>> since it assumes that Jerome’s conforming to the Bishops meant he conformed to Trent which had yet to occur for about another thousand years, <<
LOL! Your ability to think in rigidly circular logic is amazing! The ecumenical council that Jerome explicitly stated he was obeying was the NICENE council, just a few years before his own birth.
Also: John of Damascus is very plainly describing the canon of the Hebrews; he regularly cites as scripture from the so-called “apocrypha.”
As does Gregory the Great, who explicitly cites as Holy Scripture in his later publication of that very same work, Sirach 10:25, Sirach 3:22, Wisdom 12:6, Sirach 10:15, Wisdom 2:24, Wisdom 12:18, Sirach 7:40, Wisdom 11:24, Wisdom 12:18 again, Sirach 5:4, Wisdom 1:11, Tobit 4:17, Sirach 34:20, Sirach 7:14, Sirach 29:15, Wisdom 9:15, Sirach 32:24. In many of these cases, he is plainly establishing moral doctrine. So if you hold that he rejects 1 Maccabees, then you must hold that he still retains Sirach, Wisdom and Tobit, and purposely and directly preaches against Sola Scriptura. But with historical context, we find that he was writing from Constantinople, where there had been a crisis over which of the four Books of the Maccabees to include in the canon, where his meaning was, “Even if you reject this as canon, you must still accept the testimony it provides.”
Athanasius: Very plainly insists that books outside the Hebrew canon be used to instruct new converts in moral doctrine.
Cajetan was convinced by the assertions of Luther, which we now know to have been historically wrong. Funny how you ignore every other Catholic bishop of his time who ascented to Trent, and treat the one singled out by Trent as heretical as if he were representative.
Oh, and for the record: Jerome was misled by Jews, but assented to the Catholic church out of faith in the institution. He believed that the Septuagint was a terrible translation because he had been led to believe that the Masoretic text was the only Hebrew version ever published. Scholars now see where the NT uses the LXX as its source, and we had multitudes of Hebrew versions which contradict the assertions made by the Jews to Jerome. So even if you appeal to him merely as a scripture scholar, and discredit the fact that he assented to the Catholic faith, you have to also recognize that although it was to no fault of his scholarship, his work is thoroughly historically discredited on that particular matter.
http://theorthodoxlife.wordpress.com/2012/03/03/septuagint-vs-masoretic-text/
I can’t help but to notice that you are totally making things up as you go along. For example, you claim that Cajetan “was convinced by the assertions of Luther.” Well, that’s just incredibly stupid, and you don’t even back it up with anything. You’re talking about THIS Cajetan who sports THIS biography:
“Dominican cardinal, philosopher, theologian, and exegete; born 20 February, 1469 at Gaeta, Italy; died 9 August, 1534 at Rome…In 1501 he was made procurator general of his order and appointed to the chairs of philosophy and exegesis at the Sapienza. On the death of the master general, John Clérée, 1507, Cajetan was named vicar-general of the order, and the next year he was elected to the generalship. With foresight and ability, he devoted his energies to the promotion of religious discipline, emphasizing the study of sacred science as the chief means of attaining the end of the order…. About the fourth year of his generalship, Cajetan rendered important service to the Holy See by appearing before the Pseudo-Council of Pisa (1511), where he denounced the disobedience of the participating cardinals and bishops and overwhelmed them with his arguments. This was the occasion of his defence of the power and monarchical supremacy of the pope…On 1 July, 1517, Cajetan was created cardinal by Pope Leo X…He was later made Bishop of Gaeta…In theology Cajetan is justly ranked as one of the foremost defenders and exponents of the Thomistic school…To Clement VII he was the “lamp of the Church”, and everywhere in his career, as the theological light of Italy, he was heard with respect and pleasure by cardinals, universities, the clergy, nobility, and people.” (Catholic Encyclopedia, 16 Volumes (New York: Encyclopedia Press, 1913). See also New Advent at www.newadvent.org.)
And you want me to believe that the foundation of his opinion was on an ASSERTION by Luther? How stupid do you think Cajetan has to be, and the Roman Catholic church has to be, to be tricked by a mere ASSERTION?
Same thing on John of Damascus. You just assert that he was talking about someone elses canon, and not his own, even though he explicitly is speaking of our canon. And you don’t even offer anything except your own assertion. Is this how Romans debate when they are osing? They just throw whatever **** at the wall, hoping something will stick for those less educated on the matter?
Athanasius you don’t seem capable of even understanding, and this is the second time you’ve done that:
“Athanasius: Very plainly insists that books outside the Hebrew canon be used to instruct new converts in moral doctrine.”
