Why Scripture and the Facts of History Compel Me to Remain a Committed Evangelical Protestant

“Sure I have. I’ve provided concrete evidence that supports what I’m saying.”

No, you’ve made various assertions which you call concrete, but to me seem to be grasping for straws.

“This is evidence that:”

It’s evidence that the ancients included the apocrypha as useful for edification as agreed by Jerome, “Pope” Gregory, Athanasius, Cardinal Cajetan, and on and on and on. It’s absolutely irrelevant for what you’re trying to prove.

“Also, there is no evidence for the wholly protestant distinction in scripture in either Sinaiticus or Vaticanus.”

The distinction is by Jerome and others, and the Reformers. The Sinaiticus has the Epistle of Barnabas, which you do not hold is part of the RCC canon of divinely inspired scripture. It’s an instructional epistle. It’s strong evidence that the ancients attached to their collection of writings whatever they thought was useful to read. Since the ancients defined very clearly what was the purpose of the apocrypha, it doesn’t matter how many MSS you put forward, since they (The early ‘Fathers’) all universally acknowledge that they are brought forward for “instruction in piety,” but not to be confused with those which are brought forward for “confirmation of the faith.”

“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 Ecciesiasticus, as is plain from the Protogus 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, “Commentary on all the Authentic Historical Books of the Old Testament,” cited by William Whitaker in “A Disputation on Holy Scripture,” Cambridge: Parker Society (1849), p. 424)

” He also doesn’t teach that these books are outside the canon either.”

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.

“So your argument here is that the 500, 600 bishops who attended at Chalcedon simply did not exist.”

No one at Chalcedo endorsed the apocrypha as inspired screature. It’s always amusing to see what you imagine to be my “arguments,” and what you imagine to be “arguments” in reply.

“Oh, this is a admission.”

I guess you admit my position. It’s about time.

“Ahh, so here we go. The LXX is a fake. Glad to have you here. What other innovations to the field of biblical scholarship do you wish to introduce?”

I forgot to reply to this one in my previous post. This is pretty representative of how silly your arguments are. I didn’t say the LXX is fake. I just told you that it’s a historical fact that no one knows when the apocrypha or even the rest of the Old Testament after the Books of Moses were put together and by whom. In fact, the only copies available today were by non-Jews. There are even various versions of translations of apocrypha in Greek, so there was no set version. Furthermore, many of the LXX’s renderings are problematic when compared to the original Hebrew.

For example, here is Isaiah 9:6 in the LXX:

“For a child is born to us, and a son is given to us, whose government is upon his shoulder: and his name is called the Messenger of great counsel: for I will bring peace upon the princes, and health to him.”

Notice it removes the scriptures which declare that the Messiah is God.

On the contrary, I have a paraphrase by Joseph Ben Uziel before the time of Christ, which does not deny the Hebrew rendering of Isaiah 9:6, and in fact ascribes them all to the Messiah. And his reading was not based on the LXX, yes you propose was an official Jewish version backed by the authorities of that day.

I asked you for evidence, but you punted with “So derrr you think the LXX doesn’t exist? Derrr”

"I guess you admit my position. It’s about time."

Your position is an irrelevant non sequitur. No truth can be assembled from false premises and your dissection of the Catholic Canon of Scripture presupposes that Sola Scriptura was the purpose for that Canon. It was not. As I am stating now for the third time in this the Canon was established for the sole purpose of identifying those inspired texts suitable for inclusion in the Liturgy of the Word within the Mass. To suggest that non-Catholics would have a voice in the determination of which writings are suitable is preposterous.

Further, the Canon does not serve to identify the sole deposit of faith, nor does it attempt to suggest that within the canon a hierarchy of Scripture does not exist. Quite the opposite. The order of the readings, with the Old Testament, including the Deutercanonicals first, followed by the various letters and at the apex the Gospels is the Tradition that the Canon serves.

How non-Catholics choose to use the product of the Church for secondary purposes is of no matter to me, but they do not have a claim in the validation of that product. Non-Catholic critiques of the Canon are as relevant as a wet dog scratching at the back door complaining about what the people inside choose to watch on TV.

