Posted on 03/25/2018 12:53:17 PM PDT by pcottraux
By Philip Cottraux
Skeptics who don’t believe the Bible is the inspired Word of God have a few problems, not the least of which is that it successfully prophesies major world events before they took place. And I’m not just talking about end-times prophecies that haven’t occurred yet.
Isaiah and Daniel are the two starkest examples. I’ve already written about Daniel in my previous blog, “The Daniel Lynchpin,” which you can read here. This week I want to talk about Isaiah, why it’s come under fire by Bible critics, and resolve the “multiple authors” controversy.
Isaiah’s prophetic ministry started in around 740 BC, during a dark time in the history of the Jewish people. The Assyrian empire was growing while Egypt was shrinking, with Israel and Judah caught in the middle. The Assyrians were some of the most brutal conquerors in history. They were known to flay their enemies alive and hang the skins on the wall surrounding the capital, Nineveh. The city was also decorated with amputated arms and legs and piles of severed “head pyramids” of their victims. Perhaps worst of all, the Assyrians perfected the art of “assimilation;” forcing out a city’s inhabitants to either be brutally executed or sold into slavery, then occupying their homes for themselves.
This is exactly the fate suffered by the Northern kingdom of Israel. In 722, the Assyrians invaded and conquered the ten tribes of the North, scattering them in exile across the empire. This tragedy is covered in II Kings 17 and II Chronicles 22. With Israel in ruins, the Assyrians now gathered at the border, ready to invade Judah.
The theme of Isaiah is two-fold: forsake idolatry and turn back to worship of the One True God to be saved from Assyria. Isaiah 10:24-25: Therefore thus saith the Lord GOD of hosts, O my people that dwellest in Zion, be not afraid of the Assyrian: he shall smite thee with a rod, and shall lift up his staff against thee, after the manner of Egypt. For yet a very little while, and the indignation shall cease, and mine anger in their destruction.
But Isaiah doesn’t stop there. Not only does God promise to spare Jerusalem if they return to Him, He also foretells major world events that took place well after the eighth century BC.
While Jerusalem was spared from Sennacherib, one hundred years later, a new menace would arise to take its place, Babylon. But this time, the results would be very different. Jeremiah’s warnings went unheeded until God removed His protection and Nebuchadnezzar broke the city walls. In 586 BC, Babylon totally destroyed Jerusalem, razing Solomon’s temple to the ground and burning the city. The Jews were taken into captivity that would last seventy years.
However, Babylon itself wouldn’t last. Not long after Nebuchadnezzar’s death, his grandson Belshazzar would oversee its downfall when Babylon was invaded by a new empire, a union between Media and Persia. The Medo-Persians breeched its defensive walls and killed its king, bringing Babylon to ruin. Daniel 5:30-31: In that night was Belshazzar the king of the Chaldeans slain. And Darius the Median took the kingdom, being about threescore and two years old.
The fall of Babylon to the Medo-Persians occurred in 539 BC, but was prophesied by Isaiah about 150 years beforehand. Thus saith the LORD to his anointed, to Cyrus, whose right hand I have holden, to subdue nations before him; and I will loose the loins of kings, to open before him the two leaved gates; and the gates shall not be shut; I will go before thee, and make the crooked places straight: I will break in pieces the gates of brass, and cut in sunder the bars of iron: (Isaiah 45:1-2). This likely refers to Cyrus II, who lived from 576-530 BC. While Daniel calls the conqueror “Darius the Median,” this could be a misnomer: history doesn’t have record of a king “Darius” during the time of the Babylonian invasion. However, Cyrus the Great did have a military general named Gobryas who oversaw the conquest, so this is probably the “Darius the Median” identified by Daniel.
There’s much controversy over Isaiah specifically naming “Cyrus” years before the man existed, leading to the charge by some critics that this is a later addition by scribes tampering with the text. But even if that is the case, it doesn’t change the point: Isaiah clearly promises that the gates of Babylon will be opened by a king the Lord had anointed to break the kingdom.
Unless the entire chapter is a fabrication.
