Posted on 05/10/2013 7:36:49 PM PDT by boatbums
“Your magisterium did not have that position until about the 16th century.”
Which is why the Vulgates of the 8th century have the same canon as today. This is false.
“Before that, you would have agreed with Jerome if you were in the western church.”
Couple things here.
My initial exposure to scripture was to the modern protestant Canon. I speak a language, not latin which I was taught from childhood - taught in a protestant majority region and had no exposure to Catholicism until after my 19th birthday.
Back then, all of these would have gone the other way. I would have been raised in the Catholic church and had exposure to the Catholic church, been taught Latin. Educated by the Church, etc.
You’re seriously asserting that back then I would have taken the word of Jerome over that of the Church? Doubtful. It’s very doubtful I would have even known who Jerome was.
“This is false.”
It is true. You just say it is false, reasserting the same irrelevant argument over and over again as if I should be phased by it.
“You’re seriously asserting that back then I would have taken the word of Jerome over that of the Church? Doubtful.”
The church held his opinion for about a thousand years before Trent. It was even included in Latin Bibles you might have read:
“At the dawn of the Reformation the great Romanist scholars remained faithful to the judgment of the Canon which Jerome had followed in his translation. And Cardinal Ximenes in the preface to his magnificent Polyglott Biblia Complutensia-the lasting monument of the University which he founded at Complutum or Alcala, and the great glory of the Spanish press-separates the Apocrypha from the Canonical books. The books, he writes, which are without the Canon, which the Church receives rather for the edification of the people than for the establishment of doctrine, are given only in Greek, but with a double translation.” ( B.F. Westcott, A General Survey of the History of the Canon of the New Testament (Cambridge: MacMillan, 1889), pp. 470-471.)
“The earliest Latin version of the Bible in modern times, made from the original languages by the scholarly Dominican, Sanctes Pagnini, and published at Lyons in 1528, with commendatory letters from Pope Adrian VI and Pope Clement VII, sharply separates the text of the canonical books from the text of the Apocryphal books. Still another Latin Bible, this one an addition of Jerome’s Vulgate published at Nuermberg by Johannes Petreius in 1527, presents the order of the books as in the Vulgate but specifies at the beginning of each Apocryphal book that it is not canonical. Furthermore, in his address to the Christian reader the editor lists the disputed books as ‘Libri Apocryphi, sive non Canonici, qui nusquam apud Hebraeos extant.” (Bruce Metzger, An Introduction to the Apocrypha (New York: Oxford, 1957), p. 180)
Even if you had never heard of Jerome, or Athanasius, or Gregory, or John of Damascus, and so forth, you probably would have read these at least.
“I’ve asked you for evidence for that position.”
That the Jews attempted to revise the LXX is sufficient to indicate that they did regard the books as authoritative. Evidence, I in fact stated in my last post. If they didn’t believe they were authoritative, they simply would have ignored it, not revise the books.
“I have to side with Josephus on this one.”
Josephus is writing after, not before, the destruction of the Temple. He’s a reliable source for that time period, from about 75 to 95 AD.
Is he a reliable source for Jews prior to the time of Christ? No.
“You’re insane! This is basically undoing huge swathes of what is accepted as the scripture amongst the Jews”
Not so. Again - we have older and better texts now. You’re about 170 years behind the times. Sure the Masoretic text was good - prior to the discovery of Sinaiticus (older), Vaticanus (older) and now the dead sea scrolls.
“Jerome did not base his translation on the LXX.”
Depends on what you are talking about. It’s not quite so simple. Jerome did not translate all the books, some were translated by others, some Jerome left untranslated.
Secondly, are his hebrew sources extant? No. Thus, we don’t know exactly what he did use. There is evidence that the Vulgate has sources superior to the Masoretic Text. Ergo this is an argument in favor of the use of the Vulgate.
It’s also shown that there is not substantial disagreement between the Vulgate and the LXX, both are pretty close to one another. Closer than the LXX and the Masoretic Text and the Masoretic text and the Vulgate.
Of the three, the Masoretic text is the outlier, indicating it is less reliable than the two earlier translations.
“The Jews had not bothered to protect”
Then how did Jerome managed to get them if they were not preserved? They were preserved and they were included.
“The church held his opinion for about a thousand years before Trent.”
