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 ... 841-860, 861-880, 881-900 ... 1,081-1,086 next last
To: boatbums
>> “Are you saying none of the APOSTLES realized they were secretly cursing him by calling him Iesous” <<
.
I am saying that none of the apostles ever called him anything but Yeshua, and Messiach.
The apostles spoke Hebrew, and Lived Torah. They cannot be held responsible for what happened after they were dead.
Iesous, Isho, Yeasous, Yshu, and all derivatives are the curse “Yimach Shimo Uezichro.” Yshu is the rabbinic acronym.
What is is, as Willie Clinton would say.
Discomfort over the truth is the first step in repentance and victory over the lies.
.
861
posted on
10/07/2014 3:50:43 PM PDT
by
editor-surveyor
(Freepers: Not as smart as I'd hoped they'd be)
To: boatbums; CynicalBear
CB’s personal attack reflected only on him.
.
862
posted on
10/07/2014 3:52:46 PM PDT
by
editor-surveyor
(Freepers: Not as smart as I'd hoped they'd be)
To: redleghunter
>> “I understand. I left you speechless.” <<
.
Please, do it again!
.
863
posted on
10/07/2014 3:54:39 PM PDT
by
editor-surveyor
(Freepers: Not as smart as I'd hoped they'd be)
To: editor-surveyor; CynicalBear; boatbums
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. Koines grammar is Hebrew
There is so much wrong here. First, the information on Koine (Common) Greek being "imaginary" is an old misconception that has long been discarded:
For a long time Koine Greek confused many scholars. It was significantly different from Classical Greek. Some hypothesized that it was a combination of Greek, Hebrew, and Aramaic. Others attempted to explain it as a "Holy Ghost language," meaning that God created a special language just for the Bible. But studies of Greek papyri found in Egypt over the past one hundred years have shown that this language was the language of the everyday people used in the writings of wills, private letters, receipts, shopping lists, etc.
|
See Mounce, Basics of Biblical Greek Grammar, Chapter 1.
Second, if the Septuagint is a Rosetta Stone for anyone, it's us moderns, because it was constructed by scholars who knew both Hebrew and Greek. It was NOT a Rosetta Stone to them, as in a key to translating Hebrew into Greek. Again, they already knew both, and that's why it has value to us. For example, when we see 223 instances of Iesous as transliterations for Yehoshua and Yeshua, we get that Iesous is a completely acceptable way to translate Jesus' name from Hebrew to Greek.
Third, where you got the idea that Koine's sole existence is in extractions from the Septuagint I have no idea. I would actually love to see your source on that, because it is as wrong as it can be. As Mounce points out in the quote above, Koine/Common Greek was .. wait for it ..
common! It shows up everywhere, not in the ivory towers of classical Greek scholarship, but in the ordinary business of everyday life in the Mediterranean world and beyond. Granted, that wasn't always known. But now it is, so there's no excuse for getting that wrong anymore.
Fourth, to say that "Koine's grammar is Hebrew" is completely wrong. I have studied both languages in earnest, to the point of tears at times. I would have loved it if they had the same grammar. I can handle Greek much better than I can handle Hebrew grammar. They are worlds apart. Greek feels a lot more familiar than Hebrew. It is well equipped for handling long chains of complex, abstract thought, whereas Hebrew is more concrete. The inflection patterns and the word order patterns are significantly different as well. Koine, on it's own, does NOT reflect Hebrew grammar per se.
That is not to say a Hebrew writer writing in Greek wouldn't tip his hand by using Hebrew idioms. Certainly that would happen. But idioms are not grammar, and even idioms must fit into the grammatical mold of the target language, in this case the Common (Koine) Greek, just to be understood by the target language's readers. So again the idea that Koine was fabricated out of the Septuagint Hebrew with a Hebrew grammar is completely wrong, idiomatic usage notwithstanding. Such beliefs are necessarily the product of imagination and not fact.
Peace,
SR
To: rwilson99
Lucifer appears in Genesis... I would say the appearance of an angel isnt all that.
Are you suggesting Mary was vistited by Lucifer and not Gabriel?
Incidently Jesus told us how to discern whether an Angel is one of God’s. Test the Spirit.
865
posted on
10/07/2014 4:08:21 PM PDT
by
Rides_A_Red_Horse
(Why do you need a fire extinguisher when you can call the fire department?)
To: boatbums; St_Thomas_Aquinas; redleghunter
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.
- Kaddish is the exaltation and praise of the Holy One of Israel with a plea for the Messianic Kingdom. This is an offering to God to aid the soul of the departed and mitigate any temporary punishment in the twelve month period for such punishment after death.
- The Jewish concept that God hears Kaddish prayers and they help the soul of the departed ascend to the realm of Paradise is ancient and comprehensive across all branches of Jews.
- Catholics have obviously incorporated this ancient Jewish belief in the reading of certain scriptures.
866
posted on
10/07/2014 4:09:40 PM PDT
by
af_vet_1981
(The bus came by and I got on, That's when it all begani)
To: Springfield Reformer
867
posted on
10/07/2014 4:13:23 PM PDT
by
CynicalBear
(For I decided to know nothing among you except Jesus in)
To: Springfield Reformer
Good info, Reformer. Should be good enough for ES, however, he seems to be hung up on the “Nicolaitans.” Anybody ever called you that before? Get ready.
