How Many Isaiahs Wrote Isaiah?

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.

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.”

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).

1 Cor 3:15 10 By the grace God has given me, I laid a foundation as a wise builder, and someone else is building on it. But each one should build with care. 11 For no one can lay any foundation other than the one already laid, which is Jesus Christ. 12 If anyone builds on this foundation using gold, silver, costly stones, wood, hay or straw, 13 their work will be shown for what it is, because the Day will bring it to light. It will be revealed with fire, and the fire will test the quality of each person’s work. 14 If what has been built survives, the builder will receive a reward. 15 If it is burned up, the builder will suffer loss but yet will be saved—even though only as one escaping through the flames.

Which is utterly invalidated as support for purgatory due to the fact that,

1. The judgment event of 1Co. 3 is the judgment seat of Christ, with its giving of rewards and loss thereof, which does not occur until the Lords return and the believers resurrection. (1Cor. 3:8ff; 4:5; 2Tim. 4:1,8; Rev.11:18; Mt. 25:31-46; 1Pt. 1:7; 5:4) versus purgatory, which (typically prolonged) suffering commences at death in order to enable souls to enter Heaven.

For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ; that every one may receive the things done in his body, according to that he hath done, whether it be good or bad. (2 Corinthians 5:10)

I charge thee therefore before God, and the Lord Jesus Christ, who shall judge the quick and the dead at his appearing and his kingdom; (2 Timothy 4:1)

Henceforth there is laid up for me a crown of righteousness, which the Lord, the righteous judge, shall give me at that day: and not to me only, but unto all them also that love his appearing. (2 Timothy 4:8)

[ The judgment of 1 Cor. 3:15 will reveal what manner of workmanship they were building church with, for “Every man's work shall be made manifest: for the day shall declare it, because it shall be revealed by fire,” and while saving faith is one that characteristically walks in the obedience of faith, (Heb. 5:9) believers may suffer loss of rewards due to their manner of workmanship.

The fire burns up the fake stones, which like the tares of Mt. 13:40 at the end, are represented here as wood, hay or stubble, while the precious stones with fire-tried faith (1Pt. 1:7) endure, and gain rewards for the instruments of their faithfulness. Thus Paul says to the Thessalonians, "For what is our hope, or joy, or crown of rejoicing? Are not even ye in the presence of our Lord Jesus Christ at his coming? " (1 Thess. 2:19; cf. Rv. 3:11) And to the Corinthians, “we are your rejoicing, even as ye also are ours in the day of the Lord Jesus.” 2Cor. 1:14) And to the Philippians, that being “my joy and crown, so stand fast in the Lord, my dearly beloved.” (Phil. 4:1)

2. Wherever NT Scripture manifestly deals with the next conscious reality for believers, it is to be with the Lord . (Phil 1:23; 2Cor. 5:8 [“we”]; Heb, 12:22,23; 1Cor. 15:51ff'; 1Thess. 4:17)

Not only did the penitent criminal go to "paradise" at death (Lk. 23:43; cf. 2Cor. 12:4; Rv. 2:7) as did Stephen, (Acts 7:59) but so would Paul and co. be with the Lord once absent from the body (Phil. 1:23,24) - even though Paul told the Philippians that was he not “already perfect.” (Phil. 3:12). Likewise he stated to the Corinthians, "We [plural] are confident, I say, and willing rather to be absent from the body, and to be present with the Lord." (2 Corinthians 5:8) and so would every believer if the Lord returned in their lifetime: “to meet the Lord in the air: and so shall we ever be with the Lord.” (1Thess. 4:17; 1Cor. 15:51ff - even though many believers were in need of greater holiness. (2Cor. 7:1)

Paul confessed he was not already practically perfect, (Phil. 3:12) but he earnestly desired to become as much in this life (to "know him, and the power of his resurrection, being made conformable unto his death" - Philippians 3:10) as he would via the resurrection, yet he knew that if he died before that then he would be with the Lord.

Therefore we are always confident, knowing that, whilst we are at home in the body, we are absent from the Lord: (For we walk by faith, not by sight). We are confident, I say, and willing rather to be absent from the body, and to be present with the Lord. (2 Corinthians 5:6-8)

For to me to live is Christ, and to die is gain. But if I live in the flesh, this is the fruit of my labour: yet what I shall choose I wot not. For I am in a strait betwixt two, having a desire to depart, and to be with Christ; which is far better: (Philippians 1:21-23)

I press toward the mark for the prize of the high calling of God in Christ Jesus. Let us therefore, as many as be perfect, be thus minded: and if in any thing ye be otherwise minded, God shall reveal even this unto you. (Philippians 3:14-15)

Brethren, be followers together of me, and mark them which walk so as ye have us for an ensample. (Philippians 3:17)

For our conversation is in heaven; from whence also we look for the Saviour, the Lord Jesus Christ: Who shall change our vile body, that it may be fashioned like unto his glorious body, according to the working whereby he is able even to subdue all things unto himself. (Philippians 3:20-21)

3. And as expressed in that verse and others, the resurrection is the only transformative event the believer manifestly looks forward to after this life (Rm. 8:23; 2Co. 5:1-4; Phil 3:20,21; 1Jn. 3:2) — not purgatory, which suffering commences at death in order to enable souls to enter Heaven.