In “The Daniel Lynchpin,” I mentioned a 19th century textual critic named JG Eichhorn who first proposed that Daniel was a fictional book created during the Maccabean revolt to inspire the Jews into believing that God and destiny was on their side. This was Eichhorn’s way of getting around the fact that Daniel prophesies so many world events, such as the rise and sudden death of Alexander the Great and the Six Syrian wars of chapter 11.
I’ve already written on this extensively, but to sum it up: Eichhorn’s date for Daniel can be dismissed if we find copies of Daniel from before the Maccabean period (137 BC), and sure enough, multiple copies of Daniel from the Dead Sea scrolls date back from thirty to sixty years prior (160-200 BC at the earliest). Furthermore, it’s clear that Daniel was a highly revered prophet among the radical Essenic Jews that formed the Qumranite community, as there are several meticulously copied Daniel scrolls; this would not be the case if he were a fictional character.
But it’s moot anyway, because Eichhorn’s proposal fails spectacularly in another gigantic way; placing Daniel during the Maccabean revolt doesn’t explain how the book prophesies world events that took place after the Maccabean revolt! Daniel doesn’t just predict Alexander the Great and the Six Syrian wars: he also predicts the rise of Rome. The two iron legs from Nebuchadnezzar’s statue represent a world kingdom founded by two brothers (Romulus and Remus), as does the great beast with iron claws emerging from the seas in Daniel 7 (he also predicts the destruction of the second temple at the hands of Emperor Titus in Daniel 9:24-27; this occurred in 70 AD).
Eichhorn was committing the classic fatal error of atheism. He presumed philosophical naturalism (the belief that physical matter is all there is in the universe, rejecting the existence of the supernatural or God), then judged all theology as if naturalism were the truth, dismissing miraculous events as described in the Bible. But he never established why naturalism is the truth. Because inconveniently for the nonbeliever, naturalism has never been proven, and is actually scientifically problematic.
But I digress. Eichhorn’s presumption that the supernatural doesn’t exist left him at a loss to explain prophesies in Daniel and Isaiah. So he had to come up with naturalistic explanations. And even when his explanations have been disproven by recent discoveries, academia, under the same philosophical bias towards naturalism, refuses to abandon them.
Eichhorn is also responsible for the “multiple authors of Isaiah” theory. Isaiah 45 predicts the fall of Babylon to the Medo-Persians. So to address that, Eichhorn proposed that it has more than one author. Isaiah 1-39 all consist of a similar pattern: it takes place in a particular time period (pre-Assyrian invasion) and Isaiah references himself several times. Chapter 39 ends with Sennacherib’s forces being smitten by the angel of the Lord just outside the gates of Jerusalem. But the final 27 chapters of Isaiah seem different. They aren’t contained within a story, don’t claim to be written during the reign of any particular king, are much more poetic, and Isaiah doesn’t mention himself. Some scholars have taken this a step further, isolating chapters 40-55 and calling them “Deutero-Isaiah.”
You would think an older copy of Isaiah would settle the matter. And it has.
The most well-preserved Dead Sea scroll has been called the “Great Isaiah scroll,” a near flawless copy of Isaiah found in Cave 1. It is the first of 22 ancient copies of the book discovered near the Dead Sea, from a variety of different time periods. At the very latest, the Great Isaiah scroll is from the late second century BC, maybe even earlier. If Eichhorn’s proposal is true, evidence for it should be found here of all places.
This isn’t just because of the scroll’s age; it’s also because the Essenic scribes were extremely diligent in their copying. They Great Isaiah scroll contains thorough footnotes and commentary from whoever compiled it. These notes are so myopic that they even focus heavily on a slight inconsistency between the account of Hezekiah’s healing in Isaiah 38 and II Kings 20. Yet there is absolutely no mention of multiple authors. Chapter 39 transitions effortlessly into chapter 40; and believe me, had there been any hint of a discrepancy within the text, the Dead Sea copyist would have spotted and wrote extensively on it in the margins.
So we can say with certainty that the no one was aware of a second author for Isaiah as far back as at least the second century BC. And since the Essenes were copying older scrolls, there was clearly no evidence for this going back much further in time.
