Posted on 04/03/2013 3:43:07 PM PDT by NYer
Q: Okay, so what is the Christian account of how revelation occurred?
As Elmer Fudd might say, “Vewy, vewy swowly.” Divine revelation didn’t happen in a blinding flash—such as God dropping the Summa Theologiae on top of a mountain and waiting for people to invent the Latin language so they could read it. (Though He could have given them magical spectacles that would translate it for them….) It seems that God preferred to slowly unfold His personality and His will for us through the course of tangled, messy human history. We might wonder why, and call up the divine customer service line to ask why in heck human nature arrived in the mail without the instructions. I don’t pretend to know what He was thinking here, but I find it aesthetically fitting that our knowledge of God evolved in much the way that animal species did, over a long time and by fits and starts, with sudden leaps whenever God saw fit, until finally the world was ready to receive the final product: in creation, man, in revelation, the Son of Man. God seems to prefer planting seeds to winding up robots.
So we start with traces of a primitive monotheism among some scattered peoples of the world—which might have been long-faded memories of what Adam told his children about the whole “apple incident,” combined with crude deductions that boil down to “Nothing comes from nothing.” But mankind pretty much wandered around with no more than that for quite some time, and this was when he employed the inductive method to discover the hemorrhoid god.
The first incident in Jewish-Christian scriptures that suggests God revealed Himself to us after that is the rather discouraging narrative of Noah. According to the story, the human race went so wrong so fast that God decided to backspace over most of it, leaving only a single righteous family, trapped on a stinky boat with way too many pets. When they landed, they had no more idea of what to do with themselves than the cast of Gilligan’s Island, so God gave them instructions: We call this the Covenant of Noah. The Jews believe that these are the only commandments God gave to the Gentiles—7 of them, instead of 613—and that the rest of us can please God just by keeping them. That’s the reason that Jews don’t generally try to make converts. (Who are we to run around making things harder for people? Feh!) The Jewish Talmud enumerates the 7 laws of Noah as follows:
Most of this sounds fairly obvious and commonsensical—though we might wonder why it was necessary to tell people to stop pulling off pieces of live animals and eating them. They must have gotten into some pretty bad habits while they were still stuck on that ark.
Q: That ark must have been the size of Alabama…
I know, I know.
Q. …to fit all those elephants, hippos, rhinos, tree sloths, polar bears, gorillas, lions and moose…
Okay, smart guy.
Q. …not to mention breeding pairs of more than 1,000,000 species of insects. Sure they’re mostly small, but those creepy-crawlies add up.
Spoken like a true-believing member of Campus Crusade for Cthulu, complete with a bad case of acne and involuntary celibacy. Maybe you should focus on Onan instead of Noah.
Look, there’s a reason why Catholics don’t read the bible in an exclusively literal sense, and haven’t since the time of Origen (+253). The Church looks at the books of scripture according to the genres in which they were written (history, allegory, wisdom, prophecy, and so on). And this story, clearly, was intended as allegory—which means that on top of some historical content (and there’s flotsam from flood-narratives in the basement of most ancient cultures) the writer piled up details to make a point. Unlike liberal Protestants, we don’t use this principle to explain away Jesus’ miracles and the moral law. Nor are we fundamentalists who take everything in the bible literally—except for “This is my body,” (Luke 22: 19) “Thou art Peter,” (Matthew 16: 18) and “No, your pastor can’t get divorced.” (Cleopatra 7: 14) The Church responded to biblical criticism with appropriate skepticism at first, and accepted the useful parts (like reading original languages and looking for ancient manuscripts), without throwing out the traditional mode of reading the bible in light of how the Church Fathers traditionally understood it.
Q. Why should the Church be the interpreter of the bible?
In the case of the New Testament, the Church had transcribed the books; shouldn’t we own the copyright to our own memoirs? When the list of accepted gospels and epistles was drawn up, there were more surplus candidates milling around than in downtown Manchester, New Hampshire, before a primary—some of them inspirational but probably inauthentic, like the Protoevangelium that tells the story of Mary’s childhood; others creepily gnostic, like the “Gospel of Thomas,” which has Jesus using His “superpowers” to wreak revenge on His schoolmates. (That gospel is always popular, since it shows Jesus doing exactly what each of us would really do in His place.) The decision on which books were divinely inspired was based largely on the evidence of the liturgy: which books had been used in churches for services in the most places for the longest. As I like to tell Jehovah’s Witnesses who come to my door: that bible you’re waving at me was codified by a council of Catholic bishops who prayed to Mary and the saints, baptized infants, and venerated the Eucharist. So you could say that as the original, earthly author and editor, the Church has a better claim of knowing how to read it than the reporters at National Geographic—who every Christmas or Easter discover some new and tantalizing scrap of papyrus containing gnostic sex magic tips or Judas’ “To-do” list.
