Mark, you are not suppose to pass the Vatican cheat codes unencrypted in an unsecured forum.
I'm awfully sorry...
Posted on 03/17/2012 7:26:45 AM PDT by GonzoII
“Since you are dealing with translations of translations of translations you cannot establish that the passages from the Deuterocanonicals that are thematically the same as the Gospels did not arise as quotes. “
No. You do not find, “It is written...”, or, “As the Prophets spoke...” and then a quote from the Apocrypha. Doesn’t happen.
And most Protestants use translations from the Greek, not translations of translations of translations. We aren’t the ones who say a translation (the Vulgate) is better than the original...
“In fact, St. Jerome wound up strenuously defended the Deuterocanonicals as inspired Scripture, writing in Against Rufinus 11:33 [A.D. 402]; “What sin have I committed if I followed the judgment of the churches?”
Taken out of context.
“Contextually, the “judgment of the churches” refers to Theodotion’s translation of Daniel which the churches were using instead of the Septuagint version. To add to this, he couldn’t have followed Carthage considering they met 17 years after Jerome penned the above. Both Hippo and Carthage were regional councils, didn’t speak for the entire church, thus it wasn’t mandated that Jerome submit to their decisions. Yet, it was Theodotion’s version Jerome refers to when he mentions the “judgment of the churches” and not their decision on canon:
“In reference to Daniel my answer will be that I did not say that he was not a prophet; on the contrary, I confessed in the very beginning of the Preface that he was a prophet. But I wished to show what was the opinion upheld by the Jews; and what were the arguments on which they relied for its proof. I also told the reader that the version read in the Christian churches was not that of the Septuagint translators but that of Theodotion. It is true, I said that the Septuagint version was in this book very different from the original, and that it was condemned by the right judgment of the churches of Christ; but the fault was not mine who only stated the fact, but that of those who read the version. We have four versions to choose from: those of Aquila, Symmachus, the Seventy, and Theodotion. The churches choose to read Daniel in the version of Theodotion. What sin have I committed in following the judgment of the churches? But when I repeat what the Jews say against the Story of Susanna and the Hymn of the Three Children, and the fables of Bel and the Dragon, which are not contained in the Hebrew Bible, the man who makes this a charge against me proves himself to be a fool and a slanderer; for I explained not what I thought but what they commonly say against us.”
http://beggarsallreformation.blogspot.com/search/label/Apocrypha
“How many of these have you studied to conclude that a pronouncement was issued ex nihilo (from nothing) to fill a gap in Catholic teaching?”
I did not say Trent discussed the canon with nothing before it. However, there had been no Ecumenical Council giving official judgment on the subject. Had there been, then no one would have written the Pope to tell him the Apocrypha wasn’t good for doctrine...
Although maybe they could have. Arguably, the Council of Trent left open the idea of a dual-track canon, with some scripture good for doctrine, and other scriptures that are not. And that is why I pointed out that scripture says ALL scripture is good for training and teaching and correction...
Now if the RCC could only get their doctrines to comport with the Scriptures that they lay claim to, you guys would not be in such danger. Papalism, sacerdotalism, indulgences, mariolatry, sacraments, making of signs, and most of the other baggage added by Rome is nowhere to be found in the Book your clubhouse wants to own.
Is that an inerrant belief or a belief based upon Protestant tradition? In the first century there was a Pharisee canon, a Sadducee canon, an Essene canon and the Septuagint canon. Which of these represented the true and proper canon agreed to by all Jews "in General" and which by Greek speaking Jews?
Chief among the “contested: books was probably “Revelation,” which many Protestants make a hobby horse. Some speak of them as intertestemental, When was a Protestant, I wondered what happened during the hundreds of years before Christ not reported in the KJB. Hard to make proper sense of the New Testament without reading these works.
Certainly the chief Lutheran dogma is not there: that the testimony of popes, councils, and church fathers did not trump the scholarship of Doctor Luther, or even that of Dutchboy 88.
The Protestants of the 16th century knew almost nothing about the Judaism of the First Century and assumed that the Jews they knew were the same as the Pharisees Our Lord knew,
No, they did not all have canons. And none proclaimed the Apocrypha to be an inspired part of a canon.
Mark, you are not suppose to pass the Vatican cheat codes unencrypted in an unsecured forum.
I'm awfully sorry...
