastly, he was obviously duped by the fraudulent Letter of Aristeas, which was allegedly commented on by the Alexandrian Aristobulus, the Neo-plantonist Philo, and the Roman historian, Josephus the Jew. They all add embellishments to the story of the Letter.
Dr. Phil Stringer, President, Landmark Baptist College, states:
Jerome understood that the Septuagint of his day was developed by Origen. He believed that Origen used several different Greek manuscripts and that all of them had been corrupted! He disputed Augustine’s assertion that the apostles usually quoted from the Septuagint! He pointed out that their quotations often don’t match any version of the Septuagint or any other Greek New Testament.
From Jerome’s writings, one can quickly ascertain that Jerome is confused by the term, Septuagint, and denigrated it by the following quotes. Jerome says:
"How can the Septuagint leave out the word ‘Nazarene’ if it is unlawful to substitute one word for another? It is sacriledge either to conceal or to set at naught a mystery."
Let my critics tell me why the Septuagint introduces here the words ‘look thou upon me.’" "For its rendering is as follows, ‘My God, my God, look thou upon me, why hast thou forsaken me.’"
It would be tedious now to enumerate, what great additions and omissions the Septuagint has made, and all the passages which in church-copies are marked with daggers and asterisks.
Yet the Septuagint has rightly kept its place in the churches, either because it is the first of all the versions in time, made before the coming of Christ, or else because it has been used by the apostles (only however in places where it does not disagree with the Hebrews).
The preceding quote reveals that Jerome was duped, also. We know the Apostles did not quote from the "imaginary" (there is no solid evidence it existed before Christ) Septuagint.
Doubtless you already possess the version from the Septuagint which many years ago I diligently revised for the use of students. The new testament I have restored to the authoritative form of the Greek original. For as the true text of the old testament can only be tested by a reference to the Hebrew, so the true text of the new requires for its decision an appeal to the Greek. [my emphasis]
From the previous quote, we should now understand that "the LXX" is just one of the many revisions of the GTO.
Origen, whilst in his other books he has surpassed all others, has in the Song of Songs surpassed himself. He wrote ten volumes upon it, which amount to almost twenty thousand lines, and in these he discussed, first the version of the Seventy Translators, then those of Aquila, Symmachus, and Theodotion, and lastly, a fifth version which he states that he found on the coast of Atrium, with such magnificence and fullness, that he appears to me to have realized what is said in the poem:
However, no Greek "version of the Seventy Translators" has ever been found, and specifically, no Greek B.C. Song of Songs text. In addition, Jerome goes on to say:
Add to this that Josephus, who gives the story of the Seventy Translators, reports them as translating only the five books of Moses; and we also acknowledge that these are more in harmony with the Hebrew than the rest. [my emphasis]
Surely, the previous quote makes clear the confusion surrounding the Greek text reported by the Letter even during Jerome’s days. Obviously, he was not sure how many, if any, of the Old Testament books had been translated. The following quote establishes that "deceitful" translators also perplexed Jerome
But if, since the version of the Seventy was published, and even now, when the Gospel of Christ is beaming forth, the Jewish Aquila, Symmachus, and Theodotion, judaising heretics, have been welcomed amongst the Greeks—heretics, who, by their deceitful translation, have concealed many mysteries of salvation, and yet, in the Hexapla are found in the Churches and are expounded by churchmen; [then] ought not I, a Christian, born of Christian parents, and who carry the standard of the cross on my brow, and am zealous to recover what is lost, to correct what is corrupt, and to disclose in pure and faithful language the mysteries of the Church, ought not I, let me, ask, much more to escape the reprobation of fastidious or malicious readers? [my emphasis and addition for clarity]
Remember, Origen used the "judaising heretics" versions to make his revision, which is Codex B, the favorite corrupted text of the modernists. The next quote makes it obvious that Origen’s Old Testament Greek text, composed 150 years earlier than Jerome’s existence, was already being called "the Seventy."