It’s the complete opposite. Athanasius plainly states that the standard Old and New Testament are both to be read and to be brought forward for the confirmation of doctrine, while the questionable books were STILL to be read, though not brought forward for the confirmation of doctrine. This is an important distinction that destroys your modern RCC views.
Your comment, basically, shows me that you either didn’t read Athanasius or are incapable of understanding him.
On your comments about Pope Gregory quoting the apocrypha as ‘scripture’. What’s your point? Well, of course they did, as these books were considered to be “called canonical, that is, in the nature of a rule for the edification of the faithful, as being received and authorised in the canon of the Bible for that purpose.” But they were not considered canonical in another sense, as “these books (and any other like books in the canon of the Bible) are not canonical, that is, not in the nature of a rule for confirming matters of faith.” So it makes absolutely no difference if they called these books “scripture,” or made use of them, since this is part of my whole argument in the first place, since their distinction was such that these were worthwhile books, but simply were not used for the purpose of creating or defending doctrine. All your doing is just repeating what I myself have already discussed, at least in that other thread where we already had this discussion.
This is a position I am completely okay with, and I think there is MUCH to be gained by reading ancient books, including many that Rome doesn’t even acknowledge anymore. For example, the Didache has MANY useful quotations and insights, even though you have put it out of the canon. Though, of course, I understand, with all these ancient Christians, that these books are not equal to the undisputed canon of the Christian church, they have many errors, and therefore can never be brought forward for any purpose of doctrine. But so far as edification goes, Judith, for example, is a wonderful story! Tobit, if you can get by the Angel teaching witchcraft (the roasting of fish guts allegedly to ward off demons), is quite interesting.
“Oh, and for the record: Jerome was misled by Jews, but assented to the Catholic church out of faith in the institution. He believed that the Septuagint was a terrible translation because he had been led to believe that the Masoretic text was the only Hebrew version ever published. Scholars now see where the NT uses the LXX as its source, and we had multitudes of Hebrew versions which contradict the assertions made by the Jews to Jerome. So even if you appeal to him merely as a scripture scholar, and discredit the fact that he assented to the Catholic faith, you have to also recognize that although it was to no fault of his scholarship, his work is thoroughly historically discredited on that particular matter.
http://theorthodoxlife.wordpress.com/2012/03/03/septuagint-vs-masoretic-text/";
Looking at the link, it doesn’t actually support any of your assertions. Also, it is quite irrelevant, as I mentioned in the other thread, there is no evidence that the LXX possessed the apocrypha during the time of Christ or before that. All we actually know is that the Books of Moses were translated, and are called the LXX, but we do not even know when the rest of the Old Testament made its way into the Greek, or even who translated it, or how many times it has been translated. The only copies of the LXX we have today are Christian copies, which actually contain a great number of books that the early Christians thought were useful to read, which Rome rejects. Third, the Masoretic text dates to the 7th to 10th centuries, though it is highly accurate (though not exactly the same) as copies found among the dead sea scrolls. So Jerome couldn’t have possibly have known anything about something that had yet to even exist. Fourth, the Masoretic text, even though there are minor differences with the LXX in some points as your quote mentions, is still not as good a translation as the Masoretc, as it is the LXX which actually removes important prophecies regarding the Messiah.
For example,
Isaiah 9:6 (Septuagint)
“For a child is born to us, and a son is given to us, whose government is upon his shoulder: and his name is called the Messenger of great counsel: for I will bring peace upon the princes, and health to him. 7 His government shall be great, and of his peace there is no end: it shall be upon the throne of David, and upon his kingdom, to establish it, and to support it with judgment and with righteousness, from henceforth and forever. The seal of the Lord of hosts shall perform this.”
This removes the important prophecy of Christ’s deity from the Old Testament. How Jerome translates it from the Hebrew into the Latin:
Isa 9:6 parvulus enim natus est nobis filius datus est nobis et factus est principatus super umerum eius et vocabitur nomen eius Admirabilis consiliarius Deus fortis Pater futuri saeculi Princeps pacis
The Mighty God is reentered into the text, where it belongs.
And the KJV:
Isa 9:6 For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace.
How the Targum by Jonathan Ben Uzziel renders it in his paraphrase, 30 years before the time of Christ:
“The prophet said to the house of David, For unto us a Child is born, unto us a Son is given, and He has taken the law upon Himself to keep it. His name is called from eternity. Wonderful, The Mighty God, who liveth to eternity, The Messiah, whose peace shall be great upon us in His days.” (The Chaldee paraphrase on the prophet Isaiah [by Jonathan b. Uziel] tr. by C.W.H. Pauli)
Obviously, the Masoretic is the reading that is most consistent, even though the Greek version the Apostles used had some differences.