But just like with Daniel, I have another contribution to the argument that blows Eichhorn’s proposal out of the water. In short, he was assuming that Isaiah 45 was the only reference to the fall of Babylon. But if there’s a prophecy of it in the clearly unified text of Isaiah 1-39, that undeniably was written by Isaiah, his entire premise falls apart. And sure enough, we do have such a direct prediction in the thirteenth chapter: Behold, I will stir up the Medes against them, which shall not regard silver; and as for gold, they shall not delight in it…And Babylon, the glory of kingdoms, the beauty of the Chaldees' excellency, shall be as when God overthrew Sodom and Gomorrah (Isaiah 13:17,19).
Here once again, Isaiah gives an exact prophecy: God will destroy the Babylonians through the hands of the Medo-Persians. And unlike chapter 45, there is no question that this was written 150 or so years beforehand. As I stand back and look at the Bible as a whole, I am in awe of how well it stacks up despite the world of criticism aimed at it over the centuries. No other document from ancient history could endure so much yet still be so immovable. As we honestly assess the evidence, its supernatural nature becomes undeniable. This blog hasn’t even begun to address the Messianic prophesies of the suffering servant and how they are fulfilled by Jesus. Perhaps those who have tried so hard to discredit the book of Isaiah are missing one of its most dire warnings: There is no peace, saith the LORD, unto the wicked (Isaiah 48:22).
I already addressed Jerome and the deuterocanonicals. Why did you ignore what I wrote? By the way, Jerome described those who say he denied the divine authority of the deuterocanonicals, “fools and slanderers.”
Po-tay-to, po-tah-to.
All very true and follows irrefutable logic, when one takes into consideration the strong historical evidence for Christ’s resurrection (which is a different post altogether).
It stands to reason that if He truly rose from the dead, then He was who He said He was. Which means that all things He said are truth. Which, as you pointed out, verifies Isaiah as the author of...Isaiah. Jesus mentions other Biblical stories as well: Jonah, etc. So we can believe and accept that everything He said has the foundation of truth. This means heaven is real. And so is hell.
Precisely! I wonder if our FRoman friends would allow that we can agree with Jerome AND Luther by deeming these extra books as "edifying" but not Divinely-inspired or useful for determining doctrine of the Christian faith? Must we recognize them as from the Holy Spirit when even their authors admit they aren't speaking as God's prophets or do we NOT have that choice since after listing the books which the RCC considers canonical, including the Apocrypha, the Council of Trent declared:
Further reasons for the rejection of the Apocryphal books as Holy Scripture, we should consider:
At least one of the books included in the Roman Catholic canon disqualifies itself from being prophetic in origin. In 1 Maccabees chapter 4, after the temple was cleansed and the defiled altar torn down, we are told that the stones of the altar were stored “until a prophet should come to tell what to do with them” (v. 46). 1 Maccabees 9:27 explicitly states that at the time of the books writing, prophets of God had already ceased to appear:
Geisler and MacKenzie summarize the failure of the Apocrypha as a whole to pass the test of propheticity:
Second, there is no divine confirmation of any of the writers of the apocryphal books, as there is for prophets who wrote canonical books (e.g., Exod. 4:1-2).
Third, there is no predictive prophecy in the Apocrypha, such as we have in the canonical books (e.g., Isa. 53; Dan. 9; Mic. 5:2) and which is a clear indication of their propheticity.
Fourth, there is no new messianic truth in the Apocrypha. Thus, it adds nothing to the messianic truths of the Old Testament.
Fifth, even the Jewish community, whose books they were, acknowledged that the prophetic gifts had ceased in Israel before the Apocrypha was written (see quotes above).
Sixth, the apocryphal books were never listed in the Jewish Bible along with the “Prophets,” or any other section for that matter.
Seventh, never once is any apocryphal book cited authoritatively by a prophetic book written after it.
Reason #7: The Apocrypha contains doctrinal and historical errors.
The Apocrypha has been used by Roman Catholics to support certain doctrinal errors, including atonement, purgatory, and prayers for the dead (2 Maccabees 12:45: “Therefore he made atonement for the dead, so that they might be delivered from their sin”) and salvation by works (Tobit 12:9: “For almsgiving saves from death and purges away every sin”). This should at least be seen as suspect, especially considering the polemical nature of the Council of Trent and the canonization of the Apocrypha in reaction to the Protestant Reformation.
