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 ... 821-840, 841-860, 861-880 ... 1,081-1,086 next last
To: annalex
You’re grasping at straws.
Timothy’s father was living under Hebrew traditions and using their language in his every-day life. His Hebrew wife was a well known believer, and a highly respected for her dedication to Yeshua.
The entire New Testament was first written in Hebrew, because the apostles were not literate in Greek.
The Septuagint was prepared for Jews living in Alexandria, where Greek was the dominant language.
To this day, Greeks cannot understand the Septuagint. Hebrew grammar with Greek words created a false dialect that nobody spoke, which was called Koine later on.
841
posted on
10/07/2014 1:39:28 PM PDT
by
editor-surveyor
(Freepers: Not as smart as I'd hoped they'd be)
To: Springfield Reformer
Ha ha. No, I still believe in miracles. I just dont believe in doing what Ive been told not to do. Which all of your uncertainty regarding the state of the departed argues for, and not against, I.e., extreme caution. I used to work for a nuke. Rule number 1: Dont touch what you dont understand or have authority to handle. Its really for your own good. Lol, I understand. And we have this principle And he that doubteth is damned if he eat, because he eateth not of faith: for whatsoever is not of faith is sin. so you should have faith in what you allow yourself.
842
posted on
10/07/2014 1:40:19 PM PDT
by
af_vet_1981
(The bus came by and I got on, That's when it all begani)
To: sasportas
I’m not being evasive; your expectations are frustrating you.
Believers don’t have “denominations,” nicolaitans create denominations through their lack of understanding of God’s word.
When believers get together, it doesn’t matter what nicolaitan club they once attended, their understanding of the pure word of Yehova unites them.
843
posted on
10/07/2014 1:44:19 PM PDT
by
editor-surveyor
(Freepers: Not as smart as I'd hoped they'd be)
To: editor-surveyor
>>The entire New Testament was first written in Hebrew, because the apostles were not literate in Greek.<<
Koine Greek was known by anyone who wanted to do any business in the region. For your statement to be true God would have had to fail in keeping His promise to preserve His word for ALL generations. Blasphemy will not serve you well.
844
posted on
10/07/2014 1:51:32 PM PDT
by
CynicalBear
(For I decided to know nothing among you except Jesus in)
To: vladimir998; editor-surveyor; daniel1212; roamer_1; metmom
What Jew defined the Jewish canon? When did he do it? And why should Christians assume that someone who did not know Christ or who rejected Christ should be relied on for that canon?
Well this Jewish man of the house of David confirmed the understanding. I find His Words quite authoritative:
Luke chapter 28:
44 And he said to them, These are my words that I spoke to you while I was still with you, that everything that is written about me in the law of Moses and the prophets and psalms must be fulfilled. 45 Then he opened their minds to understand the scriptures, 46 and said to them, Thus it is written that the Christ would suffer and would rise from the dead on the third day, 47 and repentance and the forgiveness of sins would be proclaimed in his name to all the nations, beginning from Jerusalem. 48 You are witnesses of these things. 49 And behold, I am sending out what was promised by my Father upon you, but you stay in the city until you are clothed with power from on high.
845
posted on
10/07/2014 1:53:17 PM PDT
by
redleghunter
(But let your word 'yes be 'yes,' and your 'no be 'no.' Anything more than this is from the evil one.)
To: redleghunter
“Well this Jewish man of the house of David confirmed the understanding. I find His Words quite authoritative:”
His words are authoritative but do not agree with your apparent misunderstanding. Your mistake is a common enough one.
To: rwilson99; Syncro
>> “Hint: It involves a new Eve and a new Ark of the Covenant.” <<
.
What gibberish!
The original Ark is still there in the cavern on Mt. Moriyah, where Jeremiah hid it during the siege. It is positioned under the crevice into which Yeshua’s blood flowed when his side was pierced.
The ark was found by Ron Wyatt, as were the real Mt. Sinai, and the Chariots of the Egyptians that perished when the Red sea poured in over them.
Belief trumps unbelief every time.
847
posted on
10/07/2014 1:57:01 PM PDT
by
editor-surveyor
(Freepers: Not as smart as I'd hoped they'd be)
To: vladimir998; redleghunter
Vlad, the misunderstanding is all your own!
848
posted on
10/07/2014 1:59:14 PM PDT
by
editor-surveyor
(Freepers: Not as smart as I'd hoped they'd be)
To: boatbums
BB, I’m not questioning your desire to Praise our savior.
You are not responsible for the misdeeds of others.
849
posted on
10/07/2014 2:02:22 PM PDT
by
editor-surveyor
(Freepers: Not as smart as I'd hoped they'd be)
To: CynicalBear
Koine is imaginary.
No Greek ever used it. It is the result of using the Septuagint as a “Rosetta stone” to effect the translation of Hebrew into Greek. It exists only in texts translated from Hebrew to Greek by using the phrases taken from the Septuagint. Koine’s grammar is Hebrew.
