Posted on 07/20/2015 3:21:27 AM PDT by markomalley
There is bizarre trend in modern academic Biblical exegesis. Modern critical methods of studying the scriptures have concluded in the 20th century that by man’s own light, most of what is recounted in the Gospels did not actually happen. Textual, form, source, literary, redaction, and historical criticism draw inductive conclusions based on observable phenomena to pronounce millennia of solid Church teaching inaccurate. The entire academic venture is grounded in skepticism and scientific reductionism. By their methods and standards, it is true that we can be certain of nothing historically, but we ought not to take the reductive and skeptical conclusions for whole and integral truth.
Scriptural studies from the early Church, had always operated under the true assumption that the Gospels writers were the inspired instruments of God unerringly conveying the Gospel Truth. Christ our Lord, born of the Father before all ages, came down from heaven and became man. He lived, preached, healed, died and is risen! Only some of the events of His life were actually recorded by the Gospel authors, for as John tells us in his Gospel, 21:25, “there are also many other things which Jesus did; were every one of them to be written, I suppose that the world itself could not contain the books that would be written.” It is foolish to assume that less and not more actually happened in Christ’s life.
We ought to take into account the mass of evidence available to us by the proper use of the intellect and due regard for the marvels of revelation to discern what actually happened. To corroborate this position we have countless excellent saints, scholars, theologians and Popes who throughout the ages have commented authoritatively and articulately on the actual events of Christ’s Life. Let us consider the temptation of Christ by Satan in the wilderness. The new Biblical exegetes attempting to demythologize the Gospels deny that the temptation ever happened. Perhaps a look at what the finest Church Doctor, St. Thomas Aquinas had to say about the temptation might allay some fear that the modern skeptics are right, for surely they merely stumble in the dark.
In part 3, Question 41 of his masterpiece The Summa Theologica, Aquinas answers four questions about Christ’s temptation. First, whether or not it “was becoming that Christ should be Tempted?” Then, the role of the desert in Christ’s temptation. After that, the time of the temptation and finally, the mode and order of the temptation. In doing so, Aquinas’ conclusions imply the historical veracity of Christ’s temptation.
Aquinas gives four reasons as to why it was in fact becoming that Christ should be tempted. He tells us that Christ desired to be tempted so that we might be strengthened against the temptations that inevitably assail the faithful. He quotes Gregory the Great who said in a homily “It was not unworthy of our Redeemer to wish to be tempted, who came also to be slain; in order that by His temptations He might conquer our temptations just as by His death He overcame our death.” Christ overcame death by His resurrection, surely overcoming temptations is of a lesser magnitude.
Secondly, Christ endured temptation that by His example no holy man would find himself above the possibility of temptation. If the perfect Christ was tempted, so are all men. Christ chose to be tempted after His baptism because as Hilary says “The temptations of the devil assail those principally who are sanctified, for he desires, above all, to overcome the holy.” We are often stricken by trial and temptation immediately after conversion. Christ tell us; “take up your cross and follow me.” Christ carried His cross as He asks us to. He suffered temptation as we do. To suggest that He did not in fact suffer the temptation in the desert is to deny Christ’s example to us.
Aquinas’ final two reasons in this first article confirm that Christ actually experienced the temptation after His baptism. St. Augustine wrote in On The Trinity, that Christ endured the temptation “that He might be our Mediator in overcoming temptation, not only by helping us, but also by giving us an example.” If it never happened, Christ could not be an example. Finally, Aquinas tells us Christ’s temptation was to “fill us with confidence in His mercy. Hence it is written Hebrews 4:15, “We have not a high-priest, who cannot have compassion on our infirmities, but one tempted in all things like as we are, without sin.” For all the above analysis and reasons, it is plain that St. Thomas Aquinas was certain that Christ endured the temptation in the desert.
St. Thomas considers the place where Christ was tempted, the desert. He begins article 2 by explaining that Christ, by His own free will, allowed himself to be tempted by the devil, otherwise there is no way the devil would have ever come near Him. He continues to explain that the “devil prefers to assail a man who is alone, for, as it is written (Ecclesiastes 4:12),”if a man prevail against one, two shall withstand him.” And so it was that Christ went out into the desert, as to a field of battle, to be tempted there by the devil.” Here we can clearly see, surmise and meditate on the fact that it was the will of the Father that Christ be tempted. He set up the right conditions so that for our own salvation we might have the perfect model to imitate.
