Posted on 03/25/2012 2:40:30 AM PDT by GonzoII
John and Genesis didn't have nearly the debate over their canonicity as did the apocryphal books. There wasn't the level of early church dissension about their inspiration (Jerome, Cyril, John of Damascus,Origen, Athanasius). This was among the factors that led to Trent finally declaring the apocrypha inspired.
the most telling part of that quote of yours. These books are seen as being edifying but not of the authority of the other Old Testament books. These books are in fact Old Testament books
Insofar as they were bound together. I consider my maps part of my Bible too but they're not inspired.
Just look at how we treat the Gospels during Mass and compare that to what we do regarding the epistles. Quite a different level of authority.
God's authority reigns over all of the NT. His authority doesn't wax and wane. It's not dependent on which book you read.
John and Genesis didn't have nearly the debate over their canonicity as did the apocryphal books.
No, but that is hardly the issue. They were never canonized officially, according to your definition, before Trent, and yet we know full well both are and always were accepted as scripture by the Church. And many New Testament texts were heavily debated, and much more so than any deuterocanonical text, including James and the Apocalypse. And these were also scripture and had been for more than a thousand years when Trent convened. And we know it in exactly the same ways and for the same reasons as we do the rest of scripture, including the entirety of the Old Testament.
There wasn't the level of early church dissension about their inspiration (Jerome, Cyril, John of Damascus,Origen, Athanasius). This was among the factors that led to Trent finally declaring the apocrypha inspired.
No, Trent was convened many, many centuries after these people wrote and spoke and was a response to the Reformation. That was because Protestantism was a catastrophic rupture and threatened the entire Church, whereas these people's comments obviously never created any real doubt for people about the canon.
And, btw, this list is misleading. These men hardly rejected the deuterocanon, though some gave differing lists when they bothered. Most, if not all, of these men (I am not sure about St. Cyril of Jerusalem) went on to not only quote from the deuteros with authority for defining doctrinal positions, but even called them scripture. I can recall one reference by St. John Damascene to the book of Wisdom calling it "the divine scripture." Hardly a rejection. Origen and St. Athanasius particularly left numerous very clear references and uses of the deuterocanon calling it scripture. And most of them listed books such as Baruch and Wisdom even in their lists supposedly rejecting the "apocrypha" and some included some real oddities like the Didache as New Testament in the case of St. John Damascene.
St. Jerome is really the only real contender to be used as a voice against the deuteros, and yet all the early extant copies of his translation of the Scripture, the Vulgate, include copies of those books. Not from him of course, as he wouldn't bother, but they were included. Why? Because the Church wanted them there, whether St. Jerome did or not. And even he, btw, referred to several of the "apocrypha" as scripture throughout his lifetime, and even defended the inclusion of the Greek additions to Daniel at a later date.
Most informative commentary on the Geneva Bible, thanks for posting.
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.