I think you are probably going to have to explain the true meaning of “Nicolaitan” next...for him, and for me. I’d like to hear your explanation of it.
To: Springfield Reformer
>> “ For example, when we see 223 instances of Iesous as transliterations for Yehoshua and Yeshua, we get that Iesous is a completely acceptable way to translate Jesus’ name from Hebrew to Greek.” <<
.
For those (the majority, I’m sure) that wish to project the curse, of course that is true.
Ever watch network TV? They live by the same kind of logical rupture as your statement represents.
The “If you wish it to be true it must be true” approach has led the majority into the ditch since the beginning.
869
posted on
10/07/2014 4:34:50 PM PDT
by
editor-surveyor
(Freepers: Not as smart as I'd hoped they'd be)
To: editor-surveyor
Nothing substantive I can respond to there.
Peace,
SR
To: sasportas
>> “I think you are probably going to have to explain the true meaning of Nicolaitan next...for him” <<
Nico = rule over, conquer.
Laitan = The people.
Of course nicolaitans hate that fact and cook up all kinds of fantastic alternatives.
871
posted on
10/07/2014 4:38:05 PM PDT
by
editor-surveyor
(Freepers: Not as smart as I'd hoped they'd be)
To: editor-surveyor
One take on Nicolaitans I’ve heard: a lot of Greek names have the “Nico” part in it, like Nicholas. Nicolaitans therefore has to do with the Greeks = especially those wicked early Christians who used the Greek “Ieusus” = evil perverters of the Hebrew Yeshua.
To: sasportas
Save that “Nicolas” nonsense, the word is a very plain Greek word. Nicolas means conqueror.
Games show your intent well, do they not!
873
posted on
10/07/2014 5:01:16 PM PDT
by
editor-surveyor
(Freepers: Not as smart as I'd hoped they'd be)
To: Springfield Reformer
See my post 872. I forgot to include you in its address. Its about a bogus interpretation of “Nicolaitan” I’ve heard.
To: CynicalBear
“So much for veracity.”
So much for not bearing false witness.
I withdrew from my discussion with the moderator. My intent was clear to all whose hearts are not drenched in Satanic malice.
875
posted on
10/07/2014 6:52:22 PM PDT
by
dsc
(Any attempt to move a government to the left is a crime against humanity.)
To: rwilson99
So when the angel Gabriel says do not be afraid that was just redundant?Maybe.
What was the "other" phrase?
876
posted on
10/07/2014 7:04:58 PM PDT
by
Elsie
( Heck is where people, who don't believe in Gosh, think they are not going...)
To: rwilson99
She is not dead.Yes; she is.
There is NO data showing otherwise.
You are NOT allowed to say that just because something happened to a couple of other fellows; it HAD to have happened to others.
877
posted on
10/07/2014 7:07:00 PM PDT
by
Elsie
( Heck is where people, who don't believe in Gosh, think they are not going...)
To: dsc
that malice you speak of...
Your own complaints about forum moderation came close on the heels of one particular individual being warned...and the moderator (as it appeared to me) telegraphing a "enough is enough" sort of thing.
All of which made me it seem to me the raising of "the religion moderator is unfair to Catholics" meme was partially in attempt to manipulate the babysitter, uh, I mean forum moderator.
But I've got one thing good I can say about the recent developments...
It seems you may have found a few of those previously non-existent scintillas.
I see progress!
878
posted on
10/07/2014 7:07:57 PM PDT
by
BlueDragon
(...they murdered some of them bums...for thinking wrong thoughts)
To: rwilson99
While you might deny that the story of Susanna is not scriptural...True; I might; but the fact is that I didn't.
Why the urge to infer things not in evidence?
879
posted on
10/07/2014 7:08:09 PM PDT
by
Elsie
( Heck is where people, who don't believe in Gosh, think they are not going...)
To: St_Thomas_Aquinas
It is therefore a holy and wholesome thought to pray for the dead, that they may be loosed from sins.Too bad that Jesus knew not of this verse...
Luke 16:19-31 (NIV)
19 There was a rich man who was dressed in purple and fine linen and lived in luxury every day. 20 At his gate was laid a beggar named Lazarus, covered with sores 21 and longing to eat what fell from the rich mans table. Even the dogs came and licked his sores.
22 The time came when the beggar died and the angels carried him to Abrahams side. The rich man also died and was buried. 23 In Hades, where he was in torment, he looked up and saw Abraham far away, with Lazarus by his side. 24 So he called to him, Father Abraham, have pity on me and send Lazarus to dip the tip of his finger in water and cool my tongue, because I am in agony in this fire.
25 But Abraham replied, Son, remember that in your lifetime you received your good things, while Lazarus received bad things, but now he is comforted here and you are in agony. 26 And besides all this, between us and you a great chasm has been set in place, so that those who want to go from here to you cannot, nor can anyone cross over from there to us.
27 He answered, Then I beg you, father, send Lazarus to my family, 28 for I have five brothers. Let him warn them, so that they will not also come to this place of torment.
29 Abraham replied, They have Moses and the Prophets; let them listen to them.
30 No, father Abraham, he said, but if someone from the dead goes to them, they will repent.
31 He said to him, If they do not listen to Moses and the Prophets, they will not be convinced even if someone rises from the dead.
880
posted on
10/07/2014 7:14:28 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 ... 841-860, 861-880, 881-900 ... 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