(And, for the record, the first reading today was from Sirach).

Peace be with you

“absolutely irrelevant for what you’re trying to prove.”

Then, again - why don’t we see a protestant canon back then? You keep saying, “this is how it ought to have been”, but we don’t see it. None of the manuscripts we have from this time period have this canon. Not a single one.

Not Codex Vaticanus, not Sinaiticus, Not Amitianus.

If it were true what you are saying we should at least see some manuscripts that reflect your opinion. Instead - we don’t. Not before the publication of the vulgate. In fact the very first one to actually put up a bible like this was Erasmus, more than 1100 years after the first publication of the Vulgate.

That is very, very late. It requires believing that the Church got it wrong and it took 1100 years to believe that they got it right.

Now, I don’t know about you - but that seems a bit much to swallow.

“The distinction is by Jerome and others”

Yet none of the books actually contain this canon. Why is this?

“The Sinaiticus has the Epistle of Barnabas, which you do not hold is part of the RCC canon of divinely inspired scripture.”

True - it doesn’t, however - here’s the point. It also contains books that aren’t in your personal canon. Ergo - you cannot argue that Sinaiticus supports your personal canon. Same with Vaticanus. Same with Amitianus. Same with every single Vulgate manuscript.

NONE of them have the protestant canon. Why is this? If, as you say, this opinion was widespread, why do NONE of them show up as the actual biblical canon?

“It’s strong evidence that the ancients attached to their collection of writings whatever they thought was useful to read.”

So you’re saying these aren’t really bibles because they don’t make your personal canon. Interesting. That’s also Marcion’s argument.

You’re aware of that, aren’t you? I’m still not seeing how your position is any different than Marcion.

“it doesn’t matter how many MSS you put forward”

Yes, it does matter when discussing the formation of the biblical canon. Especially because it demonstrates that your position is false.

“all universally acknowledge”

So you’re willing to admit that there DID exist a magisterium now? And that the Magisterium DID decide that these books were sufficiently valuable so as to be canonical?

“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.”

He’s not talking about these books, but other ones. Might be time to start citing the actual source and not your usual misleading snippets. ;)

“No one at Chalcedon endorsed the apocrypha as inspired screature.”

Your argument is that the MAGISTERIUM DID NOT EXIST. There were 500-600 bishops at Chalcedon. This is concrete evidence that the Magisterium did in fact exist.

Now, are you willing to concede this point? Yes or no.

As for Catejan are you conceding that he stated these books ARE canonical?

“Your position is an irrelevant non sequitur.”

Let me define my position, and then I’ll define yours. My position is that the apocrypha throughout history has either been defined as out of the canon, or defined as in the canon, but in BOTH cases distinct from the regular scripture as only useful for instruction in piety, but not to be brought forward as authoritative for the confirmation of doctrine. This is a position born out by a chorus of theologians, Bishops, Popes, and even Latin editions of the Bible as late as the 14th century, which all share this position “reduced to the correction of Jerome.”

YOUR position is timetravel. You want me to believe that at the Council of Trent, nearly 1,500 years after the time of Christ, that the Magisterium had the power to break the space-time continuum and send a decree about what the RCC has decided it has always believed back through the generations (to those who didn’t believe it). The powerful bellow of the Pope, in other words, echoed throughout time and space (even the aliens heard it!) condemning and shaming every wayward “Pope” and Bishop going back 1500 years!

I’m sorry, but science fiction and Catholicism don’t mix!

“(And, for the record, the first reading today was from Sirach).”

That’s alright, it is permitted, as long as you do not put forward Sirach as authoritative in doctrine. Consider it a PSA from the Apostolic succession.

Peace and Blessings

“I didn’t say the LXX is fake.”

You said:

1, that it was a myth of the 70 putting together the LXX for the pentateuch (after you said there were only 4 books in the pentateuch)

2, you said that it was a myth that the Jews put together the rest of the LXX.

So, put one and two together, you’ve managed to toss the entire LXX in the rubbish bin. Never mind that the absolute oldest biblical manuscripts that we do possess are those of the LXX.

