Posted on 04/03/2013 3:43:07 PM PDT by NYer
Q: Okay, so what is the Christian account of how revelation occurred?
As Elmer Fudd might say, “Vewy, vewy swowly.” Divine revelation didn’t happen in a blinding flash—such as God dropping the Summa Theologiae on top of a mountain and waiting for people to invent the Latin language so they could read it. (Though He could have given them magical spectacles that would translate it for them….) It seems that God preferred to slowly unfold His personality and His will for us through the course of tangled, messy human history. We might wonder why, and call up the divine customer service line to ask why in heck human nature arrived in the mail without the instructions. I don’t pretend to know what He was thinking here, but I find it aesthetically fitting that our knowledge of God evolved in much the way that animal species did, over a long time and by fits and starts, with sudden leaps whenever God saw fit, until finally the world was ready to receive the final product: in creation, man, in revelation, the Son of Man. God seems to prefer planting seeds to winding up robots.
So we start with traces of a primitive monotheism among some scattered peoples of the world—which might have been long-faded memories of what Adam told his children about the whole “apple incident,” combined with crude deductions that boil down to “Nothing comes from nothing.” But mankind pretty much wandered around with no more than that for quite some time, and this was when he employed the inductive method to discover the hemorrhoid god.
The first incident in Jewish-Christian scriptures that suggests God revealed Himself to us after that is the rather discouraging narrative of Noah. According to the story, the human race went so wrong so fast that God decided to backspace over most of it, leaving only a single righteous family, trapped on a stinky boat with way too many pets. When they landed, they had no more idea of what to do with themselves than the cast of Gilligan’s Island, so God gave them instructions: We call this the Covenant of Noah. The Jews believe that these are the only commandments God gave to the Gentiles—7 of them, instead of 613—and that the rest of us can please God just by keeping them. That’s the reason that Jews don’t generally try to make converts. (Who are we to run around making things harder for people? Feh!) The Jewish Talmud enumerates the 7 laws of Noah as follows:
Most of this sounds fairly obvious and commonsensical—though we might wonder why it was necessary to tell people to stop pulling off pieces of live animals and eating them. They must have gotten into some pretty bad habits while they were still stuck on that ark.
Q: That ark must have been the size of Alabama…
I know, I know.
Q. …to fit all those elephants, hippos, rhinos, tree sloths, polar bears, gorillas, lions and moose…
Okay, smart guy.
Q. …not to mention breeding pairs of more than 1,000,000 species of insects. Sure they’re mostly small, but those creepy-crawlies add up.
Spoken like a true-believing member of Campus Crusade for Cthulu, complete with a bad case of acne and involuntary celibacy. Maybe you should focus on Onan instead of Noah.
Look, there’s a reason why Catholics don’t read the bible in an exclusively literal sense, and haven’t since the time of Origen (+253). The Church looks at the books of scripture according to the genres in which they were written (history, allegory, wisdom, prophecy, and so on). And this story, clearly, was intended as allegory—which means that on top of some historical content (and there’s flotsam from flood-narratives in the basement of most ancient cultures) the writer piled up details to make a point. Unlike liberal Protestants, we don’t use this principle to explain away Jesus’ miracles and the moral law. Nor are we fundamentalists who take everything in the bible literally—except for “This is my body,” (Luke 22: 19) “Thou art Peter,” (Matthew 16: 18) and “No, your pastor can’t get divorced.” (Cleopatra 7: 14) The Church responded to biblical criticism with appropriate skepticism at first, and accepted the useful parts (like reading original languages and looking for ancient manuscripts), without throwing out the traditional mode of reading the bible in light of how the Church Fathers traditionally understood it.
Q. Why should the Church be the interpreter of the bible?
In the case of the New Testament, the Church had transcribed the books; shouldn’t we own the copyright to our own memoirs? When the list of accepted gospels and epistles was drawn up, there were more surplus candidates milling around than in downtown Manchester, New Hampshire, before a primary—some of them inspirational but probably inauthentic, like the Protoevangelium that tells the story of Mary’s childhood; others creepily gnostic, like the “Gospel of Thomas,” which has Jesus using His “superpowers” to wreak revenge on His schoolmates. (That gospel is always popular, since it shows Jesus doing exactly what each of us would really do in His place.) The decision on which books were divinely inspired was based largely on the evidence of the liturgy: which books had been used in churches for services in the most places for the longest. As I like to tell Jehovah’s Witnesses who come to my door: that bible you’re waving at me was codified by a council of Catholic bishops who prayed to Mary and the saints, baptized infants, and venerated the Eucharist. So you could say that as the original, earthly author and editor, the Church has a better claim of knowing how to read it than the reporters at National Geographic—who every Christmas or Easter discover some new and tantalizing scrap of papyrus containing gnostic sex magic tips or Judas’ “To-do” list.
