Posted on 07/27/2012 2:27:56 PM PDT by wmfights
Those who defend the Apocryphal books, do so out of misplaced loyalty to their religious leaders of the past than they do what God has delivered for us all. As the article points out, these disputed books contain numerous errors and that alone SHOULD disqualify them from being thought of as God-breathed Scripture. If you have ever read them, they do not even SOUND like the rest of Scripture does. They lack that spiritual grip - that sense that this is from God. This remains a big deal to some and they will fight tooth and nail over the issue, accusing others of ignorance and all sorts of silly things, and forget that the rest of the Bible - the 66 books - are NOT in dispute with any Christian. No, we have the Bible God meant for us to have and it STILL works in the heart of all those who answer the call of Almighty God.
“We are compelled to concede to the Papists
that they have the Word of God,
that we received it from them,
and that without them
we should have no knowledge of it at all.”
~ Martin Luther
Sounds like an open and shut case.
That's a serious charge, and of course if it is true it must be backed up by serious evidence.
I had laid out briefly, above, the historic councils that codified the Canon of Scripture. We know the times and places of these Councils ---the Council of Rome (382), the Council of Hippo (393), Third and Fourth Councils of Carthage (397, 418)---and the names, too, of those who affirmed the Catholic canon as we know it today.
So, are you saying that it was some other group of Christians who were preserving the Bible? I would like to know more. Who were they? Are you thinking of the Montanists? Or the Assyrian Church of the East -- the Nestorians? Or the Persian Church, a dhimmi community under the Rashidun Caliphate? Or ... When did this ancient "Bible preserving" happen, apart from the Catholic Church? and where? Did they produce an official Canon, other than the one affirmed by the Councils above? And where are the ancient Bibles they preserved?
You can see I am eager to know more about your historic Bible sources.
Thank you.
In your unlearned opinion. The Deuterocanonicals are not part of the abridged, edited versions of Scripture that showed up centuries after the original. The corrupted KJV, not KJB, was produced over 12 centuries later. However, they were there when the 73 book canon was closed in 405 AD by Pope St. Innocent I.
If a Christian relies on edicts of theologians to validate their belief in something it is easy to be misled. In this case by looking for councils to determine what is, or is not Scripture it is easy to miss the beautiful working of the Holy Spirit. Christians recognized the Scriptures very early on. For example, the Muratonian Fragment which includes all but a few of the books found at the end of the NT dates back to 150AD. No hierarchy with the power of the State behind it established this, it was Christians led by the Holy Spirit.
The other issue in looking to councils of one church ignores that at the same time that the allegorical view of Scripture was emerging a literal school of interpretation already existed. In other words by relying solely on those that came later, acting as if those that were present at the beginning had not already established something, a Christian can fall into the trap of only seeing part of the truth.
St. Jerome, pray for us!
The authority of the Church is very much dependent on the Holy Spirit and not at all dependent on "edicts of theologians". If it were, the Catholic Church through the centuries would have been captured by Montanism, Arianism, Pelagianism, Donatism and every other enthusiasm and split-off movement that came along, since as you know Montanus, Arius, Pelagius and Donatus were members of the long (and still continuing) line of error-prone theologians including Martin Luther, Fr. Hans Kung and Fr. Robert Drinan!
Being dependent on the self-described "leading of the Spirit" of any "individual" theologian is always going to be prone to error, since it is so easy to be misled when one is acting as a "lone ranger" cut off fromn thr Apostles and their successors.
That's why the Councils are so important. Whenever there is a major controversy or crisis, starting with the Council of Jerusalem in Apostolic times, the leaders of the Church must gather to weigh evidence, hear testimony, search Scripture, pray ardently, discuss and debate (sometime heatedly) and finally grasp a Truth they can announce with confidence, "It seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us..." (Acts 15:29).
If you disregard Councils, you are disregarding how the Holy Spirit guided the Church in every single century --- through 20 centuries --- until now: as Jesus promised, the Church has never been left an orphan or abandoned. And we have the evidence.
The Muratorian Fragment is part of that evidence. It illustrates how the Church over the centuries had to deal with controversies about the question of the canon. The MF includes at least one book accepted by Catholics and Orthodox, but which today's Protestants would list with the Apocrypha (Wisdom), at least one properly called patristic (The Shepherd, by Hermas), and some which are seriously dubious "...the new book of psalms for Marcion, together with Basilides, the founder of the Asian Cataphrygians."
And although the Muratorian Fragment lists most of the New Testament books, it's missing a few (e.g. Matthew, James, 3 John), and it adds several works which are not inspired.
You clearly state your view (not mine) that the Muratorian Fragment was Holy Spirit-inspired. Really? Is it accepted as such by, for instance, the Baptists? If so, I take it you accept the book of Wisdom? And omit John 3, Matthew and James?
