Protecting God’s Word From “Bible Christians”

“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 don’t 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 don’t?” She’d 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 scriptures—which is part of the reason why they were classified, even by Catholics, as a “second” (deutero) canon.

My student went on. “I’m just struggling because there are a lot of references to those books in Church doctrine, but they aren’t 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 it’s true nonetheless: Luther jettisoned those “extra” Old Testament books—Tobit, Sirach, 1 and 2 Maccabees, and the like—because 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 suppress—praying for the dead, for instance, and the intercession of the saints. Here’s 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 couldn’t 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 don’t 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 Luther’s 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 don’t 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 ain’t those parts of the Bible that I can’t understand that bother me,” Twain wrote, “it is the parts that I do understand.”

Step two: Yank the vexing parts out. It’s what Thomas Jefferson literally did when he took his own Bible and cut out the passages he found offensive—a 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 books—case closed! Still unconvinced? Today’s defenders of the reformers’ biblical reshaping will then proceed to throw around historical precedent and references to the first-century Council of Jamnia, but it’s 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 Septuagint—the Greek version of the Hebrew scriptures that included Luther’s rejected apocryphal books. SCORE: Deuterocanon – 1; Twain-Jefferson Revisionism – 0.

But this is all beside the point. It’s like an argument about creationism vs. evolution that gets funneled in the direction of whether dinosaurs could’ve been on board Noah’s Ark. Once you’re arguing about that, you’re 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 it’s 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 don’t have the autographs (original documents) from any biblical books anyway. While we affirm the Church’s 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 God’s design? Without the autographs, we are much less tempted to worship a static book instead of the One it reveals to us. Even so, it’s true that we are still encouraged to venerate the Scriptures, but we worship the incarnate Word—and 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 couldn’t 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 that’s good enough.

For it’s the Church who gives us the Scriptures. It’s the Church who preserves the Scriptures and tells us to turn to them. It’s the Church who bathes us in the Scriptures with the liturgy, day in and day out, constantly watering our souls with God’s Word. Isn’t it a bit bizarre to be challenging the Church with regards to which Scriptures she’s 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 Smith’s remarkable novel, A Tree Grows in Brooklyn. It’s a bittersweet family tale of impoverishment, tragedy, and perseverance, and we often remark how curious it is that Smith’s 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 wasn’t nearly as good as Tree,” she said, “and I don’t 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 isn’t like that. We have the book, yes, but we have more. We still have the Word himself.

The problem with the first is that it shows up in Jewish tradition. I doubt the (orthodox) Jews are willy nilly adopting pagan practices as the Doctrine of the Trinity leads them to speculate that Christianity is Idol Worship.

"Willy nilly" is not what we are dealing with, but why would you ever doubt that some Jews could modify a pagan practice in the light of Scripture and history?

Then God turned, and gave them up to worship the host of heaven; as it is written in the book of the prophets, O ye house of Israel, have ye offered to me slain beasts and sacrifices by the space of forty years in the wilderness? (Acts 7:42)

Kabbalah its origins in pagan magic and mysticism: http://www.talmidi.co.il/htm/articles/articles58.htm

The problem with the second is that your source admits that Purgatory had developed by over half a century before Christ and a century prior to His Crucifixion. So the concept of Purgatory dates back to before the Apostles.

That is simply your problem not mine. That some Jews did what is not in Scripture after a surprisingly innovative period only testifies to spiritual declension, not orthodoxy.

What you desperately need but will never ever find is at least one example of someone on earth other than pagans praying to created beings in Heaven, and of them having the Divine ability and position to hear virtually infinite prayers addressed to them, which only God is shown having,

Now we are stuck with the final stumbling block Scripture. And we are back to the Sola Scripture vs Scripture, Tradition and Magisterium debate.

Meaning since you cannot find it in Scripture you need to channel it into doctrine from another source.

Concerning the passages of Talmud you cited, did you look up any commentaries written by Jews on them?

Do you really want to follow Jewish tradition and some of the nonsense in the Babylonian Talmud, at least from some of what i read?

--"There were two things which God first thought of creating on the eve of the Sabbath, which, however, were not created till after the Sabbath had closed. The first was fire, which Adam by divine suggestion drew forth by striking together two stones; and the second was the mule, produced by the crossing of two different animals." -- P'sachim, fol. 54, col 1.

--"The Rabbis have taught that there are three reasons why a person should not enter a ruin: 1. Because he may be suspected of evil intent; 2. Because the walls might tumble upon him; 3. And because of evil spirits that frequent such places." -- Berachoth, fol. 3, col 1.

--"The stone which Og, King of Bashan, meant to throw upon Israel is the subject of a tradition delivered on Sinai. 'The camp of Israel I see,' he said, 'extends three miles; I shall therefore go and root up a mountain three miles in extent and throw it upon them.'

So off he went, and finding such a mountain, raised it on his head, but the Holy One -- blessed be He! -- sent an army of ants against him, which so bored the mountain over his head that it slipped down upon his shoulders, from which he could not lift it, because his teeth, protruding, had riveted it upon him." -- Berachoth, fol. 54, col. 2.