In the case of the Old Testament, the Church draws heavily on how Jews traditionally read their own scriptures—but with one important and obvious difference. We are the descendants of the faction of Jews who accepted Christ as the Messiah and evangelized the gentiles, all the while considering themselves the “faithful remnant” who’d remained true to the faith of Abraham. So we see throughout the Old Testament foreshadowings of Christ, for instance in Abraham’s sacrifice, and Isaiah’s references to the “suffering servant.” The Jews who were skeptical of Jesus believed that they were heroically resisting a blasphemous false prophet who’d tempted them to idolatry. As the Church spread and gained political clout, and Christians began to shamefully mistreat the people from whom they’d gotten monotheism in the first place, there surely was genuine heroism entailed in standing firm. I often wonder how many Jews would be drawn to Jesus if they could separate Him from the sins committed against their great-grandparents in His name….
The version of the Old Testament that Catholics and Orthodox use is different from what Jews use today. Our version, based on the Septuagint translation into Greek, is somewhat longer, and includes some later documents that Jews accepted right up to the time Saint Paul converted—books that illustrate a lot of the mature developments in Judaism which led up to the coming of Christ. The very fact that Christian apostles were using these books may have led the rabbis to eventually reject them. (Since the biblical references to Purgatory can be found in these books, Martin Luther and the Anglicans also excluded them.) Ironically, the Book of Maccabees exists in Catholic bibles but not Jewish ones, and right up until Vatican II we had a Feast of the Maccabees—which means that you could call Chanukah a Catholic holiday. But don’t tell the judges in New York City, or they’ll pull all the menorahs out of the schools.
Logos does not mean "words" and the Word of God is so very much more that a book.
Peace be with you
Yes, I agree with you on most everything you said. Though, there might be some books like them, I suppose, that God has chosen to keep hidden during these times for some reason. If we discovered such a book, I think that it would eventually be widely recognized for what it was, on its own merit.
“the Word of God is so very much more that a book.”
Yes, I agree the Word of God is much more than just a book, but it is also true that the Word of God is very much a book. Just as Christ was so very much more than a man, but also, Christ was very much a man. Such are the mysteries of the Lord.
Thanks, although I was not suggesting there were undiscovered books, but that just as writings came to be recognized and established as Divine, essentially due to their qualities and attestation, so the canon was established as there were no other books that match them.
Yes, I understood that, I just thought that I’d put out there what I could imagine would be the one exception to the idea that there aren’t any other similar books out there. Basically, if there are, we probably haven’t found them, or, by your sound reasoning, they would have demonstrated their authenticity to us.
Luther is the second coming? ;)
Given that these passages were in the Vulgate prior to Luther, then yes, he took them out.
“until then there was no infallible, indisputable canon”
Were they included in Gutenberg’s bible?
I understand your skepticism. It’s just - we know what the bible was like prior to Luther. The books were in the Gutenberg bible. They were in the Vulgate.
They have been in both for over a millennium before Luther came on the scene. I cannot see the justification for taking them out just because Luther said so. It stands to reason that if Daniel is inspired, then the entire book is inspired, not just ‘Daniel minus certain parts’.
Here is a group of text downloads for a number versions of the KJV in various languages.
http://bible.ccim.org/dcb.html
For many years I have had a text version on all of my computers. What I liked about it was the entire bible text would fit on a 3-1/2” floppy. Pretty small footprint.
Have Xiphos bible software on this computer. It was a free download. Was an option in this Xubuntu Linux system. Has a good search engine, is free.
Bill would if he could.
” Now about the dead rising—have you not read in the Book of Moses, in the account of the burning bush, how God said to him, ‘I am the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob’[b]? He is not the God of the dead, but of the living. You are badly mistaken!”
“An infallible magisterium is not necessary to recognize and establish writings as Scripture”
Indeed. All it requires is Your Own Personal Opinion.
You can have it your way.
**Who Holds the Bible’s Copyright?**
The Catholic Church, of course!
” It’s just - we know what the bible was like prior to Luther. The books were in the Gutenberg bible. They were in the Vulgate.”
Sure, but they were in the Vulgate with disclaimers that they were not to be taken as authoritative! You can’t cite the authority of the Vulgate and then dismiss the proclamations contained in the Vulgate. So which is it? Do you trust the Vulgate on the matter or no?
“It stands to reason that if Daniel is inspired, then the entire book is inspired, not just ‘Daniel minus certain parts’.”
It stands to reason that if Daniel is inspired, it was written by Daniel and his scribe, as it attests, and therefore written in the language that was in use at the time, not in two separate languages that were in use at two different times.
No, of course not, but Luther didn’t do any resurrecting, as far as I know of. David Koresh tried that trick, but it didn’t work out too well for him.
Since when does the Author’s work become property of the editors?
I misunderstood what you meant.
Here is what you asked for.
http://www.codexsinaiticus.org/en/manuscript.aspx
“Which is why the definitive Latin version of scripture excluded them. Oh wait. No, it didn’t.
The Vulgate included them. As of 400 AD.”
Jerome translated the vulgate, and says the Apocrypha is not canon.
