Posted on 03/17/2012 7:26:45 AM PDT by GonzoII
****If God inspired someone to write a “novel” to convey religious truth then praise the Lord. It would still be God’s novel and I’ll read it. ***
One could easily hijack the thread here. Some make that same claim about a novel written about 1830 New York and is the prime belief of a certain Presidential candidate. That false book is still printed in Salt Lake City.
But then there are lots of others such as THE AQUARIAN GOSPEL OF JESUS CHRIST that also make that claim.
An assertion that only begs the question of whether they are, in fact, a "second canon," as opposed to interestamental religious literature not having the authority of God-breathed Scripture.
The Deuterocanonical books do have some benefit - but not as scripture. Indeed, there are so many fallacies, historical flaws, and even contradictions with the rest of firmly established scripture to make them easily discernible from true scripture. Yet they do represent a snapshot of life, particularly in the intertestamental period, because there are not a lot of records from that time. They also give some insight as to the context of what was to come in the New Testament period - particularly the Maccabees, which records a great deal of the political tensions of the time.
***I and others more educated than myself are no fans of the NAB Bible..it has problems. ***
Yet it has lots of NIHIL OBSTATS and IMPRIMATURS.
Thanks for all of your answers. I have some familiarity with the content of the apocryphal books, and understand some of the arguments for and against inclusion, but I wondered why the author made a very compelling argument...almost. Left out the conclusion, the reason for the argument. I would have liked to have known that.
The Lord certainly had knowledge of the Deuterocanonicals:
Matt. 6:19-20 - Jesus' statement about laying up for yourselves treasure in heaven follows Sirach 29:11 - lay up your treasure.
Matt.. 7:12 - Jesus' golden rule "do unto others" is the converse of Tobit 4:15 - what you hate, do not do to others.
Matt. 7:16,20 - Jesus' statement "you will know them by their fruits" follows Sirach 27:6 - the fruit discloses the cultivation.
Matt. 9:36 - the people were "like sheep without a shepherd" is same as Judith 11:19 - sheep without a shepherd.
Matt. 11:25 - Jesus' description "Lord of heaven and earth" is the same as Tobit 7:18 - Lord of heaven and earth.
Matt. 12:42 - Jesus refers to the wisdom of Solomon which was recorded and made part of the deuterocanonical books.
Matt. 16:18 - Jesus' reference to the "power of death" and "gates of Hades" references Wisdom 16:13.
Matt. 22:25; Mark 12:20; Luke 20:29 - Gospel writers refer to the canonicity of Tobit 3:8 and 7:11 regarding the seven brothers.
Matt. 24:15 - the "desolating sacrilege" Jesus refers to is also taken from 1 Macc. 1:54 and 2 Macc. 8:17.
Matt. 24:16 - let those "flee to the mountains" is taken from 1 Macc. 2:28.
Matt. 27:43 - if He is God's Son, let God deliver him from His adversaries follows Wisdom 2:18.
Mark 4:5,16-17 - Jesus' description of seeds falling on rocky ground and having no root follows Sirach 40:15.
Mark 9:48 - description of hell where their worm does not die and the fire is not quenched references Judith 16:17.
Change the order, change the books from the one outlined in Isaiah and the pattern disappears. This tells you what the intended structure is for Scripture.
That wouldn't imply that they agree with every scholars'
view on the particular genre of every book. Catholics are
free to investigate these matters and draw reasonable
conclusions though they will have their critics.
I'm sorry, but that simply is not true. The bigger issue is the authority by which Canon was established and the Protestant necessity to undermine that Catholic authority. It is the only rational condition under which they can exist.
And if you pick up a first edition of the King James Version as published in 1611, chances are you'll not see any mention of the deliberate inclusion of these books, as the original title page cleverly states the contents in the fashion, "The Holy Bible, Conteyning the Old Testament, and the New," without any mention of the Apocrypha.
Seemingly this author did not bother to look this fact up before attempting to spin the modern KJV as being more devious than it actually is.
But can it claim to have been present in a book used by or referenced to by Christ and His Apostles. Of course, no.
Take a look at what you call citations of the Apocrypha:
“Matt. 6:19-20 - Jesus’ statement about laying up for yourselves treasure in heaven follows Sirach 29:11 - lay up your treasure.
Matt.. 7:12 - Jesus’ golden rule “do unto others” is the converse of Tobit 4:15 - what you hate, do not do to others.”
Here is what I’m referring to:
Mat 2:5 They told him, “In Bethlehem of Judea, for so it is written by the prophet:
Mat 4:4 But he answered, “It is written, “’Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that comes from the mouth of God.’”
Mat 4:6 and said to him, “If you are the Son of God, throw yourself down, for it is written, “’He will command his angels concerning you,’ and “’On their hands they will bear you up, lest you strike your foot against a stone.’”
Mat 4:7 Jesus said to him, “Again it is written, ‘You shall not put the Lord your God to the test.’”
Mat 4:10 Then Jesus said to him, “Be gone, Satan! For it is written, “’You shall worship the Lord your God and him only shall you serve.’”
Mat 11:10 This is he of whom it is written, “’Behold, I send my messenger before your face, who will prepare your way before you.’
Mat 21:13 He said to them, “It is written, ‘My house shall be called a house of prayer,’ but you make it a den of robbers.”
Notice the difference? I have...
Cardinal Cajetan & Jerome were right.
“This preface to the Scriptures may serve as a “helmeted” introduction to all the books which we turn from Hebrew into Latin, so that we may be assured that what is not found in our list must be placed amongst the Apocryphal writings. Wisdom, therefore, which generally bears the name of Solomon, and the book of Jesus, the Son of Sirach, and Judith, and Tobias, and the Shepherd are not in the canon.” - Jerome
I have no objection to someone reading the Apocrypha. I have a number of translations of it myself. But SCRIPTURE is different:
“All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, 17 so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.” - 2 Tim 3
Would you rather have half a meal or a whole meal with all the entrees?
Happy St. Patrick’s Day.
Thanks for posting that!
Charles Carroll, founding father and "an exemplar of Catholic and republican virtue" [Ecumenical]
Wouldn’t early Christians, indeed even Christ & the Apostles have been familiar, if not conversant, with these books, or at least with their content?
While I’m not suggesting any tinkering with any Bible, wouldn’t they be at least important from a scholarly perspective?
You're welcome!
They were actually familiar with them.
“The bigger issue is the authority by which Canon was established and the Protestant necessity to undermine that Catholic authority.”
Remember - the reason the Council of Trent addressed the canon was because no previous Council had done so authoritatively. When Luther was translating the Bible, it was NORMAL for scholars (like Cajetan) to reject the Apocrypha as authoritative in matters of doctrine & teaching (and thus scripture, since ALL scripture is good for that).
Thanks for that source.
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.