--"Three things are said respecting the finger-nails: He who trims his nails and buries the parings is a pious man; he who burns these is a righteous man; but he who throws them away is a wicked man, for mischance might follow, should a female step over them." -- Moed Katan, fol. 18, col 1.

Gittin 69a. To heal his flesh a Jew should take dust that lies within the shadow of an outdoor toilet, mix it with honey and eat it.

Shabbath 41a. The law regulating the rule for how to urinate in a holy way is given.

Yebamoth 63a. States that Adam had sexual intercourse with all the animals in the Garden of Eden.

Yebamoth 63a. Declares that agriculture is the lowest of occupations.

Sanhedrin 55b. A Jew may marry a three year old girl (specifically, three years "and a day" old).

Sanhedrin 54b. A Jew may have sex with a child as long as the child is less than nine years old.

Kethuboth 11b. "When a grown-up man has intercourse with a little girl it is nothing."

Yebamoth 59b. A woman who had intercourse with a beast is eligible to marry a Jewish priest. A woman who has sex with a demon is also eligible to marry a Jewish priest.

Abodah Zarah 17a. States that there is not a whore in the world that Rabbi Eleazar has not had sex with.

Hagigah 27a. States that no rabbi can ever go to hell.

Baba Mezia 59b. A rabbi debates God and defeats Him. God admits the rabbi won the debate.

Gittin 70a. The Rabbis taught: "On coming from a privy (outdoor toilet) a man should not have sexual intercourse till he has waited long enough to walk half a mile, because the demon of the privy is with him for that time; if he does, his children will be epileptic." - http://www.catholicapologetics.info/apologetics/judaism/closer.htm

Just as partial list, and i cautiously presume they are legit despite the source,.

“Unfortunately you left out the key to the entire New Testament!”
No actually the key to the entire bible was said by Jesus in two lines.
LOVE is the KEY!

Luke 10:26-28 New International Version (NIV)
26 “What is written in the Law?” he replied. “How do you read it?”
27 He answered, “‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength and with all your mind’; and, ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’
28 “You have answered correctly,” Jesus replied. “Do this and you will live.”

John 13:34New International Version (NIV)
34 “A new command I give you: Love one another. As I have loved you, so you must love one another.

“You omit the stated fact Paul was trying to get across: That we are not “under” the law because Yeshua has replaced the defective will of men to obey with the perfect will of the Father, by writing Torah on our hearts, thus if we are in him, we obey all of Torah perfectly, unto our ultimate righteousness, our “garment” required for the wedding feast.”

“Yeshua has replaced the defective will of men”
Please give me scripture of our defective will being replaced. Our will is still as defective as Adam and Eve’s will. As a believer my corrupted nature has the Blood of Christ covering it so that God only see’s Christ’s Perfect Blood and not my defective nature, but that doesn’t mean my defective will has been replaced.

“by writing Torah on our hearts, thus if we are in him, we obey all of Torah perfectly”
Well then if the Torah is on our hearts I guess you are still sacrificing Bulls, Rams. Lambs, and etc.. at least once a year for your sins. Good luck with that since salvation is by faith only as Jesus already did all the works.

“unto our ultimate righteousness”
Sorry, but righteousness is credited by faith and faith alone.

Now the correct version is to say that if we Love our Heavenly Father with all our Heart and Soul and Love one another as Christ Loves us we fulfill the law as our Lord and Savior did. That does not mean we are to live by it!
Love Never Fails, 1 Corinthians 13

I must say I am dumbfounded to read the SAME Freepers posting the SAME false arguments as if nobody EVER corrected them in the past. A few even boast that nobody has!

It is stunning, even dumbfounding. How could there be so much brick hard denial? Yet too, this pretense of their arguments never having been shown to be less solid than they need to be to actually fly is like kabuki theater played out for possible audiences who have not yet seen it -- and those who have seen it but not followed things closely enough in the past (like -- the typical casual reader?) will be continued to be lead their way, gambling the continued empty assertions, denials, distractions & bluffing will save the day.

If it is motivations that could be spoken of -- instead of necessarily trying to rope anyone in (though there is a bit of that all along) it seems to me to be more intensely focused along lines of self-reassurance, and keeping the rest of the RC sheeples in line with the common present-day RC apologetic -- no matter how many times and in how many ways significant elements of that has been falsified, if only just in part, but falsified enough to need the argument to be entirely reworded.

It doesn't help matters that the history of many things do not lay in straight lines.

The apologetic continually attempts to present itself to be that way (straight), but it is a crooked path on the best of honest days because there were human beings involved, all along each and every path...

There is where the mystical/magical "the Church will never err" type of thinking then kicks in (while identifying "The Church" as being the Roman Catholic one, etc.)--- needing to compartmentalize any troubles or contradiction -- and through painstaking massaging and application of special pleadings and unequally, inconsistently applied measurements of comparison, arrive at the place where no matter what --- "they" (an infamous "they", again) can tell themselves every OTHER ecclesiastical body has erred and is wrong, but not the one with the Roman Pontiff.