Again, this is false. What time period are we talking about? Assuming I was educated, back then I would have been educated by the Church in Latin, and possibly Greek depending on where I was from. As a contemporary I would not have had any contact with the Vulgates whatsoever. Even fifty to a hundred years after Jerome, it is unlikely that I would have had access to a Vulgate either.
As a contemporary to Jerome I would have had access to an Old Latin bible - which were the common versions then that the people were taught and understood at mass. It’s not until 50 to a 100 years after that these were displaced in usage by the Vulgate.
Given the evidence already before you in being denied access to scripture for most of my life and still coming to the conclusion that the bible was mutilated by Protestants despite everything being slanted towards you - again - those times were very different times. If the only bible I had access to had all the books, it’s very unlikely that I would ever switch.
More likely, if I were around and I did hear of Jerome, that I’d be taking up St. Augustine’s side of that argument and favoring the Old Latin texts and the Septuagint, given as it is far more likely that I would be familiar with the Greek and the Latin.
“Even if you had never heard of Jerome, or Athanasius, or Gregory, or John of Damascus, and so forth, you probably would have read these at least.”
Unlikely. Veltus Latina would have been my exposure. I would probably just be annoyed at the ‘prefaces’ as I am in modern protestant bibles.
Perhaps you have not been reading all of the posts that spurred this sideline argument into the "canon" of Scripture, but it began when one of your fellows accused me of using a "truncated Bible" and presumed my faith could not be genuine since it did not accept "all" of the Bible that Catholicism does and mocked sola Scriptura as heresy because of it. Well, things snowballed from there.
Now, you are no longer arguing for that viewpoint and, instead, state that the canon established by Trent wasn't for the purpose of proclaming what all of Christendom MUST accept as Divinely-inspired sacred Scripture but just defining what was established for the "sole purpose" of "texts suitable for inclusion in the Liturgy of the Word within the Mass". What is preposterous is the on and on haranguing some Catholics are doing all in the name of proclaiming ONLY "their" church can be the authority for the rest of Christians, regardless of denomination, and only they get to decide what is or is not "inspired" Scripture. So, are you saying, "Nevermind, like Emily Litella?
“Just because I don’t want to discuss anti-Protestant talking points”
Then why would I want to discuss Anti-Catholic talking points?
“I am not concerned with what is said in that vein.”
Perhaps you aren’t but it’s evidence for my position.
“No, that is tradition decided centuries later by certain revered “Fathers.”
Who, what, where, when why and how?
“Who is Unam Sanctum, was he a pope?”
It’s your source. where are you getting this from?
“You just mentioned it: Council of Florence, Cantate Domino”
Where are you getting this from, Syncro?
Before the Council of Trent reaffirmed the Canon in 1546, he Magisterium established the Canon in the Decree of the Council of Rome (AD 382) under Pope Damasus I. The exact same Canon had been affirmed at Council of Laodicea whose jurisdiction was not universal. It was reaffirmed at the Synod of Hippo in 393, and again in the three Councils of Carthage in 393, 397, and 419. It was the same Canon as Pope Innocent I, sent to Bishop Exsuperius of Toulouse in 405. It was again reiterated in the Council of Florence in 1442.
I would like to advise you that honest scholarship and scientific process does not begin with an effort to prove a hypotheses. It begins with an honest accumulation of facts and information from which a hypothesis is formed. The honest effort is then to try your best to disporve your own hypothesis, not to exclude potentially embarrassing information to defend the hypothesis. Rest assured that after 500 years of this nonsense, there is nothing new you are bringing to the table.
Peace be with you
I can sum up his position in three words.
Scripture AND Tradition.
He’s arguing that the Church produced Scripture produced by the Church and not magically and fully formed without.
He’s saying that you can cut out all the books you like it doesn’t make your bibles, ‘scripture’ and that your decisions are thus not binding on any Christian whatsoever.
So yes, our decisions aren’t binding on anyone else. You’re free to use whichever books you regard as authoritative. You just aren’t free to call these books ‘Sacred Scripture’.
Besides, all the books you use you got from us, so everytime you go out and preach, you’re using a Catholic bible.
“That the Jews attempted to revise the LXX is sufficient to indicate that they did regard the books as authoritative.”
You’ve not even provided any evidence that something was revised, what it was exactly, when it was revised, by whose order, etc.
