“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.
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?