Furthermore, books such as Judith contain so many historical errors that many scholars conclude it must be a work of historical fiction rather than actual history. If indeed it was intended to be a work of historical fiction, I suppose it cannot be faulted for containing so many historical errors. Bruce Metzger says the following concerning Judith:
Like I already asked, what could possibly be the reason for those who listen to the Holy Spirit's voice in the Scriptures to reject writings supposedly from Him other than His voice is NOT present there? I've read them. I don't hear it or sense the truth revealed through them. What am I missing by not respecting them as Divine?
I didn't. Jerome may have had his arm twisted years later, but you cannot deny his contentions about the place of the Deuteros/Apocryphals. You commented about the use of the word "deuterocanonicals" which simply means "second canon". To call them "Apocryphals" - as many do - merely acknowledges these books did not always have a known author or provenance and that they were not accepted as Divinely-inspired writings. That late third century Christians took an interest in them and wanted them included in a body of religious writings to be edifying to the ecclesiastical community, was not a valid reason to force all of Christendom to receive them as Divinely-inspired, too.
Why did you ignore what I wrote? Trent used these books to try to usurp the authority of the word of God OVER the church and make it subservient to the church. They were and are wrong! Do you disagree? Wasn't this a reaction to the Reformers' rejection of the books as belonging in the canon (rule of faith)? It seems awfully circumstantial if it's not.
I already addressed Jerome and the deuterocanonicals. Why did you ignore what I wrote? By the way, Jerome described those who say he denied the divine authority of the deuterocanonicals, “fools and slanderers.”
“Useful,” “edifying,” etc., has nothing to do with the matter; they were used as part of the sacred Mass, as one of the triune manifestations of the Word (the others being the congregation of saints and the Holy Sacrifice).
>> I didn’t. Jerome may have had his arm twisted years later, but you cannot deny his contentions about the place of the Deuteros/Apocryphals.<<
He did, but I can’t?
“What sin have I committed if I followed the judgment of the churches? [H]e who brings charges against me for relating the objections that the Hebrews are wont to raise against the story of Susanna, the Son of the Three Children, and the story of Bel and the Dragon, which are not found in the Hebrew volume, proves that he is just a foolish sycophant. For I wasn’t relating my own personal views, but rather the remarks that they [the Jews] are wont to make against us”
"Jerome to the Bishops in the Lord Cromatius and Heliodorus, health!
"I do not cease to wonder at the constancy of your demanding. For you demand that I bring a book written in Chaldean words into Latin writing, indeed the book of Tobias, which the Hebrews exclude from the catalogue of Divine Scriptures, being mindful of those things which they have titled Hagiographa. I have done enough for your desire, yet not by my study. For the studies of the Hebrews rebuke us and find fault with us, to translate this for the ears of Latins contrary to their canon. But it is better to be judging the opinion of the Pharisees to displease and to be subject to the commands of bishops. I have persisted as I have been able, and because the language of the Chaldeans is close to Hebrew speech, finding a speaker very skilled in both languages, I took to the work of one day, and whatever he expressed to me in Hebrew words, this, with a summoned scribe, I have set forth in Latin words. I will be paid the price of this work by your prayers, when, by your grace, I will have learned what you request to have been completed by me was worthy."
Do you not get what he has written? He asserts that the Jews exclude the works from Divine Scriptures, even the Hagiographa (by which he means the Scrolls). How can you translate from Hebrew to Latin, when the source is Chaldean? But whereas in other places in his work, he's unclear (until the letter I posted earlier) that it's the Jews', not his own, assertion that deuterocanonicals aren't Divine Scripture, he makes very clear his assessment here: he would rather disregard the opinion of the Pharisees than to have the Bishops condemn him.
To be clear, this would be some sort of ecclesiastical punishment, like being denied communion, rather than physical punishment, since he writes from far away from Bishops Cromatius and Heliodorus. But if anyone should be uncertain that he thinks Cromatius or Heliodorus to act unjustly or heretically, he says, "I will be paid the price of this work by your prayers." If the bishops were sinning, their prayers would be useless.