4. Furthermore, Scripture only reveals growth in grace and overcoming as being realized in this world, with its temptations and trials, (1 Peter 1:6-7; 1Jn.2:14; 5:4,5; Rv. 2.7,11,17,26; 3:5,12,21) where alternatives to submitting to God can be made (suffering itself does not make one mature) and thus it was here that the Lord Himself was made “perfect,” (Heb. 2:10) as in being “in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin.” (Heb. 4:15)

Thus what Scripture teaches is that it is on earth that testing and overcoming takes place, and that the elect go to be with the Lord upon death, or at His return, whichever comes first, and then they are judged as to the manner of works, reflecting their faith, and rewarded or suffer loss of rewards.

Finally,m even the notes to the RC NAB state, "The text of ⇒ 1 Cor 3:15 has sometimes been used to support the notion of purgatory, though it does not envisage this. (http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0839/__PZ8.HTM#$4AC) And also states that the judgment here is the great day of the Lord.

First, thanks for calling the deuterocanonicals. One great source of confusion among many Protestants comes from several Church Fathers denouncing “apocrypha,” by which they meant an entirely different set of books: writings which were either supposedly hidden from all but initiated Christians, or which contained hidden meanings. Hence, apocrypha means, “hidden writings.” Apply the term to the deuterocanonicals makes no sense.

>> Do they imagine the Jewish people - unto whom Paul said were given the “Oracles of God” - would not have recognized and received the Apocryphal/Deuterocanonicals had they truly been given by God? <<

They did. They were included in the canon of the Dead Sea Scrolls, and the canon of the Septuagint. But whereas the Jews of Jesus’ time regarded the Second Temple as divinely instituted, and the Maccabean dynasty as divinely ordained, later Jews disputed these notions in light of the destruction of the Temple and the corruption of the Hasmoneans. (An odd argument, since the First Temple was destroyed and the Solomonic dynasty corrupted.) Thus, the books which (1) pointed to the Resurrection, (2) pointed to an imminent Messiah, and (3) legitimized the 2nd Temple and the Maccabean dynasty were denigrated.

It’s not so cut-and-dry as to say that the Jews REMOVED the deuterocanonicals from the canon; at the time of Jesus, there was great disagreement among Jews as to which books were in the canon. IIRC, the Samaritans accepted only the Torah but rejected the Prophets; the Saduccees accepted the Torah and the Prophets (Nevi’im), but rejected the Scrools; and the Pharisees accepted the Torah and the Prophets and the Scrolls (Ketuvim), but weren’t unanimous about the content of the Scrolls. By the way, the names of these three groups of books may be misleading: the book of Psalms is among the Prophets, for instance, whereas the Book of Daniel is among the Scrolls.

>> Why didn’t Paul, Peter, John, James, etc. - or Jesus for that matter - ever speak of these books as the word of God like they did most of the others? <<

They cite only 22 of 39 Protestant-canon books, but 5 out of 7 deuterocanonicals. In general, they rarely cite the Books of the Scrolls, among which the deuterocanonicals had been counted.

>> Do they defend these books as Divine because they really believe they are or is it because the Council Of Trent dogmatically declared them as so and they MUST stick by the Council or admit they were in error? <<

Ask the 15 centuries of Christians who regarded them as sacred scripture BEFORE the Council of Trent, or the non-Roman, non-Protestant churches who regard them as sacred scripture.

>> Why does it appear that Trent only dogmatically defined those books to reject the Reformers’ points about them not being from God? <<

Trent was the first infallible, ecumenical council to define the contents of the bible at all. Ecumenical councils rule infallibly only when a doctrine has been challenged; saying a council invented a doctrine is like saying that Heller vs. DC invented the 2nd amendment. There were, however, other synods (councils) which defined the contents of the bible. They were not all identical*, but they all included the deuterocanonicals.