To illuminate the meaning of Christ’s purposeful actions, Aquinas quotes St. Ambrose who is commenting on Luke 4:1 where it is written that “Christ was led into the desert for the purpose of provoking the devil.” If Christ himself had not done spiritual combat with Satan, we would not have our model for victory. Ambrose continues that “Christ in doing this set forth the mystery of Adam’s delivery from exile,” who had been expelled from paradise into the desert, and “set an example to us, by showing that the devil envies those who strive for better things.” Aquinas, with support from St. Ambrose and sacred scriptures, lends credence to the real fact that Christ did in fact endure the temptation in the desert.
Aquinas’ third article concerns three reasons it was becoming for Christ to experience the temptation after a 40 day fast. First of all, we are all in need of an example of fasting. We can hardly contemplate Christ’s temptation without thinking of the kind of hunger that might accompany 40 days without food. By His example, we are armed with awareness of the necessity of fasting to be able to resist temptation, for denying our appetites is akin to the fight against temptation.
Secondly, Christ demonstrates by His fast that the devil assaults even those faithful souls who fast. As Chrysostom said of Christ’s fasting in a homily, it was “to instruct thee how great a good is fasting, and how it is a most powerful shield against the devil; and that after baptism thou shouldst give thyself up, not to luxury, but to fasting; for this cause Christ fasted, not as needing it Himself, but as teaching us.”
Thirdly, it was Christ’s hunger that drew the devil in and to tempt Him first with satisfying His hunger. As St. Hilary said “it was not because He was overcome by want of food, but because He abandoned His manhood to its nature. For the devil was to be conquered, not by God, but by the flesh.” Considering the above three reasons for the temptation following the fast it is absurd to assume that Christ did not fast and did not face the temptation just because we cannot find material evidence for it. As faithful Catholics, it treads a dangerous line to question the veracity of the suffering our Lord endured for our sakes based on such narrow considerations as the modern exegetes use.
Aquinas said the devil’s temptations take the form of suggestions and these suggestions from Satan are not made to all people in the same way, they “must arise from those things towards which each one has an inclination. Consequently the devil does not straight away tempt the spiritual man to grave sins, but he begins with lighter sins, so as gradually to lead him to those of greater magnitude.” As Gregory the Great said, “vices begin by insinuating themselves into the mind under some specious pretext.” And it is noted here that by this form, Satan tempted our first parents.
Christ’s temptation in the desert illustrates for us the general character of all of Satan’s temptations towards all men for all time from Adam and Eve to the present as the lust of the flesh, the lust of the eyes and to the pride of life. Aquinas explains using Pope Leo’s words that Christ resisted these “temptations by quoting the authority of the law, not by enforcing His power, so as to give more honor to His human nature and a greater punishment to His adversary, since the foe of the human race was vanquished, not as by God, but as by man.” Christ could not conquer Satan by his perfect humanity if He had not in fact, historically experienced the temptation in the desert, it is a bizarre contradiction to suggest it.
St. Thomas Aquinas would hardly have considered the temptation a topic worth memorializing or contemplating had it never happened. If we conclude with the modern exegete that the temptation did not happen, then we must also necessarily say that St. Thomas Aquinas’ work on this matter was done in vain. It is worth noting that if we look at the end of the life of a modern exegete and compare it to the end of St. Thomas’ life, the difference could not be greater. The modern exegete demythologizes the Gospels and ends in the darkness of disbelief as demonstrated by Albert Schweitzer and Rudolf Bultmann. On the other hand, St. Thomas Aquinas, having been gifted the Beatific Vision, could no longer suffer the mundane, even his own inspired writing projects. He ended certain of the joyful knowledge of the incarnate Christ and the sure prospect of ending face to face with God for all eternity.