But also note that when he describes the Jews who denied the canonicity of the deuterocanonicals, he calls them "Pharisees!" Normally, he has such high regard for them. He counts them as friends, and incorrectly presumes that their wording of the Holy Scripture must be far superior than the Septuagint. (The Dead Sea Scrolls include Hebrew-language scripture very similar to what you would get if you translated the Septuagint back to Hebrew.) But here, Jerome calls those Jews who reject the deuterocanonicals by the name by which the gospels call those who killed Christ.
“To be clear, this would be some sort of ecclesiastical punishment,”
I meant to say “At the absolute worst” and that most likely, he simply meant that he would receive a command by them to proceed, but as I pointed out the evidence that he would have to regard any ecclesiastical punishment as just, I forgot to note the unlikelihood he meant ANY punishment.
I would not make that deterministic of a books canonicity, which would eliminate Esther. The essential reason for the establishment of such is the same as for a man of God (why would common people even hold prophets to be of God?), which is their unique enduring spiritual qualities and supernatural attestation, and conflation with what had already been established.
Furthermore, books such as Judith contain so many historical errors that many scholars conclude it must be a work of historical fiction rather than actual history. If indeed it was intended to be a work of historical fiction, I suppose it cannot be faulted for containing so many historical errors. Bruce Metzger says the following concerning Judith: One of the first questions that naturally arises regarding this book is whether it is historical. The consensus, at least among Protestant and Jewish scholars, is that the story is, sheer fiction…the book teems with chronological, historical, and geographical improbabilities and downright errors. For example, Holofernes moves an immense army about three hundred miles in three days (2:21). The opening words of the book, when taken with 2:1ff. and 4:2f., involve the most astonishing historical nonsense, for the author places Nebuchadnezzar’s reign over the Assyrians (in reality he was king of Babylon) at Nineveh (which fell seven years before his accession!) at a time when the Jews had only recently returned from the captivity (actually at this time they were suffering further deportations)! Nebuchadnezzar did not make war on Media (1:7), nor capture Ecbatana (1:14)…The rebuilding of the Temple (4:13) is dated, by a glaring anachronism, about a century too early. Moreover, the Jewish state is represented as being under the government of a high priest and a kind of Sanhedrin (6:6-14; 15:8), which is compatible only with a post-exilic date several hundred years after the book’s presumed historical setting.http://pleaseconvinceme.com/2012/is-the-apocrypha-scripture/#_ftn24
Yes, Judith is certainly manifest as one to be rejected as Scripture. In its intro to Judith even the RC approved NAB Bible discreetly acknowledges the non-historical nature it by saying, ,
"Any attempt to read the book directly against the backdrop of Jewish history in relation to the empires of the ancient world is bound to fail."
The Catholic Study Bible: The New American Bible (by John J. Collins) is more direct:
"The book is certainly not a historical account...it telescopes five centuries of historical and geographical information with imaginary details."
Likewise Tobit is clearly manifest as a fable, (also) being about a women, Sarah, who has lost seven husbands because Asmodeus, the demon of lust, and "the worst of demons," abducts and kills every man she marries on their wedding night before the marriage can be consummated!
And about a man, Tobias, who was sleeping with his eyes open while birds dropped dung into in his eyes (sound sleeper!) and blinded him. And who later is attacked by a fish leaping out of the river to devour him! But Raphael has him capture it and later he burns the fish’s liver and heart to drive away the demon Asmodeus away to Upper Egypt [let the Coptics deal with him?], enabling Tobias and Sarah to finally consummate his marriage.
The RC approved NAB Bible says in its intro to Tobit that it is "folklore," as if that was not obvious, and in rejecting this as Scripture, we have not followed "cunningly devised fables", (2 Peter 1:16) thank God, and which reads like so much of the nonsense in the Talmud, but we are "Not giving heed to Jewish fables..." (Titus 1:14)
The Catholic Study Bible: The New American Bible states:
"Tobit is not a work of history writing. Its author confuses the kings of Assyria, [and] shows an ignorance of the topography of Mesopotamia, and dates Tobit's exile earlier than it could have been."
