Skip to comments.
Protecting God’s Word From “Bible Christians”
Crisis Magazine ^
| October 3, 2014
| RICHARD BECKER
Posted on 10/03/2014 2:33:43 PM PDT by NYer
“Stand firm and hold fast to the traditions that you were taught,
either by an oral statement or by a letter of ours.”
~ St. Paul to the Thessalonians
A former student of mine is thinking of becoming a Catholic, and she had a question for me. I dont understand the deuterocanonical books, she ventured. If the Catholic faith is supposed to be a fulfillment of the Jewish faith, why do Catholics accept those books and the Jews dont? Shed done her homework, and was troubled that the seven books and other writings of the deuterocanon had been preserved only in Greek instead of Hebrew like the rest of the Jewish scriptureswhich is part of the reason why they were classified, even by Catholics, as a second (deutero) canon.
My student went on. Im just struggling because there are a lot of references to those books in Church doctrine, but they arent considered inspired Scripture. Why did Luther feel those books needed to be taken out? she asked. And why are Protestants so against them?
The short answer sounds petty and mean, but its true nonetheless: Luther jettisoned those extra Old Testament booksTobit, Sirach, 1 and 2 Maccabees, and the likebecause they were inconvenient. The Apocrypha (or, false writings), as they came to be known, supported pesky Catholic doctrines that Luther and other reformers wanted to suppresspraying for the dead, for instance, and the intercession of the saints. Heres John Calvin on the subject:
Add to this, that they provide themselves with new supports when they give full authority to the Apocryphal books. Out of the second of the Maccabees they will prove Purgatory and the worship of saints; out of Tobit satisfactions, exorcisms, and what not. From Ecclesiasticus they will borrow not a little. For from whence could they better draw their dregs?
However, the deuterocanonical literature was (and is) prominent in the liturgy and very familiar to that first generation of Protestant converts, so Luther and company couldnt very well ignore it altogether. Consequently, those seven apocryphal books, along with the Greek portions of Esther and Daniel, were relegated to an appendix in early Protestant translations of the Bible.
Eventually, in the nineteenth century sometime, many Protestant Bible publishers starting dropping the appendix altogether, and the modern translations used by most evangelicals today dont even reference the Apocrypha at all. Thus, the myth is perpetuated that nefarious popes and bishops have gotten away with brazenly foisting a bunch of bogus scripture on the ignorant Catholic masses.
Nothing could be further from the truth.
To begin with, it was Luther and Calvin and the other reformers who did all the foisting. The Old Testament that Christians had been using for 1,500 years had always included the so-called Apocrypha, and there was never a question as to its canonicity. Thus, by selectively editing and streamlining their own versions of the Bible according to their sectarian biases (including, in Luthers case, both Testaments, Old and New), the reformers engaged in a theological con game. To make matters worse, they covered their tracks by pointing fingers at the Catholic Church for adding phony texts to the closed canon of Hebrew Sacred Writ.
In this sense, the reformers were anticipating what I call the Twain-Jefferson approach to canonical revisionism. It involves two simple steps.
- Step one: Identify the parts of Scripture that you find especially onerous or troublesome. Generally, these will be straightforward biblical references that dont quite square with the doctrine one is championing or the practices one has already embraced. Mark Twain is the modern herald of this half of creative textual reconstruction: It aint those parts of the Bible that I cant understand that bother me, Twain wrote, it is the parts that I do understand.
- Step two: Yank the vexing parts out. Its what Thomas Jefferson literally did when he took his own Bible and cut out the passages he found offensivea kind of scripture by subtraction in the words of religion professor Stephen Prothero.
The reformers justified their Twain-Jefferson humbug by pointing to the canon of scriptures in use by European Jews during that time, and it did not include those extra Catholic bookscase closed! Still unconvinced? Todays defenders of the reformers biblical reshaping will then proceed to throw around historical precedent and references to the first-century Council of Jamnia, but its all really smoke and mirrors.
The fact is that the first-century Jewish canon was pretty mutable and there was no universal definitive list of sacred texts. On the other hand, it is indisputable that the version being used by Jesus and the Apostles during that time was the Septuagintthe Greek version of the Hebrew scriptures that included Luthers rejected apocryphal books. SCORE: Deuterocanon 1; Twain-Jefferson Revisionism 0.
But this is all beside the point. Its like an argument about creationism vs. evolution that gets funneled in the direction of whether dinosaurs couldve been on board Noahs Ark. Once youre arguing about that, youre no longer arguing about the bigger issue of the historicity of those early chapters in Genesis. The parallel red herring here is arguing over the content of the Christian Old Testament canon instead of considering the nature of authority itself and how its supposed to work in the Church, especially with regards to the Bible.