It is disconcerting that there is a veritable army of modern exegetes who use reductive modern critical methods of interpretation to conclude that events like the temptation in the desert never happened. Their appeal is alluring because it plays on our disordered desire to be the arbiters of truth. If we choose to side with the modern exegetes, we ought to keep in mind that we rule against the entirety of revelation by the tradition of countless saints in heaven, the Church fathers, doctors, Popes and theologians.
The preponderance of historical evidence and consensus is in accord with the sacred scriptures conveyed by the Magisterium of Holy Mother Church. Christ was tempted in the desert by Satan, for the redemption and fulfillment of the first Adam who fell when faced with his temptation, then as a foreshadowing of Christ’s passion, and finally as a guide for us from the perfect teacher on the temptations the faithful will have to face as we observe that the fullness of time unfolds the events of Salvation History. To conclude that it never happened is an offense against the authority and integrity of The Father, Son and Holy Spirit and all who know, love and serve our Trinitarian Lord. Let us choose the saints over the modern exegetes, it is an eternally better choice.
Christ was tempted to teach us who the 'anti-Christ' is and who is going to be calling himself Jesus... and all but the elect are going to be deceived. First big lesson Christ gave us on His flesh journey. Matthew 24, Mark 13, and Luke 21 are Christ's own warnings as to what to expect as 'signs' of His return... Too many are thinking that 'war' is the sign to be looking for when Christ said that wars and rumors of wars were NOT the end.... Well if not wars and rumors of wars... then it is 'peace', 'peace', 'peace', when there is no peace... most especially spiritual peace.
And in the sense of commentary explaining what was meant then this is no different than SS preachers looking to the writings of past luminaries in explaining Scripture. Which in turn considers historical context, genre, etc.
But it is another thing to hold that since some of Scripture first was conveyed orally, or that some of what was oral was wholly inspired of God, then a church can take a extraScriptural story that lacks even early historical testimony of its existence, and was judged as lacking needed veracity even by Rome's own scholars, and declare believing in it as binding under the premise that the church can remember it later on and cannot be wrong, is something different..
Ratzinger writes (emp. mine), Before Mary's bodily Assumption into heaven was defined, all theological faculties in the world were consulted for their opinion. Our teachers' answer was emphatically negative . What here became evident was the one-sidedness, not only of the historical, but of the historicist method in theology. “Tradition” was identified with what could be proved on the basis of texts. Altaner, the patrologist from Wurzburg…had proven in a scientifically persuasive manner that the doctrine of Mary’s bodily Assumption into heaven was unknown before the 5C; this doctrine, therefore, he argued, could not belong to the “apostolic tradition. And this was his conclusion, which my teachers at Munich shared.
This argument is compelling if you understand “tradition” strictly as the handing down of fixed formulas and texts [or actual ancient reliable records] …But if you conceive of “tradition” as the living process whereby the Holy Spirit introduces us to the fullness of truth and teaches us how to understand what previously we could still not grasp (cf. Jn 16:12-13), then subsequent “remembering” (cf. Jn 16:4, for instance) can come to recognize what it has not caught sight of previously [meaning the needed evidence was absent] and was already handed down in the original Word,” - J. Ratzinger, Milestones (Ignatius, n.d.), 58-59.
Yet there is nothing beyond very hard about bodily assumption that would take over 1800 years to understand, while Jn 16:4 refers to remembering what Christ had told them, about being killed for His name. But Rome can "remember" what she will, with the validity of it resting upon the novel and unScriptural premise of ensured perpetual magisterial infallibility, is something different.
“the mere fact that the Church teaches the doctrine of the Assumption as definitely true is a guarantee that it is true.” — Karl Keating, Catholicism and Fundamentalism (San Francisco: Ignatius, 1988), p. 275.
The jump in logic that I was making Jewish oral tradition equal to written was your conclusion but not my point.
But that is the point of contention, if one will defend Catholicisms use of it.
Interestingly, Martin Luther translated his Wittenberg bible and excluded the so called apocrypha from his canon - which was compiled by the very Jewish magisterium that used the Oral Teachings that were discarded. You are having it both ways from the same (Jewish) magisterium.
First, for the record, he was not alone, but had Catholic scholarly company, and did not dissent from an infallible indisputable canon, as there was none until after his death.