But if you like fables such proffered literal accounts can be Scripture, while literal historical accounts of canonical Scripture can be called "fables" or "folklore" in Catholic scholarship , which they present as the standard.
Well, let me make sure I understand your point...are you actually saying the Jews "excluded" Ruth, Psalms, Job, Proverbs, Canticles, Lamentations, Ecclesiastes, Daniel, Esther, Ezra and Chronicles (the Hagiographa) from their recognition of what makes up Sacred Scripture? Maybe you are thinking about the "Sadducees—unlike the Pharisees but like the Samaritans—seem to have maintained an earlier and smaller number of texts as canonical, preferring to hold to only what was written in the Law of Moses[18] (making most of the presently accepted canon, both Jewish and Christian, apocryphal in their eyes)." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apocrypha
I'm going to need some actual evidence for that other than what you think Jerome may have meant. Because when he prefaced the Apocrypha/Deuterocanonicals in his Latin translation of the Old Testament, he stated this with the prologues:
In the prologue to Esdras he mentions 3 and 4 Esdras as being apocrypha. In his prologue to the books of Solomon, he says: Also included is the book of the model of virtue (παναρετος) Jesus son of Sirach, and another falsely ascribed work (ψευδεπιγραφος) which is titled Wisdom of Solomon. The former of these I have also found in Hebrew, titled not Ecclesiasticus as among the Latins, but Parables, to which were joined Ecclesiastes and Song of Songs, as though it made of equal worth the likeness not only of the number of the books of Solomon, but also the kind of subjects. The second was never among the Hebrews, the very style of which reeks of Greek eloquence. And none of the ancient scribes affirm this one is of Philo Judaeus. Therefore, just as the Church also reads the books of Judith, Tobias, and the Maccabees, but does not receive them among the canonical Scriptures, so also one may read these two scrolls for the strengthening of the people, (but) not for confirming the authority of ecclesiastical dogmas.
He mentions the book of Baruch in his prologue to the Jeremias and does not explicitly refer to it as apocryphal, but he does mention that "it is neither read nor held among the Hebrews". In his prologue to the Judith he mentions that "among the Hebrews, the authority [of Judith] came into contention", but that it was "counted in the number of Sacred Scriptures" by the First Council of Nicaea. In his reply to Rufinus, he affirmed that he was consistent with the choice of the church regarding which version of the deuterocanonical portions of Daniel to use, which the Jews of his day did not include: What sin have I committed in following the judgment of the churches? But when I repeat what the Jews say against the Story of Susanna and the Hymn of the Three Children, and the fables of Bel and the Dragon, which are not contained in the Hebrew Bible, the man who makes this a charge against me proves himself to be a fool and a slanderer; for I explained not what I thought but what they commonly say against us. (Against Rufinus, II:33 (AD 402)).https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_apocrypha#Vulgate_prologues
Notice the part about "fools and slanderers" was concerning the Story of Susanna and the Hymn of the Three Children, and the fables of Bel and the Dragon - NOT the Hagiography. There is really no denying that the whole issue of these Apocryphal/Deuterocanonical books belonging in the "canon" of Divinely-inspired Scripture has ALWAYS been controversial. I repeat my prior points, if these books were truly inspired by the Holy Spirit, then why would the Jews - unto whom were given the Oracles of God - have rejected them? It's a cop-out to assert they did so because of Christianity seeing as they were supposedly written two hundred years BEFORE Christianity even existed and these books say NOTHING about Christ.
Finally, what do you presume we are missing by not respecting them as Scripture? Why not just admit the true reason for arguing for their inclusion is because Trent "dogmatically" defined them and you can't defy them? Me? I guess I have a higher standard for what I consider my authority. I choose God's TRUE word - that which speaks to my heart and soul, not some men's decision on what is or is not His word. You can keep arguing, but I've said all I want to on this topic. Happy Easter!
It is indeed easy to take things out of context, and thus imagine that by the time of Trent scholars were still under the impression that Jerome's judgment was against the deuteros being held as Scripture proper (not as opposed to writings of them being translated and included in the Bible as edifying, as Luther himself did).
Why your modern Catholic source. also reproves other so-called "church fathers" and your own Catholic Encyclopedia which attests:
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' eph. mine.)