Not me. I think the Councils' canons, being unanimous over a period of almost 1700 years, are more reliable than that.
"Those that were present at the beginning" on whom everything subsequent depends, were the Apostles. The Catholic Church is built on the Apostles, on the foundation laid by Christ, with the guidance of the Holy Spirit. I personally find any other foundation dubious.
It is disputed that this Jamnia council ever took place.
Those scholars who delve into such things, cannot precisely and irrefutably agree exactly when and where the Hebrew "canon" was closed, even as the idea of "canon", though not a word of their making, can be shown to be a principle of their own making.
What can otherwise be found, is of course the historian/explainer Josephus, pointing to those number which later are known to us as what is contained in the present Hebrew canon, with quite early on Melito agreeing, followed by Jerome, whom confirmed Melito.
What comes earliest, should be given great consideration.
We see too, that the apocrypha doesn't quite fit. It is neither "Law", the history related to the giving of the Law, including the consequences for both obeying or disobeying, nor is it Psalms, nor books of the minor prophets.
What is of no slight consideration, is just what the Sanhedrin held as being canonical, at the very moment when Jesus stood in the flesh before them.
Nothing else counts. Who else but the Pharisees in Jerusalem were the "foremost"? Would Christ have come and showed himself to any lessor? That was the Jewish religious "Supreme Court". There was no higher authoritative body on earth at the time, in matters regarding the religion of the Jews.
Pointing to the Septuagint as "end of story" is quite problematic, for a host of reasons. First, could be "which version"? Then one would need to irrefutably show that the foremost Jewish authorities, those in Jerusalem, accepted that translation and collection as being canonical. Such has not been accomplished.
Since it is in dispute that this precise Jamnia council even took place (though something of the sort quite possibly did) by what authority can it be claimed that they
hence by implication, that was the motive behind their removal of what should have been known to them as "Scripture" from that work?
If not arguing "perfidious Jews" perfidious even to their own collection of Covenant with G-d, guided by G-d;
Here one must argue "stupid Jews" coming from what is now Israel, stupid since they didn't know what their own Holy Writ contained, and what it did not.
But on the other hand, "smart, well informed Jews" living for enough generations back in Egypt to have all but entirely lost their ability to understand Hebrew, as the ones who were "smart".
Just the symbolism alone of such an idea is problematic, and that before delving into whether or not those Jews whom were actually adequately informed among the Egyptian Jewry, themselves accepted the work without reservation. I do seem to recall there being found in the historic record, some quibbling regarding this very thing, there in Egypt at that time, but have lost the thread, mentioning it here as something for other readers and searchers to be on the lookout for.
Is there something "the Jews" would see magical in the apocrypha, that does the trick, turning people into Christians? Were those books in and of themselves the key to it all? Would "the Jews" be motivated to meddle with their own Holy Writ, just to meddle with and/or "get back at" early Christians in some way?
What a preposterous proposition, but one found hidden in the mention of "Jamnia" and vague allusion to nefarious motives attributed to those dad-gum, perfidious Jews of Israel who "edited out" what is still here now in dispute... and what was long termed 'apocrypha', even by early Catholic scholars.
By What logic would Jewish scholars of that time, those whom actually knew the Hebrew, and were well apprised of tradition, knowing what was considered to be properly seen as Scripture, and what was not --- throw out portions of what was Holy to themselves?
Along those lines, why would later Hebrew language scholars do the same?. Answer that please, but show it from tracing through the most ancient Hebrew sources available, while also explaining why Josephus got it wrong (but certain details of Christ correct!) along with why Melito and later Jerome, should not be seen as authoritative and best informed, coming as they did before the later councils (which you seem to favor).
Why would they do such a precise thing, rejecting certain late-in-the-making written works, (and other works considered by them to be spurious?). Would they do so just to frustrate those irritating Christians? To confuse Jewish converts to Christianity, even at the cost of confusing wider Jewry, by removing the "rabbinical period" and other writings, which otherwise should well enough have been considered by themselves to be sacred, set apart from all else?.
If we are to make assumption concerning the issue, it is much more logical to assume (if Jamnia occurred) they were making clear statement to the Jews in Egypt and elsewhere, to not use the Septuagint unreservedly, for it was contaminated to a degree, in and of itself. The spread of Christianity undoubtedly highlighted the use of that work, possibly contributing to a sense of urgency in their own work aimed at correcting the Septuagint. (not only are they converting to that cult of Christ, but they are perverting our own Scriptures while they are at it!).
It is no wonder then, that there would have been those Jewish scholars, from those whom were left alive after the destruction of the Temple and their Institutes of Learning, whom would desire strongly to set the record straight. Their point of view at that juncture of history, as to what Holy Writ was, and was not, is not to be taken lightly.