850
posted on
10/07/2014 2:07:39 PM PDT
by
editor-surveyor
(Freepers: Not as smart as I'd hoped they'd be)
To: editor-surveyor
“Vlad, the misunderstanding is all your own!”
No, actually it isn’t.
To: editor-surveyor
Yes you are being evasive. Since you tell us there is no distinction between Judaism and Christianity, where you assemble for church, what does it say over the door is all I’m asking. The Church of Old Testament Christianity? The Church of New Testament Judaism?
To: rwilson99; metmom
That denies our free will... Would you apply the same standard to Eve? Yet, according to Roman Catholicism, Mary was "preserved without sin from the moment of her conception". Would God have done that for her if there was any possibility she would have told him no? And, if she HAD said no, would she just go back to being like every other human ever born and be a sinner?
853
posted on
10/07/2014 2:27:33 PM PDT
by
boatbums
(God is ready to assume full responsibility for the life wholly yielded to Him.)
To: rwilson99; Elsie
Eves no... Brought sin and death. Marys yes led to salvation and everlasting life. And if Marys yes isnt a model to follow in regards to out accepting the reality of Jesus and his salvation... She was first among mere mortals. Which takes us back to John 3:16 She believes... She is not dead. Mary was "first among mere mortals" because she told God "yes"? So, who were Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Moses or the Prophets of the Old Testament, chopped liver? Their FIRST "yeses" to God is what brought about the nation of Israel by whom Mary and ALL believers can say "yes" to God's plan of salvation through Jesus Christ - the Messiah. Mary was hardly the first in demonstrating saving faith. She absolutely was the first and ONLY human woman chosen to bear the incarnate God, Jesus Christ, but she had a litany of faithful examples to influence her, as do we all. Read Hebrews 11 sometime to get an idea of the many people of faith, real-at-a-cost-to-ones-life faith, that came before her.
854
posted on
10/07/2014 2:42:36 PM PDT
by
boatbums
(God is ready to assume full responsibility for the life wholly yielded to Him.)
To: editor-surveyor
>>Koine is imaginary.
No Greek ever used it.
That comment should help dissuade anyone taking information from you. A simple search for Koine (common) Greek will tell anyone it began 300 years before Christ and had become the common language of the entire area.
855
posted on
10/07/2014 2:56:25 PM PDT
by
CynicalBear
(For I decided to know nothing among you except Jesus in)
Comment #856 Removed by Moderator
To: vladimir998; redleghunter
And why should Christians assume that someone who did not know Christ or who rejected Christ should be relied on for that canon? Y'all sure rely on them when you need to prove Jews "prayed for the dead" and gather up what you can to support Purgatory. It reminds me of the Martin Luther fixation so often displayed here. One day you love him and quote him and the next he is despised and the blame for all that is wrong in the world today. Go figure!
857
posted on
10/07/2014 3:32:24 PM PDT
by
boatbums
(God is ready to assume full responsibility for the life wholly yielded to Him.)
To: vladimir998
I understand. I left you speechless.
858
posted on
10/07/2014 3:40:11 PM PDT
by
redleghunter
(But let your word 'yes be 'yes,' and your 'no be 'no.' Anything more than this is from the evil one.)
To: sasportas
>> “ Since you tell us there is no distinction between Judaism and Christianity” <<
Why do you keep making things up?
Judaism is just as much Satan's religion as catholicism is.
Judaism is what Yeshua and his apostles all rejected completely. It is the false “oral torah” of the Pharisees.
Yeshua’s way is the true Torah that he said was to last as long as the Earth and heavens exist. It is the opposite of Judaism and catholicism, which are nicolaitan to their cores.
Torah is the gospel of love for your fellow man, and respect for the body that Yeshua created for you to live in on Earth. The “Perfect Law of Liberty,” as James called it.
When Yeshua writes his Torah on your heart, you are sealed for the wedding feast; without it you are sealed for “outer darkness.”
859
posted on
10/07/2014 3:40:44 PM PDT
by
editor-surveyor
(Freepers: Not as smart as I'd hoped they'd be)
To: St_Thomas_Aquinas; redleghunter
And they found under the coats of the slain some of the donaries of the idols of Jamnia, which the law forbiddeth to the Jews: so that all plainly saw, that for this cause they were slain. These men committed a sin "unto death" (i.e., they died because of their idolatry) - something Roman Catholicism says is a "mortal sin". So, explain to me how praying for them can get them out of hell?
Plus, if you read the Kiddishes, Jewish prayer for the dead, it is more about resting in peace until the last judgment - not at all some concept of a Purgatory where suffering goes on to satisfy temporal punishments for sin committed in life. I wouldn't expect a Jew today to see Jesus as our ONLY true place of cleansing, by whom we are washed in His precious blood and made pure and righteous by the grace of God through faith, but Christians sure ought to.
860
posted on
10/07/2014 3:40:51 PM PDT
by
boatbums
(God is ready to assume full responsibility for the life wholly yielded to Him.)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 821-840, 841-860, 861-880 ... 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