Adding to that is the idea that the Jews excluded works from the Hagiographa - by defining that group according to Catholicism, versus the Jews which gave them that name.
However, the issue is more complicated than you present it, and the conclusion of your source has already been examined at length and contextually countered, in the grace of God. Guest Blog: Did Jerome Change His Mind on the Apocrypha ?
he makes very clear his assessment here: he would rather disregard the opinion of the Pharisees than to have the Bishops condemn him.
Jerome also misused Scripture to perversely argue that marriage was unclean. It is not because we hold his judgment as being superior that we invoke Jerome, but as part of the attesting that the deuteros saw scholarly dissent down thru the centuries and right into Trent.
Of what value is the argument Jerome submitted to Rome? That one should submit to Rome (even though it had yet to indisputably define the canon), based on Catholic logic, that the magisterial stewards of Scripture are the supreme authorities on it?
Well then, since "The scribes and the Pharisees sit in Moses' seat." (Matthew 23:2) And who are held as affirming the Palestinian canon, writings of which are what the NT calls Scripture. And to which tripartite canon the Lord is seen referring to in Luke 24:44,45 which He calls Scriptures.
Even if one correctly holds that the Lord only enjoined conditional obedience to the authority of men, contrary to the presumption of Rome, then dissent can only by justified when in conflict with higher authority. But we have no evidence of the writings of the deuteros ever being called Scripture in the writings of NT church, or "the word of God/the Lord" or the authoritative "it is written," and other terms denoting authority. There can be allusions to somethings in the deuteros, or perhaps scarce short paraphrased quotes, but the same is true of other non-canonical writings.
And if the Lord or such as Paul had invoked or any other writings as authoritative Scripture in preaching to the Jews, contrary to what those who sat in the seat of Moses held, then they would have made that an issue, but which is nowhere manifest.
Jerome calls those Jews who reject the deuterocanonicals by the name by which the gospels call those who killed Christ.
Which means, to be consistent with the logic here, that we should not hold to anything the Pharisees who sat in the seat of Moses did.
The issue then is what the basis is for rejecting some of what they taught while holding to the rest. Again, as regards the canon, arguing that the shorter canon should not be held to since those who sat in the seat of Moses held to it is vain unless there is sufficient warrant for rejecting this judgment, such as what Scripture and the understanding of NT church of Scripture provides for the New Covenant.
But which does not attest to the deuteros attaining to the level of Scripture, and being in conflict with the Scribes and Pharisees, to whom Paul and the NT church reasoned out of the Scriptures to, without conflict as to what Scripture was.
But for a RC, the real basis for holding to a canon remains to be the novel and unScriptural premise of ensured perpetual magisterial infallibility. For as with the Assumption, that is the real basis for assurance that such "historical" fables as Tobit and Judith are wholly inspired, as well as the rest of the deuteros and entire RC Bible, (even if Catholics typically read or hear little of it).
The New American Bible triggered a crisis in Rome, for its skeptic-dominated commentary, not just towards the deuterocanonicals, but even the gospels themsleves. It had been full of commentary such as that the Gospel of Luke had to have been written after the Fall of the Temple of Jerusalem, as if the words of Jesus were a pure invention. It was heavily re-edited at the command of Pope John Paul II, and its editors were forced to include a clarification — with no exception given the deuterocanonicals — that scripture is inerrant.
The Catholic Encyclopedia was more faithful, but it was hardly authoritative. Although its topics were Catholic, it tried to represent the prevailing opinions of historians, as it knew them to be, in Protestant-dominated mid-Western, English-speaking America. Unlike the NAB, I’d decline to call it heretical, but it often represents what Protestants thought about Catholic topics, rather than the Catholic apologetics to the Protestant notions.
>> Finally, what do you presume we are missing by not respecting them as Scripture? <<
The Council of Trent certainly managed to use the books accepted by Luther to utterly refute every one of Luther’s arguments. But the inclusion of the deuterocanonicals provide a valuable context to understand what was meant by New Testament passages that otherwise could be ambiguous, such as the merit of offerings for the atonement of others, the meaning of the Feast of the Dedication, the prayers of the souls in Heaven for those on Earth, the nature of purgatory, etc. What moral doctrine would you miss if you removed the book of Job? Esther? Lamentations?
