Posted on 12/20/2014 11:25:30 AM PST by millegan
BlueDragon:
Because the canon was varied from locale to locale. It was gradually codified over time, the fact that some churches cited from all of the Deuterocanonicals, some holding to a shorter list, some longer, etc, is not problematic. It shows a variance in the canon from region to region, that would also apply to the NT canon as well.
And Saint Paul quoted almost frequently from the Greek text, not the Hebrew text, and he quoted from several Greek poets and philosophers, well versed in the Stoics, Quoted Meander, among others. The Jews in Jerusalem would have viewed that as basically “not clean” and would have never even touched it, much less read it.
And again, as early as the mid 2nd century, Saint Justin Martyr, one of the earliest Christian Theologians in a debate with Trypo the Jewish Rabbi, pointed out that the Church at that time had a longer OT canon than the one Trypo was using. This would have been circa 140 to 150 AD. I don’t have to point out that Saint Polycarp, a pupil of the Apostle John quoted from the Deuterocanonicals.
In summary, the Jews at that time can have their canon. That is their business, the Church chose its canon, which was their business. I go with the Church’s determination of its canon, not what the Pharisees thought it should be. You as a Protestant cast your lot with what the Pharisees think it should be. Ok, that is your business, not mine, not yesterday, not today, not next week, or 40 years from now if I am still alive.
that does indicate that Apocrypha was not established/conveyed by the Apostles as having been Scripture.
It is easier to assume some Christians mistakenly embraced Apocryphal writings to varying degree, or else used them as one would use "common sayings" known to an audience, than it is to assume that oral tradition established OT Apocrypha among the Christian Church, as Scripture itself -- but later, a majority of the Church 'forgot' what the tradition truly was;
And Saint Paul quoted almost frequently from the Greek text, not the Hebrew text, and he quoted from several Greek poets and philosophers, well versed in the Stoics, Quoted Meander, among others. (underlining added for emphasis)
For the Greek text aspect -- it would be that Paul was writing to those whom Greek language was more primary.
It seems that Paul, in his writings, had moments interposed within this writing in Greek language, which can well enough establish he had been translating direct from Hebrew into Greek, rather than from "Septuagint" as that may have been known of at the time.
That indicates to me that Paul was likely to have been thinking in both languages. For all we know Paul may have been doing most all of his own theological *thinking* in Hebrew (for he was a Pharisee taught by Gamaliel) but in writing to predominantly Greek speaking audience, reached for how things were expressed already in Greek translation, extant to his own day, conforming his own writing to be expressed in Grecian manner & thought, as he went along.
Paul quoting these others philosophers and writers which you mentioned does not indicate that Paul considered those writings to be Scripture. Yet it does appear that mere mention or allusion to some snippet of phrasing, when used by patristic writers, is being held up as if those Christians were in fact endorsing Apocrypha as actual OT "Scripture", for having borrowed phrases from those writings. Since that is not the case for other writing when quoted by Paul -- and even Christ, then to be consistent, it need not be for Apocrypha. So thank you for making a major point -- for me.
Besides, there is no real listing among Christian writers of books of the Old Testament until Melito (he left out Esther, or else another did in transcribing Melito), and he testified there was controversy concerning the subject.
With the testimony of Josephus, the silence of the Alexadrian Jew Philo having never cited or alluded to any of the Apocrypha as Scripture, and what can be pieced together from among many various scholars which establishes the Pharisees had accepted only books of what is now to this day --- Hebrew Bible --- then it is an uphill battle all the way to justify, and also represent Apocrypha as being truly Scripture.
Catholics often blame it all on the Jews -- as if the Jews would remove from their own Scriptures what they themselves knew to be Scripture?!?
Anyone who would propose such nonsense doesn't know much about Jews, and the Jewish religion. But I have some clues of how that type of thinking arose within Christianity, and it begins with one of your witnesses -- Justin Martyr (of which I will return to, further on).
And what an accusation! As if they would do such a thing? Ha! Rabbis are famous for being able to argue things every which-a-way. They wouldn't need to deliberately throw out any Scripture at all, to somehow argue against particularly Christian precepts....
First off -- we are not speaking of "the Church's canon" as much as more precisely we are speaking what exactly was recognized by the Jews as their own canon, and what Christ too (and God the Father also) would have viewed as inclusive of what Christ (as Son of God) would come to both ratify and fulfill -- ratifying those writings as being truth.
When, or if we speak of NT canon, then of course -- the Pharisees (those whom didn't walk along with Paul, after his conversion, as in themselves eventually converting, which some did, including some of the Sanhedrin) are to be set aside, and for the most part -- can be fully ignored as for New Testament.
In fact -- one would need to ignore those who did not turn towards Jesus as their Messiah in that latter regard.
Yet to confuse the prior (the OT) as also being what the Pharisees should be ignored concerning, turns quite a large portion of Christ's own words to them, to being less than fully Holy and justified.