I have toiled to translate [and revise—see above and below, HDW] both the Greek versions of the Seventy, and the Hebrew which is the basis of my own, into Latin. [In other words, Jerome made his own revision. HDW.]
As, then, the Church reads Judith, Tobit, and the books of Maccabees, but does not admit them among the canonical Scriptures, so let it read these two volumes for the edification of the people, not to give authority to doctrines of the Church. If any one is better pleased with the edition of the Seventy, there it is, long since corrected by me. For it is not our aim in producing the new to destroy the old. And yet if our friend reads carefully, he will find that our version is the more intelligible, for it has not turned sour by being poured three times over into different vessels, but has been drawn straight from the press, and stored in a clean jar, and has thus preserved its own flavor. [my emphasis] [Even Jerome rejected the apocrypha included in the GTO]
In the following quote, Jerome is not clear what he means by "descent of three steps." However, his additional comments above and below lead me to believe that he thought the three steps had corrupted "the Seventy." The comments in the middle of Jerome’s quote to follow are made so that there is no ambiguity. It is interesting in the quote to follow that Jerome confirms Dean Burgon’s comments concerning the "variety" of texts on p. 16
I am not discussing the Old Testament, which was turned into Greek by the Seventy elders, and has reached us by a descent of three steps. I do not ask what Aquila and Symmachus think, or why Theodotion takes a middle course between the ancients and the moderns. I am willing to let that be the true translation which had apostolic approval. [In other words, even though it is "corrupted" Jerome will no longer fight his adversaries, HDW]
I am now speaking of the New Testament. This was undoubtedly composed in Greek, with the exception of the work of Matthew the Apostle, who was the first to commit to writing the Gospel of Christ, and who published his work in Judaea in Hebrew characters. [This is denied. There is no evidence Matthew wrote in Hebrew. HDW] We must confess that as we have it in our language it is marked by discrepancies, and now that the stream is distributed into different channels we must go back to the fountainhead. I pass over those manuscripts which are associated with the names of Lucian and Hesychius,, and the authority of which is perversely maintained by a handful of disputatious persons. It is obvious that these writers could not amend anything in the Old Testament after the labors of the Seventy; and it was useless to correct the New, for versions of Scripture which already exist in the languages of many nations show that their additions are false. I therefore promise in this short Preface the four Gospels only, which are to be taken in the following order, Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, as they have been revised by a comparison of the Greek manuscripts. Only early ones have been used. But to avoid any great divergences from the Latin which we are accustomed to read, I have used my pen with some restraint, and while I have corrected only such passages as seemed to convey a different meaning, I have allowed the rest to remain as they are.
THE AGENDA CONCLUDED
So why are "scholars" spending millions of hours and millions of dollars to "reconstruct" a text from corrupted, fraudulent manuscripts, which are often written or "corrected" by unbelievers? There have been many reasons listed by various authors. The underlying spiritual reason for extolling the possible virtues of the GTO has not been clearly stated or has been missed. It is the old old problem recorded for us in the book of Genesis as the etiology for the fall of man. The problem is the refusal to come under authority. The authority of the words of God frightens men. The Apostle John record these words for us, "Never man spake like this man," [Jn. 7:46] because the Lord Jesus Christ spoke with authority. The ultimate agenda of those promoting the LXX is to destroy the authority of God’s words because "Never man spake like this man." His true words frighten men, because if they are preserved, infallible, plenary, and inerrant, they will have to come under their precise and/or specific authority and judgment. Satan and man have fought this authority "from the beginning."
If the truth about the Received Texts (Masoretic and Greek Traditional Text) can be discredited by assumptions and theories, then men can claim we have no absolute authority. Scholars are free to make up their own texts to promote their philosophies. They are free to ignore the precision (jot and tittle) and they are free from following precisely "the ark of the covenant" (see the Introduction to this work)
Dr. Phil Stringer in a recent newsletter gave an opinion why "so many ‘scholars’ [are] so devoted to the Septuagint." He states:
Roman Catholics use the idea that Christ quoted the Septuagint to justly include the apocrypha in their Bibles. Their reasoning goes like this: ‘Christ used and honored the Septuagint, the Septuagint includes the apocrypha, so Christ honored and authorized the apocarypha.’ Since no Hebrew Old Testament ever included the books of the Apocrypha, the Septuagint is the only source the Catholics have for justifying their canon.