>> Why not just admit the true reason for arguing for their inclusion is because Trent “dogmatically” defined them and you can’t defy them? <<
It’s hard to take seriously the begging question, “Why not admit your argument is based solely on the need to maintain your argument?” Why do you think Trent dogmatically defined them, then?
Meaning that, along with a church whose leadership elected a liberal divisive pope, this is your church's sanctioned America Bible, with its notes, and its sanctioned encyclopedia. And that this amalgam is the church RCs tell us we not need to leave conservative evangelical fellowships for, and become brethren with Ted Kennedy-type RCs as well as cultic devotees who rail against Bergoglio. While "..the one duty of the multitude is to allow themselves to be led, and, like a docile flock, to follow the Pastors." - Vehementer Nos, an Encyclical of Pope Pius X promulgated on February 11, 1906. (The devil is in the details).
>> Meaning that, along with a church whose leadership elected a liberal divisive pope, this is your church’s sanctioned America Bible, with its notes, <<
I’d like to stick to theology here, but if you want to talk about historical errors like the 1st-edition NAB, thank God there was an authority to correct the notes of the bible. Unlike Protestant bibles, which abound in heresies. Of course, the first-edition King James Bible, in which God commanded, “Thou shall commit murder,” etc., so it’s not like Protestants have never fixed heretical bibles.
>> and its sanctioned encyclopedia. <<
No, the encyclopedia is not Church-sanctioned. At best, you could say that the local bishop ruled that it contained no obvious heresy by allowing its publication with a note of “Nihil Obstat” (no objection). And for 90 years, it rested in near utter obscurity, until it was published on the internet since its copyright had lapsed. Thereafter. Protestant apologetics turned it into something it never was: the defining word of Catholic belief.
If you doubt its obscurity, note that there were no subsequent editions.
>> While “..the one duty of the multitude is to allow themselves to be led, and, like a docile flock, to follow the Pastors.” - Vehementer Nos, an Encyclical of Pope Pius X promulgated on February 11, 1906. <<
You keep changing the subject. From “How many Isaiahs” to the deuterocanonicals, to the NAB now to Vehementer Nos? Do Protestants not call their congregational leaders, “pastors?” Here, Pope Pius X is addressing the nation of France, after it had brought in an anti-Christian, secularist government. He warns them that the State cannot be divorced from Christianity else calamity will befall society. Was he not proven correct?
The problem with NAB is that it was corrupted by even Church leaders following pop culture and secular ideology... and Rome intervened and set things straight. You attack the Church because the NAB looked to secular culture for biblical exegesis ... until the Pope straightened them out, then attack the Church because the Pope condemned looking to secular culture for moral guidance!
Well, of course this would be your conclusion! I wouldn't expect any different. I've got news for you...Trent couldn't refute every one of Luther's arguments - utterly or otherwise. Asserting the Apocrypha clarifies the false teachings of Catholicism only shows the desperate measures Trent took to try to counter the Reformation. Have you ever actually read the so-called "valuable context" these writings are said to teach about a nonexistent place called "Purgatory"? It's laughable! God's word doesn't teach it. There is no "ambiguity" therefore there is no need for non-inspired human ideas and fantasies to establish it.
Thank you for admitting - whether you realize it or not - that it really was/is the motivation behind defending these books. Once again, I'm done spending time with you on this topic. Your mind is made up, so is mine. Have a nice week.
So if the doctor and is not found only in the deuterocanonicals you complain that that proves that the deuterocanonical are unnecessary. And therefore can’t be scripture. But if the doctrine is found only in the deuterocanonicals, then you insist that that’s why the Catholic Church insists on the authenticity of the deuterocanonical books, and use that to argue that the deuterocanonicals aren’t real. So either way, you insist to deuterocanonicals aren’t real. And yet reality still doesn’t work out for you, because the reality is that the New Testament does establish all of those doctrines, but the deuterocanonical books help provide a context so Protestant apologist can’t lie about what those doctrines really mean.
“Doctor and “ is how the phone heard “doctrine.”
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.