In the case of the Old Testament, the Church draws heavily on how Jews traditionally read their own scriptures—but with one important and obvious difference. We are the descendants of the faction of Jews who accepted Christ as the Messiah and evangelized the gentiles, all the while considering themselves the “faithful remnant” who’d remained true to the faith of Abraham. So we see throughout the Old Testament foreshadowings of Christ, for instance in Abraham’s sacrifice, and Isaiah’s references to the “suffering servant.” The Jews who were skeptical of Jesus believed that they were heroically resisting a blasphemous false prophet who’d tempted them to idolatry. As the Church spread and gained political clout, and Christians began to shamefully mistreat the people from whom they’d gotten monotheism in the first place, there surely was genuine heroism entailed in standing firm. I often wonder how many Jews would be drawn to Jesus if they could separate Him from the sins committed against their great-grandparents in His name….
The version of the Old Testament that Catholics and Orthodox use is different from what Jews use today. Our version, based on the Septuagint translation into Greek, is somewhat longer, and includes some later documents that Jews accepted right up to the time Saint Paul converted—books that illustrate a lot of the mature developments in Judaism which led up to the coming of Christ. The very fact that Christian apostles were using these books may have led the rabbis to eventually reject them. (Since the biblical references to Purgatory can be found in these books, Martin Luther and the Anglicans also excluded them.) Ironically, the Book of Maccabees exists in Catholic bibles but not Jewish ones, and right up until Vatican II we had a Feast of the Maccabees—which means that you could call Chanukah a Catholic holiday. But don’t tell the judges in New York City, or they’ll pull all the menorahs out of the schools.
“regardless of what you believe Vaticanus and Sinaiticus prove”
Vaticanus and Sinaiticus are the oldest complete LXX manuscripts, and both of them have the apocryphal books. Ergo, I conclude the books were considered to be canonical as early as the Third Century.
“Trent was the first infallible and indisputable list of the canon.”
If you read Trent, Trent explicitly says that it is simply a confirmation of what already existed.
“The LXX does reflect what Jews held as canonical”
Which is why the oldest complete manuscripts we possess do have these books included.
“Jerome is far weightier an authority”
And the Church far weightier still.
“All LXX manuscripts are Christian and not Jewish origin.”
Again, we must rely on extant evidence. The extant evidence demostrates that these books were in fact included.
Is there a first century manuscript of the LXX prior to the Gospels? No. And until one is discovered, all your argument is mere conjecture.
“With a 500 years difference between translation and existing manuscripts.”
Are you willing to concede the authority of the Gospels as well? Would you strain out a gnat and admit a camel?
This is the problem. You attack scripture with all the fervor, but fail to notice people looking at the books and asking - “why can’t I simply pick and choose?” Why do I have to accept Romans as authoritative?”
“The manuscripts at the Dead Sea evidence no canonical book”
Contrary to what you would believe - yes, Wisdom of Sirach was found. This is Sirach or Ecclesiasticus. So was Tobit.
Chronicles was not.
Can we thus conclude that Chronicles is acanonical while Tobit and Sirach are?
“dissent from which necessarily makes one a renegade. Which is not what Scripture teaches.”
Which is exactly what scripture does teach. But feel free. “The flesh availeth nothing”.
“Again, we must rely on extant evidence. The extant evidence demostrates that these books were in fact included.”
Included, yes, considered equal to scripture, no. That has already been well established, not just by Jerome and Cajetan, and by Athanasius and “Pope” Gregory the 1st, but by the content of the apocrypha themselves which teach witchcraft and contradict the scripture and history.
“And the Church far weightier still.”
You mean the Church that used to declare that the Bishops of Antioch, Alexandria and Rome each possessed the Throne of Peter? And the same Church as led by Bishops like Polycarp, Ignatius and Clement who never once referenced any Papal authority, and when referencing Peter only listed him among the other Apostles?
If it’s THAT church, I’d be more inclined to agree with you. The Roman church, on the other hand, definitely not. In fact, if the Roman church knew their history better, they would not have forgotten Jerome’s judgment of the Apocrypha.
“Included, yes, considered equal to scripture, no.”
That’s not what the manuscript evidence in Codex Vaticanus and Sinaiticus says. The books were included.
“You mean the Church that used to declare that the Bishops of Antioch, Alexandria and Rome each possessed the Throne of Peter?”
To which of these three do you submit?
What do you think of the SSPX and sedevacantists? I can understand their angst, even though i also disagree with certain historical doctrines they contrast with V2, the "French Revolution" as some term it.
Thanks; i should have transposed the names i was addressing the post to.
You have me confused with someone else, and if not, then you are very wrong. I seek to go where the truth leads via Scripture, and thus differ with others on that basis, and would become Catholic if that was best warranted.