I could turn around and say here’s the deal. The LXX predates everything else we have. It makes sense then, from a biblical standpoint that we would use the LXX as the foundation source for all our biblical translations (as they do in the Eastern church).

“I just told you that it’s a historical fact that no one knows when the apocrypha or even the rest of the Old Testament after the Books of Moses were put together and by whom.”

“It’s a historical fact” [[citation needed]]

We know they were Jews and we know that the book was finished by 150 BC according to the testimony of Jews.

“In fact, the only copies available today were by non-Jews.”

False. There are LXX manuscripts at Qumrun. Arguing that it’s an early Christian forgery is a lie.

“Furthermore, many of the LXX’s renderings are problematic when compared to the original Hebrew.”

What ‘original hebrew’? Oh wait, you mean the ‘masoretic text’.

Are you aware that the Masoretic text dates to the 9th century? Amitianus is older. As are quite a few Vulgate manuscripts older, not to mention, Sinaiticus, Vaticanus, etc, etc, etc.

The masoretic text is not an ancient document. The Septuagint is. Ergo as the Septuagint is older we should go with the text of the Septuagint, not the (much newer) Masoretic Text).

“That is very, very late.”

This line of argument is so utterly irrelevant to me that you might as well be speaking another language.

” Ergo - you cannot argue that Sinaiticus supports your personal canon.”

When did I make that argument? That’s yours, isn’t it, that it supports your list of inspired scripture? I said it supports the view that the ancients attached to their collected writings anything they thought useful to read, perfectly consistent with the opinion of the ancients as I have presented.

“So you’re willing to admit that there DID exist a magisterium now?”

I ignored that silly little comment earlier. You imagined that I said there was no “magisterium” completely, when all I said was that they were not disagreeing with any magisterium, and even said they were the magisterium. You erased my word “with” at the end, and have been going on this tangent now for two posts straight.

“He’s not talking about these books, but other ones. Might be time to start citing the actual source and not your usual misleading snippets. ;)”

He referenced Maccabees, and the quote is cited.

“As for Catejan”

As for Cajetan, I take it you concede that he defined the apocrypha as out of the canon of scriptures per Jerome, but “canonical” only in a certain way of speaking, not as authoritative text, but as Ecclesiastical text for instruction in morals, but not doctrine. This is a distinction I’ve beaten to death for 4 or 5 pages straight, but you still don’t acknowledge it. This distinction is fatal to your position.

“YOUR position is timetravel. You want me to believe that at the Council of Trent, nearly 1,500 years after the time of Christ, that the Magisterium had the power to break the space-time continuum and send a decree about what the RCC has decided it has always believed back through the generations (to those who didn’t believe it).”

LOL!

Our position is this:

The Vulgate, (published around 400 AD) contains the following books:

“The Old Testament: Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, Joshua, Judges, Ruth, 1 and 2 Samuel, 1 and 2 Kings, 1 and 2 Chronicles, Ezra and Nehemiah, Tobit, Judith, Esther, 1 and 2 Maccabees, Job, Psalms, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, the Song of Songs, the Wisdom of Solomon, Sirach (Ecclesiasticus), Isaiah, Jeremiah, Lamentations, Baruch, Ezekiel, Daniel, Hosea, Joel, Amos, Obadiah, Jonah, Micah, Nahum, Habakkuk, Zephaniah, Haggai, Zachariah and Malachi.

The New Testament: the Gospels according to Matthew, Mark, Luke and John, the Acts of the Apostles, the Letters of St. Paul to the Romans, 1 and 2 Corinthians, Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, 1 and 2 Thessalonians, 1 and 2 Timothy, Titus, Philemon, the Letter to the Hebrews, the Letters of James, 1 and 2 Peter, 1, 2 and 3 John, and Jude, and Revelation (the Apocalypse).”

Manuscript evidence for this position exists today in the
Amitianus.

If it were time travel, then why is it that a manuscript dated to 750 AD contains all the books and not some of them? Why is it that we see absolutely no manuscripts that reflect your opinion of the canon?

“Consider it a PSA from the Apostolic succession.”

So when can we expect you to submit to an Apostle?