Christian historians make up a lot of strange stuff about “the Jewish canon”. I’m reminded of the fact that until a few years ago the English Soncino Chumash/Tanakh could be found in almost all American synagogues. No doubt in the future some Christian historian will claim it was ‘canon’ to American Jews.
“Josephus writes that the canon consisted of the five books of Moses, thirteen of the Prophets and four of what he referred to as hymns to God and precepts for human life. It is clear that this perspective was one held for a long time by the Jews, who considered these twenty-two books alone to be of divine origin and were careful to preserve the integrity and number of them. In fact, so great was their veneration of these books, they were willing to die for them. Surely, such a commitment implies a conviction that these books alone were truly canonical. In addition, it is clear that the canon referred to by Josephus did not include the books of the Apocrypha, and that he considered the canon to be closed. He states that the twenty-two books were written in the specific span of time from Moses to Artaxerxes and no books written after this time were considered inspired. He mentions other books written after the prophets, which were not considered by the Jews to carry the same authority, that is, they were not inspired and were, therefore, not canonical. This is a clear reference to a number of the Apocryphal books. John Wenham summarizes the importance of Josephus and his writings:
Josephus, born about AD 37, was perhaps the most distinguished and most learned Jew of his day. His father was a priest and his mother was descended from the Maccabean kings. Given the best possible education, he proved to be something of a prodigy…What is particularly interesting about the statement of Josephus is the clear distinction between the canonical books which were completed in the time of Artaxerxes, and those written later which were not considered worthy of like credit ‘because the exact succession of the prophets ceased’. The idea evidently is that the canonical books were either written (or accredited) by the prophets, but that when the prophetical era was over, no more books suitable for the Canon were written…Josephus commits himself to a fairly precise date for the closing of the Canon. Artaxerxes Longimanus reigned for forty years, 465 to 425 BC. Ezra came to Jerusalem in the seventh, and Nehemiah in the twentieth, year of his reign (Ez. 7:1, 8; Ne. 2:1). In addition to Josephus there are several other witnesses who point to the time of Ezra and Nehemiah, with occasionally a reference to the ministries of Haggai, Zechariah and Malachi, as the time of the collection, completion and recognition of the Old Testament Canon.28
F.F. Bruce explains how the precise books can be inferred from Josephus’ statements:
When Josephus speaks of twenty-two books, he probably refers to exactly the same documents as the twenty-four of the traditional Jewish reckoning, Ruth being counted as an appendix to Judges and Lamentations to Jeremiah. His three divisions might be called the Law, the Prophets and the Writings. His first division comprises the same five books as the first division of the traditional arrangement. But his second division has thirteen books, not eight, the additional five being perhaps Job, Esther, Daniel, Chronicles and Ezra-Nehemiah. The four books of the third division would then be Psalms, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes and Song of Songs. It is impossible to be sure, because he does not specify the books of the three divisions one by one. It is unlikely that Josephus’ classification of the books was his own; he probably reproduces a tradition with which he had been familiar for a long time, having learned it either in the priestly circle into which he was born or among the Pharisees with whose party he associated himself as a young man.29
Ryle offers this additional observation:
He records a test of their canonicity. He mentions the standard which, apparently, in current Jewish opinion, all books satisfied that were included in the Canon. No historical writings, it seems, belonged to it which were deemed to have been composed later than the reign of Ahasuerus. The mention of this particular limit seems to be made expressly with reference to the book of Esther, in which alone the Artaxerxes of Josephus (the Ahasuerus of the Hebrew book of Esther) figures. Thus we learn that a popularly accepted test, that of date of composition, however erroneously applied, determined the question of canonicity. In the first cent. A.D., the impression prevailed that the books of the Canon were all ancient, that none were more recent than Ahasuerus, and that all had long been regarded as canonical. The same limit of date, although not so clearly applied to the poetical books, was, in all probability, intended to apply equally to them, since they combined with the books of the prophets to throw light upon the same range of history. That such a standard of canonicity as that of antiquity should be asserted, crude as it may seem, ought to be sufficient to convince us that the limits of the Canon had for a long time been undisturbed.30
Jerome, famous for translating the Hebrew Old Testament into Latin, was intent on translating only those books deemed canonical by the Jews. He not only bears witness to the threefold traditional classification of the Hebrew Bible, but also to which books comprised each category. His list is essentially the same as that inferred from Josephus’ writings. The specific books he lists are:
1) The Law of Moses: Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers and Deuteronomy.