I mean, even if we can settle what the canon should include, we dont have the autographs (original documents) from any biblical books anyway. While we affirm the Churchs teaching that all Scripture is inspired and teaches solidly, faithfully and without error that truth which God wanted put into sacred writings (DV 11), there are no absolutes when it comes to the precise content of the Bible.
Can there be any doubt that this is by Gods design? Without the autographs, we are much less tempted to worship a static book instead of the One it reveals to us. Even so, its true that we are still encouraged to venerate the Scriptures, but we worship the incarnate Wordand we ought not confuse the two. John the Baptist said as much when he painstakingly distinguished between himself, the announcer, and the actual Christ he was announcing. The Catechism, quoting St. Bernard, offers a further helpful distinction:
The Christian faith is not a religion of the book. Christianity is the religion of the Word of God, a word which is not a written and mute word, but the Word is incarnate and living.
Anyway, with regards to authority and the canon of Scripture, Mark Shea couldnt have put it more succinctly than his recent response to a request for a summary of why the deuterocanon should be included in the Bible:
Because the Church in union with Peter, the pillar and ground of the truth (1 Timothy 3:15) granted authority by Christ to loose and bind (Matthew 16:19), says they should be.
Right. The Church says so, and thats good enough.
For its the Church who gives us the Scriptures. Its the Church who preserves the Scriptures and tells us to turn to them. Its the Church who bathes us in the Scriptures with the liturgy, day in and day out, constantly watering our souls with Gods Word. Isnt it a bit bizarre to be challenging the Church with regards to which Scriptures shes feeding us with? No, mother, the infant cries, not breast milk! I want Ovaltine! Better yet, how about some Sprite!
Think of it this way. My daughter Margaret and I share an intense devotion to Betty Smiths remarkable novel, A Tree Grows in Brooklyn. Its a bittersweet family tale of impoverishment, tragedy, and perseverance, and we often remark how curious it is that Smiths epic story receives so little attention.
I was rooting around the sale shelf at the public library one day, and I happened upon a paperback with the name Betty Smith on the spine. I took a closer look: Joy in the Morning, a 1963 novel of romance and the struggles of newlyweds, and it was indeed by the same Smith of Tree fame. I snatched it up for Meg.
The other day, Meg thanked me for the book, and asked me to be on the lookout for others by Smith. It wasnt nearly as good as Tree, she said, and I dont expect any of her others to be as good. But I want to read everything she wrote because Tree was so wonderful.
See, she wants to get to know Betty Smith because of what she encountered in A Tree Grows in Brooklyn. And all we have are her books and other writings; Betty Smith herself is gone.
But Jesus isnt like that. We have the book, yes, but we have more. We still have the Word himself.
TOPICS: Apologetics; Catholic; Evangelical Christian; Theology
KEYWORDS: apocrypha; bible; calvin; christians; herewegoagain; luther
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 161-180, 181-200, 201-220 ... 1,081-1,086 next last
To: metmom
181
posted on
10/04/2014 5:38:38 PM PDT
by
CynicalBear
(For I decided to know nothing among you except Jesus)
To: metmom
“Catholics call Mary, *Mother of God*. That deifies her.”
Actually, that title was given to her to deify Christ. There were some Christians at the time that denied Jesus was “Emmanuel”.
182
posted on
10/04/2014 5:42:52 PM PDT
by
al_c
(Obama's standing in the world has fallen so much that Kenya now claims he was born in America.)
To: narses
183
posted on
10/04/2014 5:44:30 PM PDT
by
CynicalBear
(For I decided to know nothing among you except Jesus)
To: annalex; HarleyD; Mr Rogers
The point remains that the Church as a whole did not relegate the Deuterocanon to any special status, no matter what individual opinions existed on the matter when the Canon was still in the process of formation, that is till 5 CenturyYour version of the history of the canon contradicts Roman Catholic history of the canon. The canon was not settled in the 5th century.
The Council of Carthage lists all the books of the Catholic Old Testament without distinction.
Again, both Councils of Carthage and Hippo CONTRADICT the Council of Trent on the Septuagint version 1 Edras.
Cordially,
184
posted on
10/04/2014 5:49:41 PM PDT
by
Diamond
(He has erected a multitude of new offices, and sent hither swarms of officers to harass our people,)
To: St_Thomas_Aquinas
Oh that’s funny right there. The questions were not what is in the catechism. It was “what do Catholics do”. Calling Mary the conqueror of evil and death is deification as those are only attributes of God.