Secondly, the mss of the Septuagint containing the apocrypha are far from uniform, including in size. The earliest existing Greek manuscripts which contain some of the apocryphal books date from the 4th Century and evidence points to the apocrypha being a latter addition to it, not penned by the Jews, and were not accepted as Scripture proper by those who sat in the seat of Moses and religion progeny. Thus the rejection of the Deutros by Jerome etc. The further back one goes, the more rarely apocryphal books are seen treated as inspired like Scriptrue
See here on all the above re. the apocrypha
Yet it is not I who am having it both ways from the same (Jewish) magisterium.. For my stance has been that Oral T and the judgment of the magisterium were not equal with Scripture, but teaching that was Scriptural from them, as well as aspects affirmed in Scripture, can be taught while that which was not can be rejected, and which is consistent with holding Scripture as supreme and as providing for this.
Meanwhile, it is RCs who basically argue that an assuredly (if conditionally) infallible magisterium is essential for determination and assurance of Truth, And that being the historical instruments and stewards of Divine revelation (oral and written) means that such is that assuredly infallible magisterium.
Scriptural proofs were enabled by the preaching of the wholly inspired word of God (by the Apostles orally THEN written down) BECAUSE the oral preaching came first.
But (contrary to what RCs seems to believe) oral preaching by the NT was established upon Scriptural substantiation in word and in power, as its necessary foundation.
And while some of Scripture first existed in the oral medium of transmission, that does not render all that exists in that medium to be wholly inspired of God, or mean that what a church channels into doctrine out of the amorphous collection of oral tradition is the word of God, based upon her premise of ensured veracity. Meanwhile, o Scripture is the only distinct body which is affirmed to be wholly inspired of God.
If a church wants to claim that the wholly inspired word of God exists outside Scripture, then it must speak it and or write as wholly inspired, as apostles and other NT souls did at times, but Rome does not make that claim.
Show me exactly when and where (from history with an extant example) the first canon of the bible appeared without the deuterocanonical books and where such a bible lists its own canon.
Since when is such exactness necessary, or even an ancient canon? Scripture testifies that souls correctly discerned both men and words of God as being so, and without an infallible magisterium and even in dissent from that which the Lord affirmed as sitting in the seat of Moses.
Thus in principle Scripture provides for recognition of a canon due to the fact that souls can recognize what is of God. But that the 66 book canon is one of antiquity is affirmed even by your own Catholic Encyclopedia which affirms,
“the protocanonical books of the Old Testament correspond with those of the Bible of the Hebrews, and the Old Testament as received by Protestants.” “...the Hebrew Bible, which became the Old Testament of Protestantism.” (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03267a.htm)
The apocrypha was not accepted in such early O.T. lists as that of Melito (AD 170) bishop of the church in Sardis, an inland city of Asia Minor, who gives a list of the Hebrew canon, minus Esther, and makes no mention of any of the apocryphal/deuterocanonical books:
Of Moses five, Genesis, Exodus, Numbers, Leviticus, Deuteronomy; Joshua the son of Nun, Judges, Ruth, four of Kingdoms1 two of Chronicles, the Psalms of David, Solomon's Proverbs or Wisdom,2 Ecclesiastes, Song of Songs, Job; of the Prophets: Isaiah, Jeremiah,3 the Twelve [minor prophets] in one book, Daniel, Ezekiel, Esdras.4
1. 1 and 2 Samuel and 1 and 2 Kings.
2. Proverbs was sometimes called "Wisdom" according to Eusebius, (Ec clesiastical History 4.22.9.)
3. Understood to include Lamentations, not being the custom of the times to list it separately.
4.Ezra and Nehemiah were then counted as one book, and sometimes was called simply Esdras (Greek for Ezra). (http://www.bible-researcher.com/melito.html)
● Origen in the 2nd century (c. 240) rejected the apocrypha as he held to the Palestinian canon (plus the Letter of Jeremiah), and likewise Cyril of Jerusalem (plus Baruch), but like St. Hilary of Poitiers (300-368) and Rufinus who also rejected the apocrypha, Origen used them or parts thereof , as others also did with these second class books.
