Posted on 11/07/2009 9:04:48 AM PST by GonzoII
A rather turgid reading ... but the bottom line in all that is: Who is Jesus and what will you do about Him?
Thank you for this post. In recent threads arguing the percentage of the Bible that Catholics read, I made the point that the percentage for Protestants needed to be lowered because of all the parts of the Bible that they’ve thrown out. I still assert that the amount of the Bible that Catholics read is similar to Protestants because of all the omissions from their versions of the Bible.
In addition, if we remove the books of the Old Testament from the percentages that are all about Jewish battles, ritual, and minute rules of hygiene (which most Christians don’t read very often anyway), the Catholic percentages regarding the amount of the Bible read would go up. We focus on the parts of the Old Testament that are relevant to Christ’s message.
“The Septuagint version of Scripture, from which Christ quoted, includes the Deuterocanonical books.”
Yes, and Jesus quoted none of them...
“The deuterocanonical books are not found in the Hebrew Bible. They were added by the Catholic Church at the Council of Trent after Luther rejected it.”
Framing an argument to deceive. The deuterocanonical books were not considered scripture by the Jews, but neither were they just added at the Council of Trent.
Many in the Catholic Church felt free to reject the Deuterocanonicals as scripture, or as scripture good for doctrine. It WAS the Council of Trent that made the decision to authoritatively place them in the Canon, but by an underwhelming vote...and I believe they punted on the question of using them for doctrine.
ping for later
“The other fallacy behind Myth #2 is that, far from being ignored in the New Testament (like Ecclesiastes, Esther, and 1 Chronicles) the deuterocanonical books are indeed quoted and alluded to in the New Testament.”
By the standard Shea applies, many heathen religious documents would be ‘scripture’ as well, since many have passages that parallel something happening in the NT.
Find one where Jesus says, “For we read...”, or, “As Scripture says...”
“For Luther also threw out a goodly chunk of the New Testament.”
Another dishonest statement.
See here: http://www.aomin.org/aoblog/index.php?itemid=1892
and here: http://www.ntrmin.org/Luther%20and%20the%20canon%202.htm
Pingle!
“In his later years St. Jerome did indeed accept the Deuter-ocanonical books of the Bible. In fact, he wound up strenuously defending their status as inspired Scripture, writing, “What sin have I committed if I followed the judgment of the churches? But he who brings charges against me for relating the objections that the Hebrews are wont to raise against the story of Susanna, the Son of the Three Children, and the story of Bel and the Dragon, which are not found in the Hebrew volume (ie. canon), proves that he is just a foolish sycophant. For I wasn’t relating my own personal views, but rather the remarks that they [the Jews] are wont to make against us” (Against Rufinus 11:33 [A.D. 402]). In earlier correspondence with Pope Damasus, Jerome did not call the deuterocanonical books unscriptural, he simply said that Jews he knew did not regard them as canonical.”
Not so fast - excellent response here:
http://beggarsallreformation.blogspot.com/2006/06/guest-blogdid-jerome-change-his-mind.html
Thanks for this detailed discussion. I was familiar with most of what he says, and agree with it, but there are some details new to me, and that I very much appreciate.
And, by the way, Jews don’t just dismiss the deuteronomical books that they decided not to include in their Hebrew scripture as misleading or evil. Why would they continue to celebrate Hannukah, when that is a feast based on Maccabees? The history told in Maccabees is still something they celebrate as a central part of their tradition.
And, interestingly, numerous early Protestants continued to take an interest in the stories of Judith and Tobit—Milton, for example, who certainly held no brief for the Catholic Church.
And the Epistle of James? Luther basically threw it out because it didn’t agree with his own theology and interpretation of Paul, and not for any reasons based on the transmission of the texts.
Excellent find. Thank you!
Lectionary Statistics - How much of the Bible is included in the Lectionary for Mass? (Popquiz!)
Pope calls Catholics to daily meditation on the Bible
What Are the "Apocrypha?"
The Accuracy of Scripture
US Conference of Catholic Bishops recommendations for Bible study
CNA unveils resource to help Catholics understand the Scriptures
The Dos and Don’ts of Reading the Bible [Ecumenical]
Pope to lead marathon Bible reading on Italian TV
The Complete Bible: Why Catholics Have Seven More Books [Ecumenical]
Beginning Catholic: Books of the Catholic Bible: The Complete Scriptures [Ecumenical]
Beginning Catholic: When Was The Bible Written? [Ecumenical]
The Complete Bible: Why Catholics Have Seven More Books [Ecumenical]
U.S. among most Bible-literate nations: poll
Bible Lovers Not Defined by Denomination, Politics
Dei Verbum (Catholics and the Bible)
Vatican Offers Rich Online Source of Bible Commentary
Clergy Congregation Takes Bible Online
Knowing Mary Through the Bible: Mary's Last Words
A Bible Teaser For You... (for everyone :-)
Knowing Mary Through the Bible: New Wine, New Eve
Return of Devil's Bible to Prague draws crowds
Doctrinal Concordance of the Bible [What Catholics Believe from the Bible] Catholic Caucus
Should We Take the Bible Literally or Figuratively?
Glimpsing Words, Practices, or Beliefs Unique to Catholicism [Bible Trivia]
Catholic and Protestant Bibles: What is the Difference?
Church and the Bible(Caatholic Caucus)
Pope Urges Prayerful Reading of Bible
Catholic Caucus: It's the Church's Bible
How Tradition Gave Us the Bible
The Church or the Bible
I think most Protestant Bibles had the extra books in them, in a separate section between the Old Testament and the New Testament, as books that were good to read even if they weren't regarded as part of the Bible, until the early 19th century.
And if memory serves, Jesus never quoted from Ezra, Nehemiah, Esther, Ecclesiastes, Song of Solomon either.
So, I guess for you that must mean they’re not really scripture, right?
It’s not dishonest. There’s a reason why he put several books in an unpaginated appendix when he produced his New Testament. Why do you think he put them there?
You are all welcome.
That is pretty accurate. There was some discrepancies between Orthodox and Catholic on exactly which books, but they are very minor differences. There was also discussion about the canon status of the Apocrypha...a majority of votes cast at Trent made it official, but it was acceptable before then to echo Jerome’s concerns.
Most Protestant edition Bibles don’t have them, but I have several that do. Interesting reading, but it doesn’t strike me as ‘feeling’ the same as scripture.
FWIW - deuterocanonical is a term that was coined after Trent. Some Catholics think Protestants are trying to pull a fast one by calling them the Apocrypha, but that is the name they were known by until the 1500s. The Apocrypha found in the KJV and subsequent Protestant Bibles is very close, but contains 3 books or fragments not listed by Trent, although found in some editions of the Old Vulgate.
He DID quote from the sections they are from, unlike the Apocrypha, and they WERE accepted as part of the Jewish Canon, largely fixed before the birth of Christ. Oddly enough, the Jews didn’t have a Council to make some things scripture, and others not.
ALL the New Testament is in every edition of Luther’s translation. ALL. Please see the links I posted earlier to help you out.
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.