“Josephus is writing after, not before, the destruction of the Temple. He’s a reliable source for that time period, from about 75 to 95 AD.”
Josephus was alive long before the destruction of the temple in 70AD. He was a Jewish general at the time of the war until his capture. His history includes two references to Jesus Christ, as well as references to individuals in the Gospels. He was a favorite of the Christians for centuries due to his history. He has some errors, since it seems he largely went by memory to complete his work. Whatever the case, he is the only authority that has been quoted on the Jewish position at all.
“Then how did Jerome managed to get them if they were not preserved?”
He didn’t. He based his translation on the Hebrew copies he had for the Old Testament, and used what he could get for the OT apocrypha, which he put outside of the canon. The LXX was never used as a standard of translation, and it has always been from Hebrew manuscripts that translations of the OT have endeavored to be made. Your assertion that the LXX is more reliable is based on the strange premise that the Aleppo Codex from the 10th century is the only one existence, and that there weren’t previous Hebrew MSS going back deeper into antiquity that were used for translations.
Whatever the case, it is also irrelevant, since the apocrypha were never part of the LXX originally, but only the Books of Moses.
“Just because I don’t want to discuss anti-Protestant talking points”Same reply gotten from Mormons when confronted with facts about their belief system.Then why would I want to discuss Anti-Catholic talking points?
Facts marginalized as hateful talking points.
I'm surprised a Catholic has never heard of the Council of Florence
The website called Google has a lot on it.
Or the history of the Catholic church: "Who, what, where, when why and how"
Nowhere has it been stated in these threads, except in the presumptive heretical and false premise of the Reformationists, that the purpose of the Bible was to encapsulate 100% of the Revealed Word. My position, like that of the Church, has been clear as to what the greater purpose of the Bible is. That you or anyone has found a secondary use for the Bible is indeed a blessing, but the fact is that, along with dismissing the Sacred Tradition you further complicate your error by TRUNCATING the Canon. To claim some kind of right over the Table of Contents, based upon a Johnny-come-lately theological disagreement, is disingenuous at best.
It is ironic that when protestants proclaim sola scriptura, based upon a product of the Church, they are affirming Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus.
Peace be with you
“You’ve not even provided any evidence that something was revised, what it was exactly, when it was revised, by whose order.”
Are you asserting then that Jamnia did not happen, that the Jews did not attempt to revise their scriptures?
“Josephus was alive long before the destruction of the temple in 70AD.”
Sure, but he’s still only a reliable source for that twenty five year period since that is when his stuff was published and when he was writing. We don’t have anything from him prior to about 75 or so.
“His history includes two references to Jesus Christ, as well as references to individuals in the Gospels.”
Yes, and again - he’s not a primary source for this period.
“He has some errors”
Which is why it’s important to gage where he is and is not reliable. Stuff he witnessed and was around for? Sure. No issues there. We have better sources than Josephus for the period before Christ.
“Whatever the case, he is the only authority that has been quoted on the Jewish position at all.”
I’ve cited textual evidence that is externally verifiable evidence for the existence of the LXX prior to Christ.
“He didn’t.”
Yes, he did. He had available to him Greek copies of these texts in the Septuagint. He even comments on this.
“and used what he could get”
And. That’s my point. You’re assuming that:
1. The LXX wasn’t written by Jews (which is proven false because we have LXX manuscripts prior to Christ)
2. That since the LXX wasn’t written by Jews, that the copies that Jerome had to work off of the LXX weren’t preserved by the Jews.
This is false. One the LXX was written by the Jews and did include these books (as we see from Qumrun.)
Two, we have evidence that similar Septuagint manuscripts were consulted by Jerome. So they were preserved.
“Your assertion that the LXX is more reliable is based on the strange premise that the Aleppo Codex from the 10th century is the only one existence”
I’m looking at textual evidence from Qumrun which indicates that the Septuagint is more accurate than the MSS.
Two, that the earliest Masoretic text extant is the Aleppo Codex.
“that there weren’t previous Hebrew MSS going back deeper into antiquity that were used for translations.”
Not extant. You’re assuming that there’s a chain there all the way back.
“since the apocrypha were never part of the LXX originally, but only the Books of Moses.”
Do you have any textual evidence that proves this is the case? You’ve never actually cited a source for this, btw.