● Jerome (340-420), the preeminent 3rd century scholar rejected the Apocrypha, as they did not have the sanction of Jewish antiquity, and were not received by all, and did not generally work toward "confirmation of the doctrine of the Church." His lists of the 24 books of the O.T. Scriptures corresponds to the 39 of the Protestant canon,
Jerome wrote in his Prologue to the Books of the Kings,
“This preface to the Scriptures may serve as a helmeted [i.e. defensive] introduction to all the books which we turn from Hebrew into Latin, so that we may be assured that what is outside of them must be placed aside among the Apocryphal writings. Wisdom, therefore, which generally bears the name of Solomon, and the book of Jesus the Son of Sirach, and Judith, and Tobias, and the Shepherd [of Hermes?] are not in the canon. The first book of Maccabees is found in Hebrew, but the second is Greek, as can be proved from the very style.
In his preface to Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, and the Song of Songs he also states,
“As, then, the Church reads Judith, Tobit, and the books of Maccabees, but does not admit them among the canonical Scriptures, so let it read these two volumes for the edification of the people, not to give authority to doctrines of the Church.” (Shaff, Henry Wace, A Select Library of Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church, p. 492)
The ancient 1st century Jewish historian Josephus only numbered 22 books of Scripture, which is seen to reflect the Jewish canon at the time of Jesus, and corresponding to the 39 book Protestant canon, which divides books the Jews referred to as single works.
Researchers also state,
[Josephus] also limits his books to those written between the time of Moses and Artaxerxes, thus eliminating some apocryphal books, observing that "(Jewish) history hath been written since Artaxerxes very particularly but hath not been esteemed of the like authority with the former by our forefathers, because there hath not been an exact succession of prophets since that time."
Also in support of the Jewish canon excluding the apocrypha we also have Philo, the Alexandrian Jewish philosopher (20 BC-AD 40) who never quoted from the Apocrypha as inspired, though he prolifically quoted the Old Testament and recognized the threefold division
● Anastasius (c. 367) of Antioch in the 4th century also considered the apocryphal book inferior in quality, and held to the Palestinian canon except that he included Baruch (Jeremiah’s scribe) and omitted Esther (which never actually mentions God and it canonicity disputed among Jews for some time).
Gregory of Nazianzus (330 – 390) concurred with the canon of Anastasius.
● The list of O.T. books by the Council of Laodicea (363) may have been added later, and is that of Athanasius but with Esther included. It also contains the standard canon of the N.T. except that it omits Revelation, as does Cyril, thought to be due to excessive use of it by the Montanist cults
● John of Damascus, eminent theologian of the Eastern Church in the 8th century, and Nicephorus, patriarch of Constantinople in the 9th century also rejected the apocrypha, as did others, in part or in whole.
● The fourth century historian Euesibius also provides an early Christian list of both Old and New Testament books. In his Ecclesiastical History (written about A.D. 324), in three places quoting from Josephus, Melito and Origen, lists of the books (slightly differing) according to the Hebrew Canon. These he calls in the first place 'the Canonical Scriptures of the Old Testament, undisputed among the Hebrews;' and again,'the acknowledged Scriptures of the Old Testament;' and, lastly, 'the Holy Scriptures of the Old Testament.' In his Chronicle he distinctly separates the Books of Maccabees from the 'Divine Scriptures;' and elsewhere mentions Ecclesiasticus and Wisdom as 'controverted' books. (http://www.bible-researcher.com/eusebius.html)
● Cyril of Jerusalem (d. circa. 385 AD) exhorts his readers “Of these read the two and twenty books, but have nothing to do with the apocryphal writings. Study earnestly these only which we read openly in the Church. Far wiser and more pious than thyself were the Apostles, and the bishops of old time, the presidents of the Church who handed down these books. Being therefore a child of the Church, trench thou not upon its statutes. And of the Old Testament, as we have said, study the two and twenty books, which, if thou art desirous of learning, strive to remember by name, as I recite them.” (http://www.bible-researcher.com/cyril.html)
His lists supports the canon adopted by the Protestants, combining books after the Hebrew canon and excludes the apocrypha, though he sometimes used them, as per the standard practice by which the apocrypha was printed in Protestant Bibles, and includes Baruch as part of Jeremiah.