“So, put one and two together, you’ve managed to toss the entire LXX in the rubbish bin. Never mind that the absolute oldest biblical manuscripts that we do possess are those of the LXX.”

Your position is that the LXX proves that the Jews considered the apocrypha canon, despite its mistranslations of the original Hebrew and the position of Josephus. You claimed that the Jews translated the LXX as an official Greek version of their work. My response is that there is no evidence that there was any official Jewish backing for the entire translation, or that there was even one standard edition, since there were various versions of the same works. The only thing we have is the legend of the 72 translators and the Books of Moses, but not for the rest of it. Not that the LXX doesn’t exist at all, which is your usual silliness.

“We know they were Jews and we know that the book was finished by 150 BC according to the testimony of Jews.”

The LXX isn’t just one book. It’s a Greek version of all the books of the Old Testament, and later, eventually, the apocrypha. They were not translated or written all at one time, or even only once. If you have testimony from Jews that the apocrypha was translated by 72 translators going into separate cells and coming out, through divine inspiration, with the same translation independently, you’re more than welcome to provide it, or even anything that supports your assertion. This will be my third time asking you to provide evidence.

“Ergo as the Septuagint is older we should go with the text of the Septuagint,”

That’s like saying a copy that denies important Messianic prophecies is superior to the Hebrew we have inherited. The Old Testament dates back to ancient antiquity, and just because the remaining text, as found in the Dead Sea Scrolls isn’t in the best of shape, doesn’t mean there was no Hebrew text at all.

“This line of argument is so utterly irrelevant to me”

Well then. Sola Ipsemet is confirmed.

“When did I make that argument?”

So you’re conceding then that Codex Sinaiticus doesn’t support your argument. Thank you.

“You imagined that I said there was no “magisterium” completely”

I imagined no such thing. You said, straight out. The magisterium did not exist. I provided evidence from the Council of Chalcedon indicating that the evidence we do have states attendence of 500 to 600 bishops.

That indicates that there was a substantial magisterium existing as of the 5th century. I could go look up Nicaea, but I suggest that should be sufficient to establish my point.

Now, let’s go back to the point at hand. Did the magisterium of the Church establish the canonicity of the entire Vulgate manuscript per the list further up in the post?

“He referenced Maccabees, and the quote is cited.”

How can I verify that the citation is correct?

“As for Cajetan, I take it you concede that he defined the apocrypha as out of the canon of scriptures per Jerome”

Jerome does not have the authority to determine the canon of Scripture.

“This is a distinction I’ve beaten to death for 4 or 5 pages straight”

Your standard is ‘inspiration’, presumably determined by self alone. Yes, I reject that. My standard is “does the magisterium consider these books sufficient value to remain in the canon?”

Again, I answer the question you’ve never answered - “who has the authority to decide which books are or are not inspired”?

“Your position is that the LXX proves that the Jews considered the apocrypha canon”

My position is that the LXX proves that many Jews in the period from 150 BC to 70 AD considered the previous list of OT books to be their canon.

My position is that this list changed after the destruction of the temple, where the Jews rewrote their own books. We can prove this today as we have evidence of what the books read prior to the destruction of the temple, and it confirms what Ireneus wrote many years ago.

This renders future recensions (including the Masoretic text) suspect where it disagrees with the LXX.

“You claim that the Jews translated the LXX as an official Greek version of their work.”

Absolutely they did. The book was in wide use around the time of Christ.

“My response is that there is no evidence that there was any official Jewish backing for the entire translation”

That the book was widely used and the fact that there are 4 separate versions published in Greek to ‘correct it’, is indications that the LXX, at least in Greek was the official version. That they attempted to rewrite it after is further evidence that they did consider the LXX authoritative.

If they didn’t consider the books authoritative then they would not have bothered to revise them. They would simply have said that the Christians were not using the actual ‘Jewish scriptures’. Which was never their argument.

“The only thing we have is the legend of the 72 translators”

Nonsense. We have textual evidence prior to the time of Christ indicating that the LXX existed then. This, not surprisingly is also the oldest textual evidence of the existence of the bible.

But go ahead. Tear it all down.