185
posted on
10/04/2014 5:52:24 PM PDT
by
CynicalBear
(For I decided to know nothing among you except Jesus)
To: editor-surveyor
Doomed also comes to mind.
186
posted on
10/04/2014 5:53:26 PM PDT
by
CynicalBear
(For I decided to know nothing among you except Jesus)
To: narses; CynicalBear
They might possibly say, "We received grace because we believed;" as if they would attribute the faith to themselves, and the grace to God. Therefore, the apostle having said, "You are saved through faith," added, And that not of yourselves, but it is the gift of God. And again, lest they should say they deserved so great a gift by their works, he immediately added, "Not of works, lest any man should boast." Ephesians 2:9 Not that he denied good works, or emptied them of their value, when he says that God renders to every man according to his works; Romans 2:6 but because works proceed from faith,and not faith from works. Therefore it is from Him that we have works of righteousness, from whom comes also faith itself, concerning which it is written, "The just shall live by faith." Habakkuk 2:4 Augustine, On Grace and Free Will
Peace,
SR
To: annalex; Mr Rogers
The Council of Carthage lists all the books of the Catholic Old Testament without distinction.
Who's to say that Council or any other was entirely inerrant and/or infallible?
Themselves?
Others coming after them, not daring to to do anything but validate the proceedings for reason they prefer to (need to?) regard these Councils composed of clearly other than "infallible" men as individuals, all of a sudden become inerrant/infallible when they gather together?
As Christ Himself cited from OT scripture "if a man bears witness of himself he bears false witness".
The Deuterocanonical books were used in liturgy since then. That is all that matters.
That's the problem right there.
Not knowing any better (or caring) these particular works were accessed fairly earlier on for passages and verses here and there (AS I ALREADY MENTIONED -- hello?) which in itself does not make those works post el facto into having been Hebrew canon -- thus needing be regarded as truly inspired, even inerrant (inerrant-- not to be confused with "infallible") at the time Christ walked the earth as man.
Saying now as you have "that's all that matters" gives away the game, with that game un-winnable ---unless the writings of the Law and the Prophets Jesus came to fulfill were not known well enough to the very religious authorities He repeatedly upbraided (and CONDEMNED) for not adhering to them, and/or misusing them.
188
posted on
10/04/2014 5:53:44 PM PDT
by
BlueDragon
(...they murdered some of them bums...for thinking wrong thoughts)
To: annalex; boatbums; BlueDragon
>> “ Timothy was a native of Lystra and his father was Greek, a strong indication that his exposure to scripture was through Septuagint and therefore “all” in St. Paul’s writing is a reference to the complete Catholic Canon, not to the Protestant redaction.” <<
.
What a bizarre assertion!
.
First, Timothy’s mother was a devout Jew, and children’s education was strictly the mother’s job in a Jewish family of that time. Read what Paul said of his mother, little is even known of his father.
Paul taught nothing from the Septuagint, he had little knowledge of the Greek language, but he was one of the world’s greatest experts in the Hebrew scriptures, which he had studied since he was a toddler. The same is in all likelihood true for Timothy.
There was no “Canon” in their time but the Tanakh, and the ‘catholic’ anything was 300 years in the future.
The very idea of a NT ‘canon’ is without scriptural basis. The gospel of Matthew, and the various letters of the apostles were copied in a purely random way by whoever wished to have a copy of a letter. Codification of them came long after the apostles were all dead, and Jerusalem long demolished.
The term “scripture” to the apostles meant the Tanakh, in Hebrew, which is how it was available in synagogues across the Mediterranean, (see acts 15:21) including Lystra, and that was instruction in Righteousness, not ‘justice.’
The Septuagint was prepared for a small contingent of Greek speaking Jews in Alexandria, not for Greeks, and Greeks for the most part considered it unreadable.
.
.
189
posted on
10/04/2014 5:55:34 PM PDT
by
editor-surveyor
(Freepers: Not as smart as I'd hoped they'd be)
To: editor-surveyor
>>The term scripture to the apostles meant the Tanakh,<<
Peter referred to Paul's writings as scripture.
190
posted on
10/04/2014 6:00:48 PM PDT
by
CynicalBear
(For I decided to know nothing among you except Jesus)
To: St_Thomas_Aquinas
When Catholics and the Catholic church stop attributing to her the attributes of God, then they might get somewhere in convincing people they don't worship her.
Until then, actions speak louder than words.