Jews truly "in the know" one can surmise, would desire very much to reestablish proper canon, for reasons contained within Judaism, itself.
To argue that the Hebrew canon (what can be properly considered to be what we know of today as the Old Testament) should unreservedly be some version of the Septuagint, is an argument one should take up with Jewish scholars.
Good luck with that.
See on this FR thread Mr. Rogers' post # 6
I think the point is that the Apocrypha was long considered unacceptable for matters of doctrine. And even the Council of Trent didn’t care to open that can of worms. While it affirmed some of the Apocrypha as being ‘canon’, it didn’t tackle if the Apocrypha had authority “for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness”.
The Council of Trent also screwed up its list of books, dropping 3 small parts that had long been considered canon - since they were part of the Apocrypha. That is why the term “deuterocanonical” was coined - to describe what was left of the Apocrypha after the Council of Trent dropped part of it out.
Meanwhile, about Jamnia, note that I wrote ""IF" it could be said..." I regret not having made the "iffiness" of this reputed council even more explicit. I cannot vouch for the historicity of what is called the "Council of Jamnia" --- and so it's even more nebulous as to why the Masoretic canon should be preferred to the Septugint canon.
I do think the authenticity of the LXX rests, not on our objections against this "iffy," historically dubious "Council of Jamnia," but on the fact that 80% of the OT quotes found in the NT itself, are taken from the LXX.
I don't think ou can throw out the LXX without throwing out the NT. It's very obviously the version of Scripture that the Evangelists and the Epistle-writers used. St. Paul tells Timothy, "All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness...", and the Scripture he quotes in his own Epistles is the LXX. "ALL Scripture therefore is not limited to just the 39-book "short version" OT. The LXX also includes the 7 books you call Apocrypha.
Both the Catholics and the Orthodox have faithfully preserved, and taught from, the LXX, just as the Apostles did. So, are you saying that it was some other group of Christians (other than the Cath/Orthodox) who were preserving the Bible? I would like to know more. Who were they?...When did this ancient "Bible preserving" happen, apart from the Catholic Church? and where? Did they produce an official 66 Book OT/NT Canon? When was the earliest 66-Book Canon list written and where is it to be found?
You can see I am eager to know more about your historic Bible sources.
Eak perked (\..\)
Always left out of the discussion is mention that the hypothetical Council of Jamnia determining canon is NOT some hoary tradition. It was made up about 140 years ago.
Just offhand, I know the Western Church uses Wisdom, Sirach, and Maccabees Liturgically in the Lectionary, as well as Daniel 3:24-90, the Prayer of Azariah and the Song of the Three Hebrew Children. Don't know about the Eastern Church. Maybe The_Reader_David will tell us about that.
Just recently I saw a long list of such "quotes", and could readily see that most all in which I had strong familiarity with, could be derived from the Hebrew canon, in fact most needed to be for sake of contextual deeper meanings, tying together broader themes, even if some form of "repeat" of those words and phrases could be in the works referred to as apocryphal.
Those wishing to make the "80%" claim, might do well to dig deep and see how much of that can be easily enough falsifiable (otherwise found in Hebrew canon).
I lay that duty not to your own charge, but more as a precautionary note.
Why should things be seen as nebulous? Are we to believe the Jews lost their own Holy Writ? Even as we have clear enough indications there was resistance and complaint on their account that works such as the Septuagint went beyond what they considered to be Hebrew canon, in that first century or so after Christ?
What of Jerome? And Before him Melito (which we have no real real extant texts for, but mention and quotes from him, significant to this discussion by Jerome).
I do not believe there is any listing of what is to be considered Old Testament outside of Judaism, earlier than Melito. he died in 180 A.D.
What of Josephus? I sure do enjoy using him as a secular proof for the life and death of Christ, with Josephus also including brief comment as to the dispute over what happened to "the body" which parallels strongly what we see in the New Testament.
I'll go and check the link... yet I can hardly imagine the questions I raise again [repeat, sorry] here will be sufficiently addressed.
Thank you for your kind and polite reply. I'm not certain I deserve such, but I have noticed that you are quite polite as habit, and I do respect and appreciate that, even as we can have some small matters of disagreement.
“The Deuterocannicals are unacceptable? To whom? “
What I wrote was:
“I think the point is that the Apocrypha was long considered unacceptable for matters of doctrine.”
To whom?