The author of this paper is certain that Dr. Stringer’s reason is correct. However, the underlying spiritual problem exhibited by the Catholic religion is the refusal to come under God’s authority. They would rather place their (man’s) tradition on equal footing (as they stated at the Council of Trent), and reject the authority of His preserved words. For anyone to claim the GTO (Origen’s Greek Text) is "the word of God" in light of the confusion surrounding the text as well as the text exhibiting a very "loose," "corrupted translation" is very suspect. Dr. Stringer is correct when he states:
"After all, if Christ did not care about the specific words of Scripture, why should we?...If Christ used the Septuagint then you can put the Bible in your own words in either a paraphrase or your own translation." [specific is another word for precise, HDW]
Dr. Floyd Jones in his book asks: "Why then do conservatives uphold the LXX?" Dr. Jones’ answer to his own question is (to summarize) that conservatives fear that the Received Text cannot be supported by scholarship, history, and internal proof without THE GTO.
Dr. Phil Stringer in his article asks: "But why are so many evangelicals devoted to an idea for which they can not offer any proof?" Dr. Stringer’s answer to his own question is:
"Many proud evangelicals value the idea of being accepted as "scholarly" and "educated" by the world (the Catholics and the modernists).
One cannot escape the reason for the fall of man even in these situations. If man cannot receive "[a]n inerrant (without error), verbal (each word), plenary (every word), inspired (God breathed, infallible (will not fail), Word of God," as his sole authority with all its life giving promises, he will be insecure and rely on man’s words or "self.".
Finally, if we even use the misnomer, Septuagint or LXX, we are in a way affirming the existence of a document needed by the liberals to promote their theories of recensions, to allow them to "construct" a text more in line with their philosophies, and to assist them in rejecting the authority of a legal document, the words of God. Let us stop using the misnomer and give the text of Origen, principally Codex B another name, the Greek Text of Origen, the GTO.
The Scripture establishes some harsh warnings about the sanctity of the LORD’s words in many ways and in many verses. For example, the LORD says near the beginning of the Scripture:
Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish ought from it, that ye may keep the commandments of the Lord your God which I command you. [Deut. 4:2]
And near the middle of the 66 books of the Bible, he says:
"Add thou not unto his words, lest he reprove thee, and thou be found a liar." [Proverbs 30:5-6]
And he repeats the following well known admonition at the end of the Bible:
For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book: And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book. [Rev. 22:18-19]
Other than the Apocrypha how is the Hebrew Old Testament different? Is this the Talmud used in synagogues today?
FWIW, the first bishop to put his authority behind a definitive list was Athansius in 367 AD and in that list he did include the Apocrypha with the notation that these books should only be read for devotional purposes, not as inspired writings.
1) Your excellent discourse clearly illustrates that, although there were disagreements throughout history about the inclusion/exclusion of the Apocrypha (and Ecclesiastes) that church councils composed of bishops in apostolic succession were the appropriate forum for discussion and resolution of these issues. Do you contend that the insights of individuals in the 1500s or 1600s rightly supercede the conclusions reached by the whole church in council prior to that? If you accept Jerome or an early council as authoritative with regard to the Apocrypha, on what grounds do you reject Trent? If you reject all councils back to Jerusalem, on what grounds do you prefer Zwingli to a Pope?
And if your answer is that the church "became corrupt" (so corrupt that it was no longer the church, how do you reconcile that with Matthew 16:18 (second clause)?
And if you say that the church ceased to be the church, requiring reform, why are you not a Mormon (assuming you aren't)?
