“You haven’t provided anything that disputes what I have put forward.”
Sure I have. I’ve provided concrete evidence that supports what I’m saying.
“It’s missing Baruch, which you say is part of the canon.”
True, but it has all the rest of them. Are you willing to concede that Baruch is the only book that might not be included in the Canon? Other manuscripts have Baruch as well.
The question of what the Vulgate contains isn’t seriously contested. They, as a whole - contain the list that is identical to the Catholic church teaches today, and, more importantly, do not match the protestant canon. This is evidence that:
1, protestants took books out of the bible that were already there.
2, the canon was settled long before there ever was a single protestant
3, we can assert that there is continuity between the church in the 4th century and the Catholic church today, and that the continuity does not exist between the protestant churches and the church of the 4th century.
This is not difficult to explain either, as all the major Prostestant founders were Catholic. The Catholic church was there first.
“Such was the opinion of the Latin Church”
That they were canonical? Absolutely.
“Yes, since they WERE the Magisterium.”
No! Again, this is not difficult. Consensus does not operate in this way.
“Are you telling me a Pope, teaching theology, is going against the beliefs of his own church?”
Couple things.
1, this concedes that individual bishops cannot speak for the magisterium.
2, the Pope is given primus inter pares - authority to settle the disputes within the magisterium.
“Were Cardinal Cajetan, Cardinal Ximenes and all his associates, excommunicated for denying the divine dictate of the RCC?”
For affirming the Catholic Canon? Hardly.
“Was Athanasius excommunicated?”
For expressing an opinion contrary to the majority of the magisterium, over an issue, that, at that point (340 AD) thereabouts, was not settled?
I’m not arguing that prior to the publication of the Vulgate that there was a settled canon. Evidentiary standards in Codex Vaticanus and Codex Sinaiticus indicates just the opposite that in the early fourth century that there was considerable agreement but the canon was not set.
Also, there is no evidence for the wholly protestant distinction in scripture in either Sinaiticus or Vaticanus. Further damage to your theory. In fact, one could go even further and assert that the division proposed by Jerome is the novelty, not the assertion that they were one and the same part of the same canon.
Which is exactly what happened. Jerome’s novelty was rejected, he submitted to the decision of the Church and the Vulgate contained all the biblical books.
” “Pope” Gregory the First rebuked by this almighty Magisterium, floating in the background?”
Is he pope or not? If he’s not a Pope, then I dont’ see why you are citing him as a pertinant authority. He also doesn’t teach that these books are outside the canon either.
Does it bother you that your convenient list of witnesses is irrelevant?
“I’m sure you’ll find me where and when the “Magisterium” condemned all these people for their heresy.”
So your argument here is that the 500, 600 bishops who attended at Chalcedon simply did not exist. That’s a fabulous argument, btw. It also has no merit.
“So far, the only person I’ve quoted from”
And? Are you saying that you’ve quoted from all 500 or 600 bishops? Or just those that happen to conveniently agree with you?
“that considered them canonical was Cajetan”
Oh, this is a admission. Thank you for acknowledging that Cardinal Catejan agrees with the teaching of the Church that these books are canonical.
“You’ll find Protestants in general to be quite pleased with the idea.”
Of course. They love being told that they don’t have to obey scripture.
“What “Jews” were reporting that?”
What Jews were reporting that the rest of it was fake?
“No such information exists. Even the tale of the 72 translators is itself a legend, and a legend at that that only covers the Books of Moses.”
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?
“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”