Most Catholic theologians prior to Trent, and quite a few afterward. Remember, the Council of Trent left THAT discussion open:
““This question was not only a matter of controversy between Catholics and Protestants: it was also the subject of a lively discussion even between Catholic theologians. St Jerome, that great authority in all scriptural questions, had accepted the Jewish canon of the Old Testament. Thc books of Judith, Esther, Tobias, Machabees, Wisdom and Ecclesiasticus, which the majority of the Fathers, on the authority of the Septuagint, treated as canonical, Jerome described as apocryphal, that is, as not included in the canon though suitable for the edification of the faithful…The general of the Franciscans Observant, Calvus, dealt thoroughly with the problems raised by Cajetan in a tract drawn up for the purposes of the Counci1. He defended the wider canon, and in particular the canonicity of the book of Baruch, the story of Susanna, that of Bel and the dragon, and the canticle of the three children (Benedicite). On the other hand, he refused to accept the oft-quoted Apostolic Canons as authoritative for the canonicity of the third book of Machabees. The general of the Augustinians, Seripando, on the contrary, was in sympathy with Erasmus and Cajetan and sought to harmonise their views with the Florentine decree on the ground that the protocanonical books of the Old Testament, as “canonical and authentic”, belong the the canon fidei, while the deuterocanonical ones, as “canonical and ecclesiastical books”, belong to the canon morum. Seripando, accordingly, follows the tendency which had made itself felt elsewhere also in pre-Tridentine Catholic theology, which was not to withhold the epithet “canonical” from the deuterocanonical books, yet to use it with certain restrictions.
The tracts of the two generals of Orders show that opinions diverged widely even within the Council. The prestige of the Augustinian general and that of the Bishop of Fano who sided with him, may have prompted Cervini to discuss the whole complex question in his class. It became evident that no one supported the subtle distinction between a canon fidei and a canon morum, though it met with a somewhat more favourable reception in the general congregation of 12 February when several of the Fathers deemed it useful, though not necessary. The majority agreed with the opinion of the general of the Servites, that controverted theological questions, which had already been the subject of discussion between Augustine and Jerome, should not be decided by the Council but should be allowed to remain open questions. The result of the above-mentioned vote of the general congregation of 15 February committed the Council to the wider canon, but inasmuch as it abstained from a theological discussion, the question of differences between books within the canon was left as it had been.”
Hubert Jedin, History of the Council of Trent, pgs 56-57
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hubert_Jedin
I myself, brought up the doubt, here on this thread. Why post to me "it is always left out"?
Made up some 140 years ago? Well, ok, maybe, but then again there have been enough scraps of "activity" (just that I know of!) traced to the first/second century, related to objection from some Jewish quarters concerning their disagreement.
Some of that I think it safe to assume, was the stuff the "Jamnia" council hypothesis was founded upon. There is evidence there...enough to give us a sense something, some activity akin to it, transpired.
There was a network of schools or colleges that the Romans destroyed along with Temple in Jerusalem. Would we expect that they were able to pry out of the mind and conscience of the Hebrews which studied there, knowledge of such primary importance to them, as to what their Scripture was, and was not?
Like I said --- go to the Jewish scholars, and ask THEM why they hold the "canon" which they do presently.
They claim to be carrying it forward unchanged for many more centuries than the Catholic Church does, for what they carry.
At issue is not what writings which can be found and translated (and have been, but not uniformly) but which particular ones were considered canonical at the time of Christ.
What did the Sanhedrin hold to be canon? That is the question.
I can't lay my hands on it now, but I got a lot of my notions from Timothy McLay (google him), an Evanglical scholar ---his publisher is Eerdmans anyhow, he teaches at St. Stephen’s University in New Brunswick. His statistical analysis of the lexicon is dauntingly technical, but he goes beyond just word-mincing: he argues that the whole theology of the NT exhibits the strong influence of the Greek scriptural tradition not only in its vocabulary, but also in its citations of Scripture, and its concepts.
-- and also from the great, great, great Jarislav Peliken, once-Evangelical Lutheran, studied with the rabbis, joined the Orthodox---Russian Orthodox, I think, St. Vladimir's--- and has now passed on to his reward where --- ahem --- everyone is Catholic. (I mean, 'catholic,' as in kata-holos!) ;o)
I want to thank you, too, for a pleasant and reasonable discussion. I regret that sometimes in these disputes, one scarcely gets in impression that the belligerents are actually people who share a love of the Lord Jesus. In any case, I do ask your prayers, and think, on the whole, we will draw the closer, the closer we draw to Our Lord.
One can wager that the Bais Haknessess Hagdolah (Sanhedrin) did not hold Greek texts to be canon.
The was a religious school at Yavneh (Jamnia). Their teachings form the basis of the Mishna. They wouldn’t have dared tampered with ‘canon’, which has been mentioned does not even mean the same thing to Jews as it does to Christians.
Previous to the 1870s, I believe Christians insisted the Jews changed ‘canon’ at the time of the Masoretes.
There's my bottom line.
Good evening, and God bless you, my dear!
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.