Jerome points out accurately that the "Septuagint" that Josephus refers to in his writings was only the Pentateuch, the five books of Moses. Josephus also notes that the canon of the Hebrew scriptures was closed by Ezra circa 440 BC, thus the 22 Books of the Hebrew canon could not have included the 7 Apocrypha/Deuterocanonicals which were also rejected among other things because they were written in Greek not Hebrew.
--Well, I'm of two minds about this, so let me counter you.
--1) Your excellent discourse clearly illustrates that, although there were disagreements throughout history about the inclusion/exclusion of the Apocrypha (and Ecclesiastes) that church councils composed of bishops in apostolic succession were the appropriate forum for discussion and resolution of these issues. Do you contend that the insights of individuals in the 1500s or 1600s rightly supercede the conclusions reached by the whole church in council prior to that? If you accept Jerome or an early council as authoritative with regard to the Apocrypha, on what grounds do you reject Trent? If you reject all councils back to Jerusalem, on what grounds do you prefer Zwingli to a Pope?
I would argue that when the small c catholic church started relying on more than the scripture, which they agreed was canon, (and I believe would have been recognized as big S Scripture by the faithful whether the church recognized it as such or not), is when the councils and such started losing their authority for the church as a whole.
I hope you understand that I hold teachings of the BIg C Catholic (and Orthodox church for that matter) as something less than canon, but well worth studying. But it must be held up to Scripture, and if found wanting, discounted.
Scripture, inspired by God, not a complete and total history of God's will and action by any stretch of the imagination, IS sufficient for doctrine. Anything that falls short of Scripture is not inspired and is a fallible tradition of man.
--And if your answer is that the church "became corrupt" (so corrupt that it was no longer the church, how do you reconcile that with Matthew 16:18 (second clause)?
Actually, I do not say anywhere that the RCC is no longer a church. Its teachings are false in many matters, and those can be a detriment to salvation. Not as much as a detriment as those that deny Christ's Godhood, or the Trinity. But you would agree I am sure, that if you saw idolatry and Mary worship, (though both of us understand the RCC does not agree that it DOES that), but if you saw it in another church, what would your judgement be? Surely you would judge them harshly, as the Prots do the RCC.
The second clause of Matthew (Keys and Binding) is clearly a declaration of the Apostleship of Peter. What is not clear is why Peter is not seen as the greatest of the Apostles two chapters later. All the Apostles were standing there as Christ singled Simon bar Jonah out, and were from the same culture, so would understand it as Jesus pronounced it. But they clearly did not see this as a headship of the Church. Perhaps they understood that since Peter might have been the oldest, he was representative of them all, and the Apostleship was given to all as it was given to Peter. The passage is not cut and dried, nose on your face, clear and complete. It is open for interpretation.
Where in this passage does it lay out the Apostolic Succession? IF Peter was given the keys drivers license and title to the entire church, where is it stated that those that succeeded in his Bishopric would be forever the head of the entire church? Where is it taught that his teachings would be infallible? It is clearly shown in Acts 15 that Peter was not the judge of doctrine, and that James, the brother of Jesus, and the Bishop of Jerusalem, was given more weight than Peter. James pronounced judgement, not Peter, who should have IF he was the head of the catholic church. (And James used Scripture to show the correct doctrine, not traditions.) Scripture clearly shows no deference to Peter.
--And if you say that the church ceased to be the church, requiring reform, why are you not a Mormon (assuming you aren't)?
Um...because I hold to scripture as basis for my beliefs, rather than Mormon man-made traditions, which echo the RCC. Infallible leadership, works used in some fashion for salvation and for atonement of sin, all show a stepping away from the original truth which Luke declared in his Gospel (see Luke 1) and an addition of tradition and false gospels which is warned about by all of the NT writers.
(Sorry if this is incoherent, and if I am inconsistent in continuing this conversation, as I am switching schedules, losing time off and increasing workload of late. Such is military life!)
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.