● Likewise Rufinus:
38.But it should also be known that there are other books which are called not "canonical" but "ecclesiastical" by the ancients: 5 that is, the Wisdom attributed to Solomon, and another Wisdom attributed to the son of Sirach, which the Latins called by the title Ecclesiasticus, designating not the author of the book but its character. To the same class belong the book of Tobit and the book of Judith, and the books of Maccabees.
With the New Testament there is the book which is called the Shepherd of Hermas, and that which is called The Two Ways 6 and the Judgment of Peter.7 They were willing to have all these read in the churches but not brought forward for the confirmation of doctrine. The other writings they named "apocrypha,"8 which they would not have read in the churches.
These are what the fathers have handed down to us, which, as I said, I have thought it opportune to set forth in this place, for the instruction of those who are being taught the first elements of the Church and of the Faith, that they may know from what fountains of the Word of God they should draw for drinking. (http://www.bible-researcher.com/rufinus.html)
●Summing up most of the above, the Catholic Encyclopedia states,
At Jerusalem there was a renascence, perhaps a survival, of Jewish ideas, the tendency there being distinctly unfavourable to the deuteros. St. Cyril of that see, while vindicating for the Church the right to fix the Canon, places them among the apocrypha and forbids all books to be read privately which are not read in the churches. In Antioch and Syria the attitude was more favourable. St. Epiphanius shows hesitation about the rank of the deuteros; he esteemed them, but they had not the same place as the Hebrew books in his regard. The historian Eusebius attests the widespread doubts in his time; he classes them as antilegomena, or disputed writings, and, like Athanasius, places them in a class intermediate between the books received by all and the apocrypha. The 59th (or 60th) canon of the provincial Council of Laodicea (the authenticity of which however is contested) gives a catalogue of the Scriptures entirely in accord with the ideas of St. Cyril of Jerusalem. On the other hand, the Oriental versions and Greek manuscripts of the period are more liberal; the extant ones have all the deuterocanonicals and, in some cases, certain apocrypha.
The influence of Origen's and Athanasius's restricted canon naturally spread to the West. St. Hilary of Poitiers and Rufinus followed their footsteps, excluding the deuteros from canonical rank in theory, but admitting them in practice. The latter styles them "ecclesiastical" books, but in authority unequal to the other Scriptures. St. Jerome cast his weighty suffrage on the side unfavourable to the disputed books... (Catholic Encyclopedia, Canon of the Old Testament, eph. mine)
● The Catholic Encyclopedia also states as regards the Middle Ages,
In the Latin Church, all through the Middle Ages [5th century to the 15th century] we find evidence of hesitation about the character of the deuterocanonicals. There is a current friendly to them, another one distinctly unfavourable to their authority and sacredness, while wavering between the two are a number of writers whose veneration for these books is tempered by some perplexity as to their exact standing, and among those we note St. Thomas Aquinas. Few are found to unequivocally acknowledge their canonicity. The prevailing attitude of Western medieval authors is substantially that of the Greek Fathers. The chief cause of this phenomenon in the West is to be sought in the influence, direct and indirect, of St. Jerome's depreciating Prologus (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03267a.htm) ^
Remember that the Jamnian Council was compiled by the Jewish magisterium that you (correctly) ignore when they produced the mishnah. Actually it would be wise for you to ignore that as authoritative as it reveals more of lack of research on this subject, for
Many refer to a Council of Jamnia as authoritatively setting the Hebrew canon around 100 A.D., but modern research research no longer considers that to be the case, or that there even was a council, while some scholars argue that the Jewish canon was fixed earlier by the Hasmonean dynasty (140 and c. 116 B.C.). — http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Council_of_Jamnia
Robert C. Newman writes,
Among those who believe the Old Testament to be a revelation from the Creator, it has traditionally been maintained that the books composing this collection were in themselves sacred writings from the moment of their completion, that they were quickly recognized as such, and that the latest of these were written several centuries before the beginning of our era.