John 1:1
Regardless of what else "Word" there is as God's own spoken Word, what was enshrined among the Jews as writings inspired, and infallibly so by Him --- is what truly matters.
Or else Jesus had no standing to condemn various groups and individuals for not following the spirit and the letter of the law.
What advantage then has the Jew, or what is the profit of circumcision? 2 Much in every way! Chiefly because to them were committed the oracles of God. 3 For what if some did not believe? Will their unbelief make the faithfulness of God without effect? 4 Certainly not! Indeed, let God be true but every man a liar. As it is written:“That You may be justified in Your words,
[a]
And may overcome when You are judged.”Footnotes a. Romans 3:4 Psalm 51:4
Psalm 51:4;
Footnotes:a. Psalm 51:4 Septuagint, Targum, and Vulgate read in Your words.
Can you see what is going on here? It is God Himself who is the "You" who (we) have sinned against, and it is Him who is found just in His words...
How could this ever be, and the Father and Christ both be blameless --- if at the time of His appearance in the flesh, there was uncertainty for what was Scripture? For Christ did speak of Scripture, and that the same testified of Himself.
Christ appeared before the Sanhedrin, presenting Himself to the Sadducee and Pharisees. The former held highest view towards Torah (the teachings of Moses) and something a bit less for all the rest -- but never did either sect hold view of Scripture inclusive of Apocrypha.
He upbraided them for not recognizing the meaning of Scripture. Not once did He ever correct the Pharisees for not knowing what was properly Scripture, even as condemning them also for having by their own teaching subverted the Scripture, with that be due to how they resisted the spirit.
Instead, He held them to it -- made therm responsible for knowing, and understanding also, with this latter thing being chiefly what He upbraided them for, for they were leaders of Israel, who "sat in Moses's seat".
How could He in much of any real way justly correct them -- if they knew not the Scriptures???
As Paul wrote in another juncture;
But sin, taking occasion by the commandment, wrought in me all manner of concupiscence. For without the law sin was dead. For I was alive without the law once: but when the commandment came, sin revived, and I died.
How could Paul have known his own sin without the Law? -- he could not have.
Another question --- where did Paul write of anything spoken of only in the so-called deuterocanonical writings, as something which was needful, anything from those writings only (any of them, individually) that one must pay heed too as if that be Law of God, or else should be considered prophesy and promise of Christ?
There is one Apocryphal writing which speaks much of the Messiah -- which Paul avoided incorporating into his own illuminations of Scripture, as those were known by the Jews --- whom out of all peoples on earth -- were purposefully chosen to "know" both of the Law, and of the Promise of redemption.
Paul was a Pharisee. As such he would know what was to be considered Scripture, and what was not.
The Pharisees accepted what is now Hebrew bible to be inclusive of their own Scripture. Yet nowhere did Paul disavow the Pharisees had proper knowledge of what made up Scripture. All the evidences point towards the Pharisees cleaving to Tanakh as Scripture itself, not that plus some other writings...
I'll stand with with Paul (that Pharisee of Pharisees, who was a leading light in explaining what Christ came to fulfill, in regards to the Law & Scripture of the Hebrews) as to what was properly considered Scripture, at the time of Christ.
If you wish to lump me in with "Pharisees" in order to --- what is it exactly? to make yourself "feel" better, or for reason of lumping "protestants" in with Pharisees accomplishes some form of guilt by association? -- then hey, whatever -- whatever blows your skirts up.
Oh really?
For the most part, he accused the Jews of having removed particular passages from the LXX, while also he accepted fantastical legend concerning the original translation of the LXX (a.k.a) "Septuagint", yet himself appears fully & blissfully unaware that the original LXX was only of the books of Moses(!), the Torah or "Instruction", or "Teachings" which were the books of the Law, which sub-collection is also known of in Greek as the Pentateuch.
From original translation of Torah into Greek language, later translators added to that original LXX, with there being no guarantee whatsoever that writings considered not to be Scripture did not find their way to being associated with the collection of scrolls which were known collectively as "LXX" or Septuagint.
Just think --- from the 4th and 5th centuries come down to us the oldest extant copies of Septuagint. None of them fully agree with one another as for which books are inclusive of the codices. Even then St. Jerome was alive in the 4th century, having passed from this world in the 5th (420 AD).
Imagine how things were at the time of Christ, and for more than a century afterwards (perhaps two) when writings were not bound within codex, and were more simply a collection of scrolls. It could be confusing for those who were not more properly, and deeply educated.
One man in position of "teaching", if himself in error -- could mislead more than a few, and possibly not be challenged on it for a long time, and then --- when never accepting correction, further the error to yet more other indivduals who themselves would likely as not do much the same, if they become "teachers".
Thus it was that many began to increasingly and incrementally move towards the concept of fuller indiscriminate inclusion of Apocrypha to become eventually renamed --- deuterocanon.