Even the original source of the word "Pontiff" has to be ignored -- or else accepted as "that's how God wanted it to be".

Pontifex Maximus -- the (Roman Empire) Emperor. They back off from that now... but keep the "Pontiff" portion.

Ratzinger wrote of misunderstandings due to the Orthodox, the Roman Catholics and the Protestants speaking differing {theological] languages...

I understand the RC language. Few Roman Catholics seem to understand ours. They claim to, and point to converts among themselves when doing so, but then don't seem to recognize the circular reasoning, the special pleadings, and all the needing to look at it "just so" to make it all appear to work.

Or else if they do know our 'language'-- they don't post much on THIS forum [the following said in stage whisper]--> and I can't say I blame them.

For if they do much acknowledge ANYTHING that may go counter to RC apologetic, if they don't at the same time overwhelm that same admission with reams of something, anything to attempt to invalidate or limit what they just confessed to -- then katy-bar-the-door -- their co-religionists will come after them with teeth sharpened.

Meanwhile, what occurs but relentless efforts to force unconditional surrender (to the claims their own ecclesiastical community makes for itself) enforcing that on whoever can be either cooed at or else intimidated, with those immune to either then being insulted one way or another in order to set up pretext for later attacks on whomever would dare to agree with those who challenge particular Roman, resisting both the smiling invitation, and all the intimidation (which used to include threats of extermination).

Is THAT Jesus? Is that the way He goes about His business? For long centuries Rome did seem to say, yes, if it comes to that. Fall in line, (fall at our feet --even kiss the pope's feet as per pope Gregory VII) or suffer for not doing so --whichever way we choose.

I think I understand how that sort of thinking evolved to be. I could trace some of it, even through the scholastics --- but my, oh, my how long (and how many words?) would it take to tell the story?

By your logic Septuagint should not have been in the composition that it actually is.

That the Septuagint actually is? What is this? Must I assume you now arguing along lines of "if it was in the Septuagint then it was Hebrew holy writ"? Is that it?

That make no sense whatsoever. Do you even read what is sent to you???

Here, again, you do need to establish (rather than merely assert or assume) that the Jews either;

OR changed what that consisted of some time soon after the overthrow of the Temple.

Yet somehow, for some reason you cannot explain, the Septuagint included the Deuterocanon.

Is your own thinking actually that shallow?

And I haven't re-invented the wheel (again!) on this thread, either!

I already touched upon how the Septuagint came into being -- as have others who have pinged you directly also.

It began as translation of the Pentateuch. Other 'books' as it were, were added later. Surely you know this?

We do not know what the contents were at the time of Christ.

And even though it likely there were they duetercanonical works associated with it (bearing in mind it was for a long time not in codex form, but a collection of scrolls) there is no reason to equate the presence of whatever was there, of these works which have been otherwise well enough established to have not EVER been considered by the religious authorities (those who did in fact sit in Moses's seat) to have been part of their holy writings -- to be so simple because Greek translators had put them there.

Why must I repeat every blasted thing I ever say to Roman Catholics on this forum? It's all there in black and white.

Did Jesus read from Greek language scrolls in the Temple in Jerusalem? Or did he read from Hebrew scrolls?

As another forum participant mentioned -- Paul was well versed in Hebrew Law. He WAS a Pharisee. He was by his own description "a Pharisee of Pharisees".

Do you actually suppose that Paul read and studied the collection of what the Jewish religious authorities recognized as Hebrew holy writ -- in Greek???

If so, then you must establish WHY -- rather than have me guess about it.

This showing why (or how) must use sources near as contemporary to time of Christ and the Apostles as is possible.

I say that for reason you do seem to have been ignoring all of those.

But I'm expected to ignore those too, and go instead with whatever "the Church" decided hundreds of years later -- even as it flies in the face of multiple sources and evidences (which may not have been as easily available to Church Councils as they are today, curiously enough...)

"... not the first baptist church of billy bob"

Hey great. Wonderful.

If I ever try and argue that it came from "the first baptist church of billy bob" you may have a point in refuting that.

But I didn't say that. Not in the least.

Now if you would care to enter into this particular conversation as an adult, then okey-dokey.

But you have not.

Save the childish stunts for the children. I'm not impressed (other than negatively).

But any 'ol day you decide to be a grown-up, then you may find someone who would be willing to enter into actual conversation.

Until then, I don't know what to say.

Have a nice night.

I don't necessarily wish you a 'nice night' in return as some sort of "go in peace because you are so right" for you are far from being "right".

But I don't wish nightmares on you either, for although there are many here who irritate me something fierce -- for some reason -- I don't have the same level of irritation at your own (in my view) very weak RC apologetic.

I doubt Jesus holds it against you...He likely enough recognizes you are trying to do the right thing -- and stick up for Him -- as best as you may know Him?

If so -- I can assure you I am acquainted with Him, and am doing the same, though in freedom not every word I write is entirely washed in the blood of the Lamb.

If only the Spirit could visit with you and open up your understanding.

That could be a 'nice night'. He can make even correction be something of a pleasure. I could hope for that, for you, while I keep seeking Him out on even the seemingly little things, myself.

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.