“Whatsoever is without these, is to be placed among the Apocrypha. Therefore, Wisdom, which is commonly called the Wisdom of Solomon, and the Book of Jesus the son of Sirach, and Judith, and Tobit, and the Shepherd are not in the canon.” — Preface to the Book of Kings, vol. 3, book 24.
Cardinal Cajeten expressing Jerome’s position on the matter:
“Here we close our commentaries on the historical books of the Old Testament. For the rest (that is, Judith, Tobit, and the books of Maccabees) are counted by St Jerome out of the canonical books, and are placed amongst the Apocrypha, along with Wisdom and Ecclesiasticus, as is plain from the Prologus Galeatus.
Nor be thou disturbed, like a raw scholar, if thou shouldest find anywhere, either in the sacred councils or the sacred doctors, these books reckoned as canonical. For the words as well of councils as of doctors are to be reduced to the correction of Jerome. Now, according to his judgment, in the epistle to the bishops Chromatius and Heliodorus, these books (and any other like books in the canon of the bible) are not canonical, that is, not in the nature of a rule for confirming matters of faith.
Yet, they may be called canonical, that is, in the nature of a rule for the edification of the faithful, as being received and authorised in the canon of the bible for that purpose. By the help of this distinction thou mayest see thy way clearly through that which Augustine says, and what is written in the provincial council of Carthage.”
-Cardinal Cajetan (16th century)
There are also substantial reasons why the Apocrypha uncanonize themselves.
Tobit, for example, has angels teaching believers how to do magic, as well as showing “Angels of the Lord” telling lies about their identity.
Tobit 6:5-7, “Then the angel said to him: Take out the entrails of this fish, and lay up his heart, and his gall, and his liver for thee: for these are necessary for useful medicines. 6 And when he had done so, he roasted the flesh thereof, and they took it with them in the way: the rest they salted as much as might serve them, till they came to Rages the city of the Medes. 7 Then Tobias asked the angel, and said to him: I beseech thee, brother Azarias, tell me what remedies are these things good for, which thou hast bid me keep of the fish? 8 And the angel, answering, said to him: If thou put a little piece of its heart upon coals, the smoke thereof driveth away all kind of devils, either from man or from woman, so that they come no more to them.”
It also teaches that alms giving, not the blood of the lamb, cleanses sin.
Tobit 4:11, “For alms deliver from all sin, and from death, and will not suffer the soul to go into darkness.”
Judith has wrong historical information and, therefore, cannot be scripture:
Judith 1:5, “Now in the twelfth year of his reign, Nabuchodonosor, king of the Assyrians, who reigned in Ninive the great city, fought against Arphaxad and overcame him.”
He’s King of the Babylonians, just so you know.
Baruch has similar historical problems:
Baruch 6:2, “And when you are come into Babylon, you shall be there many years, and for a long time, even to seven generations: and after that I will bring you away from thence with peace.”
It was for 70 years, not 7 generations, just so you know.
Maccabees uncanonizes itself, insomuch it tells us directly that it was not written by anyone inspired.
For that cause the Jews rejected the apocrypha, since there were no Prophets in those days who could have composed any of these books:
“From Artexerxes to our own time the complete history has been written but has not been deemed worthy of equal credit with the earlier records because of the failure of the exact succession of the prophets.” ... “We have not an innumerable multitude of books among us, disagreeing from and contradicting one another, but only twenty-two books, which contain the records of all the past times; which are justly believed to be divine...”(Flavius Josephus, Against Apion 1:8)
For the same cause, Origen, Jerome, Cyril of Jerusalem, Athanasius, and “Pope” Gregory the first, rejected most, if not all, of these books as canon.
For example, Gregory on Maccabees:
“Concerning which thing we do nothing irregularly, if we adduce a testimony from the books, which although not canonical are published for the edification of the people. For Eleazar wounding an elephant in battle, slew him, but fell under him whom he had destroyed.” — Morals, book 19, on 39th chap, of Job.
And Athanasius:
“All the Scriptures of us Christians are inspired. And there are riot innumerable books, but on the contrary the books are defined and in cluded in a canon, and these are the books of the Old Testament. Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, Joshua, Judge*, Ruth, the first and second of Kings, the third and fourth of Kings, the first and second of Chronicles, the first and second of Ezra, the Psalter of David, the Proverbs of Solomon, Ecclesiastes, the Song of Songs, the Twelve Prophets, Amos, Micaiah, Joel, Obadiah, Jonah, Nahum, Habukkuk, Zephaniah, Haggai, Zacha- riah, Malachi. These twelve are in one book. Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Daniel. There are other books of the Old Testament be sides these, which are not canonical. The Wisdom of Solomon, the Wisdom of Jesus the Son of Sirach, Esther, Judith, Tobias. These are not canonical.” — Synopsis of the Holy Scriptures. (Paris, 1627.)
.....”The Word of God ‘IS’ God, and carries all of the authority of God, as God’s authority cannot be diminished.”.....
Amen ...and worth repeating.
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.