In Jerome's era, there were various translations of LXX which had long circulated that were of varying quality, and differing content as for precise wordings, regardless of the notions of some that the Greek texts were themselves somehow "inspired" or more inspired than the Hebrew texts, which Hebrew texts many within the Church had long considered suspect, with the writings of Justin Martyr's sketchy accusations [see The Methodist Review, Volume 77, pages 399-402] being a beginning basis for much of the mistrust.
Yet going against the grain of that negative sort of Christian impression of Hebrew Scripture, being there was (according to Jerome himself) significant enough disagreement among Greek texts, along with mixed quality --- those factors helped convince Jerome to adopt what he termed Veritas Hebraica, (please take a moment to briefly peruse the pages of this book also).
To run risk of lack of clarity for reason of using a double-negative sentence structure;
There is no real reason to assume that similar unevenness of quality in LXX versions/copies of Jeromes's era was not generally the case in regards to that which circulated in Justin Martyr's own day -- which aspect helped play a part in Justin's own complaints against "the Jews" in the first place. By which I mean there were various copy & translation errors, that set Septuagint as that was known, in variance yet further from Hebrew texts. It wasn't necessarily the fault of any Jews, but more along lines of accumulated organic variances -- which we have with us to this day, in Greek texts alone(!)
Thus your mention here of "longer canon" than the Jews is highly misleading, and establishes nothing more than many or most modern-day Catholic apologists misuse and abuse what evidences there are for things. Having witnessed the process, the *thinking and reasoning* of RC apologetic towards Apocrypha as that would unfold, I have come to consider that "abuse and misuse" of information I mentioned in way of some accusation come about for reason of many RC'er's not having considered the issues deeply enough ==== in directions which would lead to having to conclude ==== "woops. mistakes were made".
Jerome obviously, did not suffer that same disability.
Why not? Do you really think that matter settled also? I just dispatched the prior allusion to Dialogue with Trypho (chapters 70 - 73), and unlike yourself, have now gone to the trouble to provide link to what it was you were arguing from, to make it easier on others here to see what is being discussed.
It could have helped if you were to have shown Polycarp quoting from where you say, and provide link to actual context it is taken from. Let's see if any of that actually does what you seem to think that it does? I say that it does not provide endorsement (of the book of Tobit) for the usage which may be thought to have arisen from there (which I will highlight in red) is well bracketed with meaning and intent which entirely changes whatever sense of "alms giving" one may see as recommendation (in Tobit...away from darkness, towards salvation) from doing so by way of monetary methods, to a spiritual & brotherly sense, which latter sense stands alone in NT texts from which Polycarp was more obviously focusing upon;
CHAPTER X.--EXHORTATION TO THE PRACTICE OF VIRTUE.
"Stand fast, therefore, in these things, and follow the example of the Lord, being firm and unchangeable in the faith, loving the brotherhood, and being attached to one another, joined together in the truth, exhibiting the meekness of the Lord in your intercourse with one another, and despising no one. When you can do good, defer it not, because "alms delivers from death." Be all of you subject one to another? having your conduct blameless among the Gentiles," that ye may both receive praise for your good works, and the Lord may not be blasphemed through you. But woe to him by whom the name of the Lord is blasphemed! Teach, therefore, sobriety to all, and manifest it also in your own conduct.
...which altogether leaves more of a refutation of the short quip which may or may not be derived from Tobit, but if so, then turned rather into something quite different than in Tobit, resulting in it scarcely being an endorsement of the [ahem] "teaching" found in that book which nowhere else among the Jews is there any evidence (which I know of) was ever considered as part of their own Holy Writ.
Is there anything else early on in patristic witness for positive inclusion of "Tobit", other than this?
Even so, Polycarp could have been dredging from there an idea, rather than providing full endorsement for that writing, like --- as if the Apostle John had told him as much concerning that 'book' --- which is more or less which you seemed to have been insinuating by introducing Polycarp as "pupil" of John.
Additionally, to belabor a point which you had already made for me -- if it be a concept which has other foundational support in Hebrew Bible, then those Apocryphal writings can be used in the Church as "ecclesiastical writings", somewhat akin to rabbinical writings (which portions of the Apocrypha indeed are), though as Jerome, that great 'Doctor of the Church' who was foremost authority in his day as for Scripture did admonish everyone -- those writings, though proper enough to be used within the Church, were not to be confused with canon proper.
Usages in that manner does not fully equate with whichever 'user' indulged in that, to themselves having considered the writing they were quoting from, to be fully canonical.
It's not my fault that many within the Church did not heed that man's advice. It is not "the Jews" fault either, including the Pharisees who got it right (as for proper corpus of "OT" Scripture).
What you wrote can only be classified as filibuster. If there is a rational kernel is your response, please point it out, or rewrite completely and reduce size.
Try reading a few paragraphs at a time.
And then follow the embedded links, several of which lead to particular pages of books. Don't forget to read the footnotes. Sometimes -- that's where the action is really at. ;^')
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.