From the Catechism of the Catholic church....
http://www.vatican.va/archive/catechism/p123a9p6.htm
969 This motherhood of Mary in the order of grace continues uninterruptedly from the consent which she loyally gave at the Annunciation and which she sustained without wavering beneath the cross, until the eternal fulfillment of all the elect. Taken up to heaven she did not lay aside this saving office but by her manifold intercession continues to bring us the gifts of eternal salvation .... Therefore the Blessed Virgin is invoked in the Church under the titles of Advocate, Helper, Benefactress, and Mediatrix.510
Names of God from the Bible. Compare them to the names given to Mary in the above prayer.
Jesus
Hope (our) - 1 Timothy 1:1
Counselor - Isaiah 9:6
Advocate - 1 John 2:1
Mediator - 1 Timothy 2:5, Hebrews 9:15, Hebrews 12:24
Holy Spirit
Comforter - John 14:26
Helper John 14:16
This is worship of Mary if ever there was.....Attributing to her the attributes of God is idolatry.
191
posted on
10/04/2014 6:05:09 PM PDT
by
metmom
(...fixing our eyes on Jesus, the Author and Perfecter of our faith...)
To: al_c
Actually, that title was given to her to deify Christ. There were some Christians at the time that denied Jesus was Emmanuel. Then the best course of action would have been adequate teaching out of Scripture, instead of renaming Mary, making her into something she isn't.
Renaming Mary from *mother of Jesus* as the HOLY SPIRIT named her, into *mother of God* does nothing to correct any confusion about who Jesus is and was, and does everything to add to the confusion about who Mary is.
And based on the prayers offered to Mary by many Catholics, which can easily be found by the most cursory internet search, it not only led to confusion about who she is, but outright idolatry on the part of many people, including some of your very own popes.
192
posted on
10/04/2014 6:11:23 PM PDT
by
metmom
(...fixing our eyes on Jesus, the Author and Perfecter of our faith...)
To: CynicalBear
193
posted on
10/04/2014 6:32:25 PM PDT
by
narses
( For the Son of man shall come ... and then will he render to every man according to his works.)
To: metmom
>>Do Catholics give her worship that is due to God alone?<<
Illiterates, idiots and liars claim that. They are wrong.
194
posted on
10/04/2014 6:33:23 PM PDT
by
narses
( For the Son of man shall come ... and then will he render to every man according to his works.)
To: boatbums; annalex
Good questions, bb.
How many times must we go over this stuff?
Oh, pick me, pick me teacher, I know!
About every third time or so some FRoman or another tries to again raise the issue -- and in initial replies has their head handed to them (figuratively speaking -- on logical/factual argument basis) then others pile in to once again attempt to save the apologetic which is wielded as some form of weapon.
Should I offer popcorn?
Or in sober consideration of what else Christianity is facing nowadays in secular realm and in regards to Islam -- turn to the Marko Ramius (Sean Connery) quote from Red October;
Anatoli, you're afraid of our fleet. Well, you should be. Personally, I'd give us one chance in three. More tea anyone?
195
posted on
10/04/2014 6:50:01 PM PDT
by
BlueDragon
(...they murdered some of them bums...for thinking wrong thoughts)
To: Diamond; HarleyD; Mr Rogers
Your version of the history of the canon contradicts Roman Catholic history of the canon Read the Catholic history from a Catholic source for yourself and get back to me with your findings:
Canon of the Old Testament
196
posted on
10/04/2014 6:57:55 PM PDT
by
annalex
(fear them not)
To: BlueDragon; Mr Rogers
Your post did not make any grammatical sense to me; care to rephrase?
197
posted on
10/04/2014 7:01:04 PM PDT
by
annalex
(fear them not)
To: editor-surveyor
Sorry, I read the scripture for how it is written. St. Paul said “all scripture” that Timothy knew “from infancy”, so I understand it to mean “all scripture”, not “the parts of the scripture unconverted Jews half a century later decided to like” or “Luther fifteen centuiries later decided to like”. This is why I am Catholic.
198
posted on
10/04/2014 7:05:12 PM PDT
by
annalex
(fear them not)
To: BlueDragon
199
posted on
10/04/2014 7:06:02 PM PDT
by
annalex
(fear them not)
To: NYer
Protecting Gods Word From Bible Christians TRADITION adders.
200
posted on
10/04/2014 7:11:58 PM PDT
by
Elsie
( Heck is where people, who don't believe in Gosh, think they are not going...)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 161-180, 181-200, 201-220 ... 1,081-1,086 next last
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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson