Posted on 07/20/2013 5:38:15 PM PDT by narses
Last week, my friend who is a Baptist was visiting and came with me to Mass. The first reading was from the second Book of Maccabees. She had never heard of that book. I said, "It is in the Bible." She said, "It is not in my Bible." Is there a difference?
Yes, there is a difference between Catholic and Protestant editions of the Bible. However, to appreciate this question and its answer, one must first remember that almighty God never handed anyone a complete Bible and said, "Here it is." Rather, over the centuries of salvation history, the Holy Spirit inspired the authors of Sacred Scripture to write down God's revelation to us. As time went on, the Church compiled these books to form a Canon — an authoritative set of Sacred Scripture — and declared it "God's Word." The books of the Old Testament were written probably between 1000 and 100 BC, and are usually distinguished as four sets: The Law (or Torah, our first five books of the Old Testament), the Historical Books, the Prophets, and the Writings. (The books of I & II Maccabees belong to the historical set, being written between 150 - 100 BC.) Even in the New Testament itself, we find references to the reading of the Law and the Prophets in synagogue services (e.g. Luke 4:16-19, Acts 13:15). After the Fall of Jerusalem in AD 70, the Jewish rabbis convened the Council of Jamnia (90-100), at which time they established what books would be considered their Sacred Scripture. At this time, some controversy still existed over what are called the seven "deuterocanonical books" — Tobit, Judith, Wisdom, Sirach, Baruch, and I & II Maccabees — although they had been incorporated in their entirety or at least partially in versions of the Septuagint, the official Greek translation of the Old Testament (c. 100 BC). Part of the reason for the controversy was because these were the latest writings of the Old Testament and were written in Greek rather than Hebrew; the other books of the Old Testament — the "protocanonical books"-- were older and originally written in Hebrew. Modern scholars note that Jamnia did not exclude any books definitively; a rigid fixing of the Jewish canon does not occur until at least 100 years later, and even then other books-- including the deuterocanonical books-- were read and honored. Many Scripture scholars, however, have no doubt that the apostolic Church accepted the deuterocanonical books as part of its canon of Sacred Scriptures. For instance, Origen (d. 245) affirmed the use of these books among Christians even though some of the Jewish leaders did not officially accept them.
Meanwhile, the writing of the New Testament books occurred between the time of our Lord's death and the end of the first century. (Recent studies of the Dead Sea Scrolls by some scholars suggest a date of the earliest writings closer to the time of our Lord's death, whereas much scholarship seems to place the writings between 50 and 100 AD). After the legalization of Christianity in 313, we find the Church striving to formalize what writings of the New Testament were truly considered inspired and authentic to the teachings of our Lord. St. Athanasius in his Paschal Epistle (367) presented the complete list of 27 books of the New Testament saying, "These are the sources of salvation, for the thirsty may drink deeply of the words to be found here. In these alone is the doctrine of piety recorded. Let no one add to them or take anything away from them." This list of 27 books along with the 46 books of the Old Testament (including the deuterocanonical ones) was affirmed as the official canon of Sacred Scripture for the Catholic Church by the synods of Hippo (393), Carthage I & II (397 and 419). The letter of Pope St. Innocent I in 405 also officially listed these books.
Although some discussion arose over the inclusion of other books into the Church's canon of Sacred Scripture after this time, the Council of Florence (1442) definitively established the official list of 46 books of the Old Testament and 27 of the New Testament.
With this background, we can now address why the Protestant versions of the Bible have less books than the Catholic versions. In 1534, Martin Luther translated the Bible into German. He grouped the seven deuterocanonical books (Tobit, Judith, Wisdom, Sirach, Baruch, and I & II Maccabees) of the Old Testament under the title "Apocrypha," declaring, "These are books which are not held equal to the Sacred Scriptures and yet are useful and good for reading." Luther also categorized the New Testament books: those of God's work of salvation (John, Romans, Galatians, Ephesians, I Peter, and I John); other canonical books (Matthew, Mark, Luke, Acts, rest of Pauline epistles, II Peter, and II John); and non-canonical books (Hebrews, James, Jude, Revelation, and books of the Old Testament). Many Church historians speculate that Luther was prepared to drop what he called the "non-canonical books" of the New Testament but refrained from doing so because of possible political fall-out. Why Luther took this course of action is hard to say. Some scholars believe Luther wanted to return to the "primitive faith," and therefore accepted only those Old Testament books written in Hebrew originally; others speculate he wanted to remove anything which disagreed with his own theology. Nevertheless, his action had the permanent consequence of omitting the seven deuterocanonical books of the Old Testament in Protestant versions of the Bible.
The 39 Articles of Religion (1563) of the Church of England asserted that these deuterocanonical books may be read for "example of life and instruction of manners," although they should not be used "to establish any doctrine" (Article VI). Consequently, the King James Bible (1611) printed the books between the New Testament and Old Testaments. John Lightfoot (1643) criticized this arrangement because he thought the "wretched Apocrypha" may be seen as a bridge between the two. The Westminster Confession (1647) decreed that these books, "not being of divine inspiration, are no part of the canon of Scripture, and therefore are of no authority of the Church of God; nor to be in any otherwise approved, or made use of than other human writings." The British and Foreign Bible Society decided in 1827 to remove these books from further publications and labeled these books "apocryphal." However, many Protestant versions of the Bible today will state, "King James version with Apocrypha."
The Council of Trent, reacting to the Protestant Reformers, repeated the canon of Florence in the Decree on Sacred Books and on Traditions to be Received (1546) and decreed that these books were to be treated "with equal devotion and reverence." The Catechism repeats this same list of books and again affirms the apostolic Tradition of the canon of Sacred Scripture.
“Judith, for example, says that Nebuchadnezzer is King of the Assyrians, which is wrong, amongst many other historical and geographical errors.”
The Babylonian Empire subsumed the Assyrian Empire under Nebuchadnezzar, so it’s not a stretch to say that he was King of the Assyrians. He was king over all that he surveyed, including Assyria.
The problem is where did the Catholic Church come from, and from where did it get its authority to decide what books were to be in the Bible - BEFORE the Bible was compiled?
After all, the authority couldn't have come from the Bible, because it hadn't been compiled yet.
From the article: "...one must first remember that almighty God never handed anyone a complete Bible and said, "Here it is." Rather, over the centuries of salvation history, the Holy Spirit inspired the authors of Sacred Scripture to write down God's revelation to us. As time went on, the Church compiled these books to form a Canon — an authoritative set of Sacred Scripture — and declared it "God's Word.""
So it's fine once you have a Church that then draws its authority from Scriptures, but what about the beginning - where did the authority come to make the first Bible? Actually, it goes even deeper than that, because the actual act of creating the first Bible was the act of THROWING OUT scriptures that didn't fit the agendas of those who were editing what they wanted the Bible to be, so that they could base the Catholic Church on it.
Quite convenient. Especially since we know from history that none of those involved in this process had a political agenda, were power seekers, were treacherous, or were trying to hide true teachings of Jesus or God that might have gotten in their way. And how do we know this from history? Because the Church teaches that though there were human failings, Grace guided the creation of the Bible. And how does the Church justify that teaching? Why, because it's in the Bible!
Like I said, convenient. VERY convenient.
“Just curious as to how you get that either of those quotes means that Judith is not considered Scripture by the authors.”
I said they didn’t believe that the contents of Judith were even true. I didn’t say they didn’t consider it scripture, though their calling it “fiction” certainly nullifies its position as scripture.
I should point out that the canon of Scripture was actually fixed by the disciplinary session of the Sixth Ecumenical Council in 692 (called by Western scholars variously the Trullan Synod or Quinisext Council — though both Orthodox and Latin hierarchs, at least before the Latin Schism referred to its canons as those of the Sixth Ecumenical Council). One of its canons explicitly gave the canons of the Synod of Carthage of 419 universal force throughout the Church.
There is the fact, very uncomfortable for protestant defenders of the short canon, that it is not only the Latins, whom they like to vilify as “adding” books to the Bible, but the Orthodox and Monophysites (Copts, Armenians Ethiopians, Syrian Jacobites) and the Nestorians (Assyrian Church of the East), that is all Christian confessions still extant and dating from before the 16th century, include in their canon of Scripture all or most of the books the protestants reject under the name “the Apocrypha”.
You can quibble about 4th Maccabees and 2nd Esdras, maybe they don’t belong, but all of us in the East think that all of you in the West (Latin and protestant alike) are missing the 151st Psalm and the Prayer of Manasseh, and most of us think you should all have 3rd Maccabees in your Bibles — the Copts and Ethiopians stand with you Westerners on that one and against the Armenians and the Jacobites.
I would observe that this unanimity exists despite the fact that the Assyrians have been out of communion with the rest of us since 431, the Copts, Ethiopians and Jacobites since 451, the Armenians since 506.
“The Babylonian Empire subsumed the Assyrian Empire under Nebuchadnezzar, so it’s not a stretch to say that he was King of the Assyrians.”
Judith asserts that Nebuchadnezzar reigned in Nineveh, which is the Assyrian capital, as opposed to Babylon, though he ruled over many various tribes and cities. And that is just one of the many historical and geographical problems of Judith, hence why the RCC does not regard Judith as actually historical.
I thought the thread was about which books are Scriptural. Sorry, if I read into your post that because these men believe Judith to be fiction, it means that they also considered it not to be Scripture.
As per your response, it seems that is your opinion. What about it being fiction nullifies it being Scripture?
**Paul was a Jew**
“Not after he had his encounter with Jesus.”
Paul remained a devout, observant Jew even after his conversion to Christianity.
After these days we got ready and started on our way up to Jerusalem. Acts 21:15
Paul was getting ready to go back to Jerusalem to celebrate the Passover.
When he got there, the apostles in Jerusalem were concerned that other Jews would accuse him of not being devout because of his ministry to Gentiles. So the apostles in Jerusalem told him to do this:
“Therefore do this that we tell you. We have four men who are under a vow; take them and purify yourself along with them, and pay their expenses so that they may shave their heads; and all will know that there is nothing to the things which they have been told about you, but that you yourself also walk orderly, keeping the Law. “But concerning the Gentiles who have believed, we wrote, having decided that they should abstain from meat sacrificed to idols and from blood and from what is strangled and from fornication.” Then Paul took the men, and the next day, purifying himself along with them, went into the temple giving notice of the completion of the days of purification, until the sacrifice was offered for each one of them. Acts 21:23-26
“I should point out that the canon of Scripture was actually fixed by the disciplinary session of the Sixth Ecumenical Council in 692 (called by Western scholars variously the Trullan Synod or Quinisext Council”
The Trullan synod, which was rejected by Pope Constantine, actually affirmed a great deal of books as canonical, affirming, actually, several different and contradictory lists, even some with books that the RCC today does not regard as part of the canon, such as III Maccabees. Hence the reason why even up to the eve of the Reformation, the RCC still reverted to the default position of Jerome.
It’s also worth noting that the vast majority of these books de-canonize themselves anyway due to their errors and even self-admissions of having them. You can cling to these books if you like, but aside from the empty authority of some church tradition, there is no internal or truly historical reason to accept them.
And it would seem you are not accepting St. Paul as a Christian — is that what you are saying?
“What about it being fiction nullifies it being Scripture?”
Well, if it is filled with “historical and geographical errors,” there’s no good reason to think that it is binding on doctrine or the Christian conscience. It can be brought forward for the “edification of the faithful,” in the same way Narnia is, but certainly not for the “confirmation of doctrine.” For its former use, I have no problem. The problem is the RCC wants to put forward the apocrypha for the latter use.
“...though their calling it “fiction” certainly nullifies its position as scripture.”
Song of Solomon is a lyric poem. It has also been described as allegory. Does that disqualify it as scripture, too?
The Song of Solomon is inspired scripture, and therefore it can be used for doctrine, reproof, correction, instruction for righteousness, that the man of God may be perfect and thoroughly furnished unto good works. When I said “fiction,” keep in mind I also affirmed with the modern RCC that it is “replete with historical and geographical errors.” We cannot consider something like that to be inspired by the Holy Spirit. If the Holy Spirit wanted to write a poem, He would not masquerade it as history.
I accept him as both. Why deny his Jewishness though unless it is to promote your churchs agenda?
It’s absurd to reject Paul’s Jewishness, when he himself affirmed it.
Rom 11:1 I say then, Hath God cast away his people? God forbid. For I also am an Israelite, of the seed of Abraham, of the tribe of Benjamin.
Salvation is just being difficult so he can ignore your central point, which is that the Jewish Nation who were the keepers of the law and prophets, weren’t the RCC.
“And it would seem you are not accepting St. Paul as a Christian — is that what you are saying?”
Jews were told to keep the Law until “heaven and earth passed away.”
“For truly I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest letter or stroke shall pass from the Law until all is accomplished. “Whoever then annuls one of the least of these commandments, and teaches others to do the same, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but whoever keeps and teaches them, he shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven. Matthew 5:18-19
(When this happened is a whole other discussion that I’ll leave for another time.)
So until the Temple was destroyed, Jews were commanded to remain observant of the Law. The last vestiges of the Mosaic Covenant were swept away with the destruction of Jerusalem and its Temple in 70 AD.
And if you read the early Church Fathers you will see the history......they attended the synagogue on the Sabbath. Then they would meet in home churches and celebrate the Eucharist. So go a little deeper into Church History.
Justin Martyr describes the early Mass that they celebrated as being very similar to the one we celebrate today.
“The Song of Solomon is inspired scripture, and therefore it can be used for doctrine...”
What doctrinal statements exist in the Song of Solomon that elevate it to the level of canon?
I don’t believe the apocrypha is inspired either. But I’ve found it to be useful in refuting some of the errors I see in evangelicalism today. I Maccabees is especially useful for helping us understand the fulfillment of the prophecies in Daniel 7 and 8 regarding the “little horn.”
But that’s for another discussion. There is enough value in at least some of the apocryphal books to keep them around.
Where does Scripture say it is for the confirmation of doctrine? Or that Scripture alone confirms doctrine?
2 Timothy 3:16-17, “All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, 17so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.”
The Bible is God’s revelation to us about Himself and our relationship to Him.
The errors in history or geography do not obscure that revelation.
“I don’t believe the apocrypha is inspired either. But I’ve found it to be useful in refuting some of the errors I see in evangelicalism today. I Maccabees is especially useful for helping us understand the fulfillment of the prophecies in Daniel 7 and 8 regarding the “little horn.””
I also disagree with many of the errors of evangelicalism today, especially in regards to how they interpret the prophecies of Daniel. Maccabees is a history book, just like Josephus’ War of the Jews, which I have no real problem with, except if it is brought forward for the confirmation of doctrine. I’m sure that the author of Maccabees wouldn’t have had a problem with that conclusion as well.
The Song of Solomon declares that it is written by, well, Solomon. Nor does it contain historical errors, or errors of doctrine of any kind, but rather affirms doctrine and reveals divine truths. It has also been affirmed universally as inspired scripture since it was written by both the Jews and the whole of Christianity. It is therefore superior in every way to the Apocrypha.
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.