“The LXX isn’t just one book. It’s a Greek version of all the books of the Old Testament, and later, eventually, the apocrypha.”

And? The versions circulating at the time of Christ make no distinction. They have all the books, and not some of them. We can prove this now.

“This will be my third time asking you to provide evidence.”

Provide evidence in support of your position that the LXX was not complete by 150 BC. You said this was a ‘historical fact’, yet provided no historical testimony from Jews asserting this fact.

I can only conclude that you’re simply making things up.

As for my position - LXX texts were found in Qumrun.

“That’s like saying a copy that denies important Messianic prophecies is superior to the Hebrew we have inherited.”

That’s what the Masoretic text does, btw. That’s what you’re doing.

“The Old Testament dates back to ancient antiquity, and just because the remaining text, as found in the Dead Sea Scrolls isn’t in the best of shape, doesn’t mean there was no Hebrew text at all.”

I’m not saying that. I’m saying that the texts that we do have show that the Greek texts are older than the extant hebrew texts. I’m not even saying that the Hebrew texts are wrong. I’m saying that the hebrew texts we do have are very much newer than even the Latin versions that we possess, and are thus, unreliable, where they differ from the LXX.

So you’re happy to acknowledge that all the various protestant churches and their members cannot be part of the Church that Christ built?

Oh hahahah lol lol lol!

Just because I don't want to discuss anti-Protestant talking points instead would rather stay on subject, that's your "interpertation" of that decision on my part?

Ahhhh,, ok... but I must say that is some supreme class One A mind reading there my friend!

Having recovered from enjoying your sense of humor, here is a response, starting with your whole quote:

Most mainline protestant churches go back about 500 years at most. Most protestant churches don’t even go back that far. If this is in fact true - we would expect to see some continuity between the Church then and the Church now. That we don’t, is evidence that all of these churches are in fact not a part of the church that Jesus founded.

So it appears that is your opinion inspired by my saying " “That’s off subject. I am not concerned with what is said in that vein.

We are discussing the church that Jesus started when He walked the earth.”

I don't base my statements on opinions that I disagree with, but nice try.

Perhaps there is a Protestant bashing thread to take that to?

Christ states that “the gates of hell will not prevail against his church”. He then proceeds to appoint the disciples with Peter as the head of his church.
This is biblical.

No, that is tradition decided centuries later by certain revered "Fathers."

Around the time it was decided that the universal catholic church started by Jesus is the Roman Catholic Church.

You should quote Unam Sanctum rather than simply cut and paste quotes without attribution.

Who is Unam Sanctum, was he a pope?

“Pope Eugene IV, ex cathedra, Council of Florence, Cantate Domino (1441 AD”
Oh, now that’s interesting. Where are you getting this from? I’d like to see your source.

You just mentioned it: Council of Florence, Cantate Domino (1441 AD)

” but I suggest that should be sufficient to establish my point.”

Your points are so silly and irrelevant to what I have actually written as objections that, somehow, my indifference to them is extreme. Extreme indifference!

“How can I verify that the citation is correct?’

You check the citation, you have a computer with internet connection you can use, unfortunately.

“My standard is “does the magisterium consider these books sufficient value to remain in the canon?””

Your magisterium did not have that position until about the 16th century. Before that, you would have agreed with Jerome if you were in the western church.

“My position is that the LXX proves that many Jews in the period from 150 BC to 70 AD considered the previous list of OT books to be their canon.”

I’ve asked you for evidence for that position. You’ve just hit me with red herrings like “You don’t believe the LXX existed!” and “the LXX is more authoritative than the Hebrew!” I have to side with Josephus on this one.

” I’m saying that the hebrew texts we do have are very much newer than even the Latin versions that we possess, and are thus, unreliable, where they differ from the LXX.”

You’re insane! This is basically undoing huge swathes of what is accepted as the scripture amongst the Jews and us, siding with texts that deny important Messianic prophecies and contain many other errors. Jerome did not base his translation on the LXX. He based it on the Hebrew manuscripts that he had, which is why he rejected the Apocrypha. The Jews had not bothered to protect the various apocrypha works, which, by the way, are greater in number than just the ones the RCC embraces.

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.