Which, as a former weekly RC CCD teacher, and lector after becoming profoundly born again, i find far from the case, Scripturally and experientially .
In contrast to me being compelled to disallow any points of doctrine due to commitment to a particular church, faithful RCs who have no other choice but to argue for Rome. Objectively analysis in seeking to determine whether RC doctrine is true is disallowed, nor is RC doctrine dependent upon actual warrant from Scripture, only that it does not contradict it, but which is according to her autocratic interpretation.
“That’s not what...”
That’s not what the translators and scholars of the scriptures say, going back thousands of years, and therefore I’ll side with them.
If you don’t like it. Why not go get some fish guts and roast them to ward off evil Spirits, like Tobit teaches? And then maybe tell some lies about your identity, like the “Angel of the Lord” does in Tobit? Or maybe tell us how Nebuchadnezzer actually ruled in Nineveh instead of Babylon, like what Baruch teaches?
“To which of these three do you submit?”
Gregory had good ideas! The “Pope” following Gregory failed to heed his advice and took upon himself the title of “Universal Bishop,” which Gregory called a desire of anti-Christ. Every Bishop of Rome since then has harped worldly power over the spiritual power that is offered to everyone who believes in Christ. IOW, they possess the spirit of anti-Christ which desires to put men in front of God.
You should repent and submit to the teaching authority of Gregory.
I ask again.
You say the Church is divided equally between the Patriarchs of Rome, Alexandria and Antioch.
To which of these three do you submit?
“That’s not what the translators and scholars of the scriptures.”
Unfortunately for you - Sinaiticus and Vaticanus predate Jerome. They were also discovered after Luther. If your hypothesis were correct, then we would expect to see that the earliest manuscripts would not include them. But they do.
Same with the dead sea scrolls. If these books were non canonical, we would expect not to see them at Qumran. But there they are - right alongside the other books.
That to me suggests that if we were to come across a 1st century LXX manuscript that it would have these books there as well.
“I ask again.”
I’ll ask YOU again. Why are you in rebellion of “Pope” Gregory’s judgment of the apocrypha as well as his views which contradict Rome’s claims of primacy? If Gregory, being a supposed “Pope,” did not view Rome as supreme and openly condemned the concept of the ‘Universal Bishop’ that his successor would later embrace, why should you condemn me for agreeing with him? If I submit to Gregory, or to the Bishop of Alexandria of those days, I can’t submit to Rome’s authority which is called anti-Christ by those men. You, by definition, are in heresy, and therefore have no authority.
Put me back in the days of Ignatius, who told us that the highest officer in the Church was the Bishop so far as they agreed with the Apostles, and not on any Papal authority that requires we submit to them despite their contradicting of the Apostles.
“Unfortunately for you - Sinaiticus and Vaticanus predate Jerome.”
Unfortunately for you, the scholarship of Jerome predates Sinaiticus and Vaticanus even if he is born later. The only thing those tell us is that they were included. What the scholars tell us is that they were included only because they were thought useful so far as edification is concerned, but not to be brought forward for the creation or defense of doctrine. That has been well proven over and over again, even if you ignore it. Same thing with witch craft and their contradictions with history and the scripture.
The same people you are quoting all argue for their inclusion.
I’m not sure what I can possibly add to that when you won’t accept the conclusion of your own sources.
“contradictions with history”
The only ‘contradiction’ is the assertion that the King of Babylon was not the same as the King of Assyria. Which is in fact what did happen. You need to study more history. Babylon took over from Assyria.
So you won’t submit then. I thought so.
Call me when you actually advance arguments that you believe are authoritative and we can have a substantive discussion.
“why should you condemn me for agreeing with him?”
If you sincerely agreed with him you would submit to one of the three. Since you are not in submission to any of the three, I can only conclude that you don’t really agree with him.
You don’t believe you should submit to anyone other than yourself. Which is fine, but let’s at least be honest about where you stand.
“They also have varient NT canons, prior to standardization.
We don’t have a complete LXX manuscript older than Vaticanus. All the extant evidence confirms that these books are canonical.”
This doesn’t confirm anything. If it did, then it would also mean that a variant NT was the true canon, and that we’ve all been using the wrong one. Of course it doesn’t confirm that, and neither does it confirm that the apocrypha belong in the canon.
“The same people you are quoting all argue for their inclusion.”
Inclusion is irrelevant! What we’re concerned with is whether or not they are equal to the scripture and therefore are to be used for the defense and creation of doctrine.
When “Pope” Gregory said the following, referencing 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.
Was he picking a fight and contradicting centuries of what the “church” considered to be sacred writ? Or was he simply commenting on something that was the widely held position of the church of those ages? In fact, Gregory here is in direct agreement with Jerome and the others when he speaks of the apocrypha in this way.