2) The Prophets: Joshua, Judges, Ruth, I & II Samuel, I & II Kings, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel and the twelve minor prophets.
3) The Hagiographa: Job, Psalms, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Song of Solomon, Daniel, Chronicles, Ezra-Nehemiah and Esther.31”
“Josephus divided the books into three sections: the Law of Moses, the Prophets and what he called ‘hymns to God and precepts for human life,’ also referred to as the Writings or the Hagiographa.”
http://christiantruth.com/articles/Apocryphapart1.html
44 Then he said to them, “These are my words that I spoke to you while I was still with you, that everything written about me in the Law of Moses and the Prophets and the Psalms must be fulfilled.” - Jesus Christ
Notice Jesus gives 3 sections, as did Josephus: “the Law of Moses and the Prophets and the Psalms” or “the Law of Moses, the Prophets and what he called ‘hymns to God and precepts for human life,’.
When Jesus said, ““34 Therefore I send you prophets and wise men and scribes, some of whom you will kill and crucify, and some you will flog in your synagogues and persecute from town to town, 35 so that on you may come all the righteous blood shed on earth, from the blood of righteous Abel to the blood of Zechariah the son of Barachiah, whom you murdered between the sanctuary and the altar”, he also described the canon.
In the Jewish scriptures, the blood of Zechariah the son of Barachiah (2 Chronicles 24) came at the end. Thus Able to Zechariah the son of Barachiah covered from the first boo0k in order to the last book, in order. Front to back. The statement of Jesus only makes sense if the Jewish canon, and the order of the books, was established, known and accepted.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tanakh#Ketuvim
Ping to post 71.
Interesting...thanks.
Thus Able to Zechariah the son of Barachiah covered from the first boo0k in order to the last book, in order. Front to back. The statement of Jesus only makes sense if the Jewish canon, and the order of the books, was established, known and accepted.
Also interesting.
Just read Josephus’ works.
The Jews regard Christians as renegade heretics. The mythical Council of Jamnia was supposed to deal with the Jewish repudiation of Christianity.
Actually, we're not in danger, but thanks for asking. We are completely compliant with Scripture, unlike the various inventions of men that litter the landscape.
Papalism, sacerdotalism, indulgences, mariolatry, sacraments, making of signs, and most of the other baggage added by Rome is nowhere to be found in the Book your clubhouse wants to own.
I'd spend some time investigating the OT if I want to understand the various rituals that the Catholic Church follows. It may prove illuminating. Jesus did not do away with everything that the Jews practiced, you know.
Post #56...there are other reasons the Jews generally have refrained from embracing the Apocrypha as inspired.
Ah, here is where we part company, my FRiend. Jesus fulfilled the Law and, in fact, it was done away with.
Gal. 3:21ff: Is the Law then contrary to the promises of God? May it never be! For if a law had been given which was able to impart life, then righteousness would indeed have been based on law. But the Scripture has shut up all men under sin, that the promise by faith in Jesus Christ might be given to those who JOIN THE RCC (oops, I mean "believe"). But before faith came, we were kept in custody under the law, being shut up to the faith which was later to be revealed. Therefore the Law has become our tutor to lead us to Christ, that we may be justified by THE THINGS DICTATED BY ROME (oops, I mean "faith"). But now that faith has come, we are NO LONGER UNDER A TUTOR. For you are all sons of God through ADHERANCE TO ROME'S DOCTRINES (oops, I mean "faith in Christ Jesus")."
Where are all of these baggage items again? The RCC is the modern day Judaizer turning faith into Law. Such is not the New Covenant.
Ping to 78
I simply cannot accept Josephus as inerrant or completely authoritative when he is in conflict with the Early Church Fathers such as the Greek era St. Justin Martyr, St. Athanasius, St. Melito of Sardis, and Origen and the later Latin era Tertullian, St. Jerome and St. Augustine. I also do not accept an ex post facto closing of the Hebrew Canon in the late 2nd century done to address the Christian heresy.
Like the last 600 years of Christian history Catholics are going to maintain the orthodoxy of the Apostolic Tradition and Protestants are going to argue a heterodoxy. I also do not accept any arguments that either Protestants or Catholics cannot know and love Jesus because of differences in doctrine.
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.