The Jewish historian Flavius Josephus appears to be the earliest extant witness to this view. Answering the charges of an anti- Semite Apion at the end of the first century of our era, he says:
“We do not possess myriads of inconsistent books, conflicting with each other. other. Our books, those which are justly accredited, are but two and twenty, and contain the record of all time....” — Josephus, Against Apion, 1,8 (38-41)
On the basis of later Christian testimony, the twenty-two books mentioned here are usually thought to be the same as our thirty-nine,2 each double book (e.g., 1 and 2 Kings) being counted as one, the twelve Minor Prophets being considered a unit, and Judges-Ruth, Ezra-Nehemiah, and Jeremiah-Lamentations each being taken as one book. This agrees with the impression conveyed by the Gospel accounts, where Jesus, the Pharisees, and the Palestinian Jewish community in general seem to understand by the term "Scripture" some definite body of sacred writings."
"...the pseudepigraphical work 4 Ezra (probably written about A.D. 1208)...admits that only twenty-four Scriptures have circulated publicly since Ezra's time."
Newman concludes,
"In this paper we have attempted to study the rabbinical activity at Jamnia in view of liberal theories regarding its importance in the formation of the Old Testament canon. I believe the following conclusions are defensible in the light of this study. The city of Jamnia had both a rabbinical school (Beth ha- Midrash) and court (Beth Din, Sanhedrin) during the period A.D. 70-135, if not earlier. There is no conclusive evidence for any other rabbinical convocations there. The extent of the sacred Scriptures was one of many topics discussed at Jamnia, probably both in the school and in the court, and probably more than once. However, this subject was also discussed by the rabbis at least once a generation earlier and also several times long after the Jamnia period. No books are mentioned in these discussions except those now considered canonical. None of these are treated as candidates for admission to the canon, but rather the rabbis seem to be testing a status quo which has existed beyond memory. None of the discussions hint at recent vintage of the works under consideration or deny them traditional authorship. Instead it appears that the rabbis are troubled by purely internal problems, such as theology, apparent contradictions, or seemingly unsuitable content...
But no text of any specific decision has come down to us (nor, apparently, even to Akiba and his students). Rather, it appears that a general consensus already existed regarding the extent of the category called Scripture, so that even the author of 4 Ezra, though desiring to add one of his own, was obliged to recognize this consensus in his distinction between public and hidden Scripture." — Robert C. Newman, "THE COUNCIL OF JAMNIA AND THE OLD TESTAMENT CANON," Westminster Theological Journal 38.4 (Spr. 1976) 319-348.
Show this outside of the canon compiled by the Catholic Councils which settled the Canon (a process) of Rome 382; Hippo 393; Carthage 397; Nicea II 797; Florence 1442; Trent 1546.
Which claim reveals more reliance upon RC propaganda, as the FACT is that the canon was not settled until 1546 (after the death of Luther), and thus while largely settled, scholarly doubts and disagreements continued and could continue down thru the centuries and right into Trent, which settled the issue in providing the first "infallible" decree (Hippo, Carthage and Florence were not infallible) on the canon, apparently after an informal vote of 24 yea, 15 nay, with 16 abstaining (44%, 27%, 29%) as to whether to affirm it as an article of faith with its anathemas on those who dissent from it. .
► “The Canon of the New Testament, like that of the Old, is the result of a development, of a process at once stimulated by disputes with doubters, both within and without the Church, and retarded by certain obscurities and natural hesitations, and which did not reach its final term until the dogmatic definition of the Tridentine Council. (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03274a.htm)
► "The Tridentine decrees from which the above list is extracted was the first infallible and effectually promulgated pronouncement on the Canon, addressed to the Church Universal. ” (Catholic Encyclopedia, http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03267a.htm;
► “Catholic hold that the proximate criterion of the biblical canon is the infallible decision of the Church.” “The Council of Trent definitively settled the matter of the OT Canon. That this had not been done previously is apparent from the uncertainty that persisted up to the time of Trent." (New Catholic Encyclopedia, Catholic University of America , 2003, Vol. 3, pp. 20,26.