You, on the other hand, are giving the apocrypha a greater power and authority than Jerome or Gregory.
Why is that?
And if you consider the Apocrypha to be scripture, why aren’t you roasting fish guts to fend off evil spirits everyday? Why aren’t you giving to charity, since apparently that work washes away sin and saves your soul from hell (and not Christ)?
” Babylon took over from Assyria.”
Babylon burned down Ninveh, which Baruch claims Nebuchadnezzer REIGNS from. Are you going to tell me that Nebuchadnezzer REIGNS from the capital of Assyria?
Sorry, but Baruch doesn’t know that Nebuchadnezzer was the King of Babylon and not of Assyria, and that is why he places him there instead of in Babylon as the Bible does.
Which raises the question as to why you use the Catholic NT Canon, but refuse to use the Catholic OT canon.
You can’t point to one source as the authority for the NT and then turn away for the OT. It doesn’t work like that. If you accept the Catholic church has the authority to set the NT canon (which you do), then the rest follows from there.
You are still avoiding the issue that despite your opinion, RC scholars did not see the canon as settled, while you also must disagree that Codex Vaticanus (B) lacks 1 and 2 Maccabees (canonical, according to Rome), but includes 1 Esdras (non-canonical, according to Rome). The Sinaiticus (Aleph) omits Baruch (canonical, according to Rome), but includes 4 Maccabees (non-canonical, according to Rome)... Thus it turns out that even the three earliest MSS or the LXX show considerable uncertainty as to which books constitute the list of the Apocrypha.. (Archer, Gleason L., Jr., "A Survey of Old Testament Introduction", Moody Press, Chicago, IL, Rev. 1974, p. 75; http://www.provethebible.net/T2-Integ/B-1101.htm)
“The LXX does reflect what Jews held as canonical” Which is why the oldest complete manuscripts we possess do have these books included.
As the context should tell you, the word "not" is missing in "The LXX simply does reflect what Jews held as canonical, being so varied, as Jerome understood, stating, in the 4th century stated (in his prologue to Ezra), “the variety of the texts of which shows them torn and perverted.” -http://www.tertullian.org/fathers/jerome_preface_ezra_e.htm; http://www.bombaxo.com/prologues.html
“Trent was the first infallible and indisputable list of the canon.” If you read Trent, Trent explicitly says that it is simply a confirmation of what already existed.
Of course it claimed that (and it also ascribed questionable authorship to books), and Rome also invokes unanimous consent of the so-called church fathers when it was not unanimous , yet it did confirm what existed, but which not the only understanding of the canon, prior lists not being by ecumenical councils. . That it was yet open to some debate is the issue, and Luther's dissent was by no means novel in scholarship.
“Catholic hold that the proximate criterion of the biblical canon is the infallible decision of the Church.” “The Council of Trent definitively settled the matter of the OT Canon. That this had not been done previously is apparent from the uncertainty that persisted up to the time of Trent." (New Catholic Encyclopedia, Catholic University of America , 2003, Vol. 3, pp. 20,26.
“Jerome is far weightier an authority” And the Church far weightier still.
The latter is the issue, as you speak for yourself, while if the church had settled the canon as you suppose, then there would have been no debate among RC scholars even in Trent, regardless of your denial of it.
In addition to what has been said, In the early sixteenth century, just prior to the Reformation, Cardinal Ximenes, the Archbishop of Toledo, in collaboration with the leading theologians of his day, produced an edition of the Bible called the Biblia Complutensia [the first printed polyglot of the entire Bible, which was sanctioned by Pope Leo X.]. There is an admonition in the Preface regarding the Apocrypha, that the books of Tobit, Judith, Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, the Maccabees, the additions to Esther and Daniel, are not canonical Scripture and were therefore not used by the Church for confirming the authority of any fundamental points of doctrine, though the Church allowed them to be read for purposes of edification. —
http://aomin.org/aoblog/index.php?itemid=1877 The Zürich Bible (The French Bible (1535) of Pierre Robert Olivétan placed them between the Testaments, with the subtitle, "The volume of the apocryphal books contained in the Vulgate translation, which we have not found in the Hebrew or Chaldee".1529–30) they are placed in an Appendix. They include 3 Maccabees, along with 1 Esdras & 2 Esdras.
The French Bible (1535) of Pierre Robert Olivétan placed them between the Testaments, with the subtitle, "The volume of the apocryphal books contained in the Vulgate translation, which we have not found in the Hebrew or Chaldee." — http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_apocrypha#Other_early_Bible_editions
And then there is the confusing and contentious issue of non-canonical Second Esdras (two by that name) also known as 3rd (or Esdras A) or 4th Esdras (as in the Vulgate) , also called Apocalypse of Ezra.
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.