“Before the Council of Trent reaffirmed the Canon in 1546, he Magisterium established the Canon in the Decree of the Council of Rome (AD 382) under Pope Damasus I.”
This was already responded to previously. It is a myth that the Council of Rome did any such thing.
“The exact same Canon had been affirmed at Council of Laodicea whose jurisdiction was not universal. “
“Exact?” You’re bluffing. This tells me you have not actually checked the content of any of the councils you have referenced. Here is Canon 60 of that Council (Laodicia). Just FYI, scholars hold that this was added later, since it is not found in early MSS of the council. Notice it not only lacks most of the apocrypha, but Revelation as well.
60. It is proper to recognize as many books as these: of the Old Testament, 1. the Genesis of the world; 2. the Exodus from Egypt; 3. Leviticus; 4. Numbers; 5. Deuteronomy; 6. Joshua the son of Nun; 7. Judges and Ruth; 8. Esther; 9. First and Second Kings [i.e. First and Second Samuel]; 10. Third and Fourth Kings [i.e. First and Second Kings]; 11. First and Second Chronicles; 12. First and Second Ezra [i.e. Ezra and Nehemiah]; 13. the book of one hundred and fifty Psalms; 14. the Proverbs of Solomon; 15. Ecclesiastes; 16. Song of Songs; 17. Job; 18. the Twelve [minor] Prophets; 19. Isaiah; 20. Jeremiah and Baruch, Lamentations and the Epistle [of Jeremiah]; 21. Ezekiel; 22. Daniel. And the books of the New Testament: 4 Gospels, according to Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John; the Acts of the Apostles; seven catholic epistles, namely, 1 of James, 2 of Peter, 3 of John, 1 of Jude; fourteen epistles of Paul, 1 to the Romans, 2 to the Corinthians, 1 to the Galatians, 1 to the Ephesians, 1 to the Philippians, 1 to the Colossians, 2 to the Thessalonians, 1 to the Hebrews, 2 to Timothy, 1 to Titus, and 1 to Philemon.
Nice try, though.
“It was reaffirmed at the Synod of Hippo in 393, and again in the three Councils of Carthage”
These are local councils, and therefore do not represent the entire church. The Council of Trullo, part of an ecumenical council, recognized canons ranging from Athanasius all the way up to canons that include 3 Maccabees, which was never considered inspired scripture. Cajetan reconciles all these various opinions by reducing it to Jerome, and defining it thusly:
“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)
“I would like to advise you that honest scholarship and scientific process does not begin with an effort to prove a hypotheses.”
Please stop projecting your problems on me. Thanks.
If you’re unwilling to discuss contrary opinions that you label as ‘anti-protestant talking points’, then why are you here?
“These are local councils, and therefore do not represent the entire church.”
So where can we find a church council that confirms your opinion?
I found your ‘source’ which is regarded as fake.
It also states this:
“Fourteen Epistles of Paul, one to the Romans, two to the Corinthians, one to the Galatians, one to the Ephesians, one to the Philippians, one to the Colossians, two to the Thessalonians, one to the “Hebrews,”
It also contains Baruch.
So even your own source which you claim supports you doesn’t actually square with your personal canon.
“The authenticity of paragraph 60 below has been doubted by many scholars because it is absent from various manuscripts containing the decrees of the regional (Galatian) Council of Laodicea.”
“We give the Greek text according to B.F. Westcott, A General Survey of the History of the Canon of the New Testament (5th ed. Edinburgh, 1881).”
So, it’s not even there in the actual decrees of the actual council.
Cantate Domino canticum novum
cantate Domino ominis terra.
Sing to the Lord a new song,
sing to the Lord all the earth.
Cantate Domino, et benedicte nomini ejus.
Annuntiate de die in diem salutare ejus.
Sing to the Lord and bless his name (give praise);
proclaim (announce) his salvation from day to day.
Annuntiate inter gentes gloriam ejus,
in ominbus populis mirabilia ejus.
Declare (announce) his glory among the nations,
his wonders among all people.
Quoniam magnus Dominus et laudabilis nimis;
terribilis est super omnes deos.
For the Lord is great and greatly to be praised;
he is to be feared above all gods.
Your response "proved" nothing.
Do you understand the term “talking points?”
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.