► The Catholic Study Bible, Oxford University Press, 1990, p. RG27: "The final definitive list of biblical books (including the seven additional Old Testament books) was only drawn up at the council of Trent in 1546. “Most Christians had followed St. Augustine and included the 'Apocrypha' in the canon, but St. Jerome, who excluded them, had always had his defenders." (Joseph Lienhard, The Bible, The Church, And Authority [Collegeville, Minnesota: The Liturgical Press, 1995], p. 59)
► "...an official, definitive list of inspired writings did not exist in the Catholic Church until the Council of Trent (Yves Congar, French Dominican cardinal and theologian, in Tradition and Traditions" [New York: Macmillan, 1966], p. 38).
► As Catholic Church historian and recognized authority on Trent (2400 page history, and author of over 700 books, etc.), Hubert Jedin (1900-1980) observes, it also put a full stop to the 1000-year-old development of the biblical canon (History of the Council of Trent [London, 1961] 91, quoted by Raymond Edward Brown, American Roman Catholic priest and Biblical scholar, in The New Jerome biblical commentary, p. 1168)
►The question of the “deutero-canonical” books will not be settled before the sixteenth century. As late as the second half of the thirteenth, St Bonaventure used as canonical the third book of Esdras and the prayer of Manasses, whereas St Albert the Great and St Thomas doubted their canonical value. (George H. Tavard, Holy Writ or Holy Church: The Crisis of the Protestant Reformation (London: Burns & Oates, 1959), pp. 16-17)
►It may be a surprise to some to know that the “canon,” or official list of books of the Bible, was not explicitly defined by the Church until the 16th century though there was a clear listing as early as the fourth century. (Leonard Foley, O.F.M., Believing in Jesus: A Popular Overview of the Catholic Faith, rev. ed. (St. Anthony Messenger Press, 1985, p. 21)
► "For the first fifteen centuries of Christianity, no Christian Church put forth a definitive list of biblical books. Most Christians had followed St. Augustine and included the 'Apocrypha' in the canon, but St. Jerome, who excluded them, had always had his defenders." (Joseph Lienhard, S.J., A.B., classics, Fordham University, “The Bible, The Church, And Authority;” [Collegeville, Minnesota: The Liturgical Press, 1995], p. 59)
► "in the fifth century a more or less final consensus [on the New Testament canon] was reached and shared by East and West. It is worth noting that no ecumenical council in the ancient church ever ruled for the church as a whole on the question of the contents of the canon." (Harry Gamble, in Lee McDonald and James Sanders, edd., The Canon Debate [Peabody, Massachusetts: Hendrickson Publishers, 2002], p. 291) ^
The claim that the Council of Rome (382) approved an infallible canon is contrary to Roman Catholic statements which point to Trent, and depends upon the Decretum Gelasianum, the authority of which is disputed (among RC's themselves), based upon evidence that it was pseudepigraphical, being a sixth century compilation put together in northern Italy or southern France at the beginning of the 6th cent. In addition the Council of Rome found many opponents in Africa.” More: http://www.tertullian.org/articles/burkitt_gelasianum.htm
Also for a good faith discussion you could have skipped the “cult” and pagan and Mormon references because they are incorrect. Catholics are totally Christian and have the correct understanding and belief in the Trinity - in fact we were martyred and killed defending the Nicene Creed that first laid out the doctrine.
Wrong: belief in the Trinity alone does not make one a Christian, and rather than being totally Christian the church of Rome is a stark deformation from the NT church , even with its foundational premise for the veracity of her teaching being cultic. For like as Mormonism has its living prophet who basically possesses ensured veracity, and under which extra-scriptural "revelation" is made equal with Scripture (actually above it), likewise does Rome.
Like in most cults, a faithful RC are not to seek to ascertain the veracity of RC teaching by examination of evidences (for that reason). For to do so would be to doubt the claims of Rome to be the assuredly infallible magisterium by which a RC obtains assurance of Truth.
In addition, Catholics are in no position to lecture us on good faith if they insist only their church is the one true church to whom all are to submit to, and propagate her doctrines on an open forum, and attack, implicitly or explicitly the supremacy of Scripture, besides the RCs who insists we cannot have spiritual life unless we believe in the "Real Presence," and or hold to historical teaching which requires us to convert to Catholicism to be saved.
Sorry for the length due to the canon issue, but if just post links to substantiation then RC usually evidence they do not read them and so say the same refuted things again.
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.