(*1. Prior to Trent, some councils included III Ezra, a.k.a. Greek Ezra. The Council defined the canon as those books essential to define Revealed Doctrine. But Greek Ezra included virtually no unique doctrine. 2. Some ancient sources include the Letter of Jeremiah, but this is not contrary to the Trent canon; the Letter of Jeremiah is part of the Book of Baruch. 3. IV Ezra has been published in many Christian bibles, and often included in lists of books of the bible prior to the Council of Trent; none of these lists represented the work product of a synod, nor claimed to establish a canon.)

>> When examined closely, they really don’t help support Catholic doctrines that were not already found in the undisputed books and which the Reformers also held to. <<

Yes, Luther attacked the Deuterocanonicals (among which he listed 7 New Testament books, including Revelation, Hebrew, 2 Peter, 2 and 3 John and James) as being non-biblical since they had been used to teach him of Catholic doctrine he rejected. In the Council of Trent’s response to Luther, however, the Council provided excellent support for these doctrines. Some, however, rely on syllogism or references which are ambiguous when divorced from a context which includes the deuterocanonicals.

The Jewish canon was closed in 70 to 80 AD (i.e. after Christ) at the council of Jamnia.

Which is not a viable polemic.

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.

HOWEVER note that In 1947, this whole argument collapsed like a deck of cards when a young Bedouin boy searching for a goat in a cave near Khirbat Qumran on the Left Bank of the Dead Sea stumbled upon Hebrew Originals For Deuterocanonical Books

The DSS does not help you, since it contained books not held as canonical by Rome either, like the Book of Enoch, the Book of Jubilees, Psalms 152–155, etc. "...These [DSS] included not only the community's Bible (the Old Testament) but their library, with fragments of hundreds of books. Among these were some Old Testament Apocryphal books. The fact that no commentaries were found for an Apocryphal book, and only canonical books were found in the special parchment and script indicates that the Apocryphal books were not viewed as canonical by the Qumran community. — The Apocrypha - Part Two Dr. Norman Geisler http://www.jashow.org/Articles/_PDFArchives/theological-dictionary/TD1W0602.pd ^

Now these were rejected either because it gave too much weight to the Christian arguments

Hardly. for the deuteros provides little support for Christian teachings as manifest in the inspired record of what the NT church believed (Acts -Rev.). And they provide fables and inaccuracies and testimony to deviation from canonical Scripture.

The Jews of Jesus's time did not have a closed canon.

Neither did your church for all but about 500 years of your history (and whether Trent actually closed the canon - versus defining what was Scripture- is a matter of discussion among RCs), but for the Jews of Jesus's time it is abundantly evidenced there was a authoritative canon - a body of writings established as being Scripture - variously referred to, among other terms, as Scripture, (Matthew 21:42 Matthew 22:29 Matthew 26:54 Matthew 26:56 Mark 12:10 Mark 12:24 Mark 14:49 Mark 15:28 Luke 4:21 Luke 24:27 Luke 24:32 Luke 24:45 John 2:22 John 5:39 John 7:38 John 7:42 John 10:35 John 13:18 John 17:12 John 19:24 John 19:28 John 19:36 John 19:37 John 20:9 Acts 1:16 Acts 8:32 Acts 8:35 Acts 17:2 Acts 17:11 Acts 18:24 Acts 18:28 Romans 1:2 Romans 4:3 Romans 9:17 Romans 10:11 Romans 11:2 Romans 15:4 Romans 16:26 1 Corinthians 15:3 1 Corinthians 15:4 Galatians 3:8 Galatians 3:22 Galatians 4:30 1 Timothy 5:18 2 Timothy 3:15 2 Timothy 3:16 James 2:8 James 2:23 James 4:5 1 Peter 2:6 2 Peter 1:20 2 Peter 3:16)

Or are invoked as authoritative such as by "it is written," (Matthew 2:5 Matthew 4:4 Matthew 4:6 Matthew 4:7 Matthew 4:10 Matthew 11:10 Matthew 21:13 Matthew 26:24 Matthew 26:31 Mark 1:2 Mark 7:6 Mark 9:12 Mark 9:13 Mark 14:21 Mark 14:27 Luke 2:23 Luke 3:4 Luke 4:4 Luke 4:8 Luke 4:10 Luke 7:27 Luke 19:46 Luke 24:46 John 6:31 John 6:45 John 12:14 Acts 1:20 Acts 7:42 Acts 15:15 Acts 23:5 Romans 1:17 Romans 2:24 Romans 3:4 Romans 3:10 Romans 4:17 Romans 8:36 Romans 9:13 Romans 9:33 Romans 10:15 Romans 11:8 Romans 11:26 Romans 12:19 Romans 14:11 Romans 15:3 Romans 15:9 Romans 15:21 1 Corinthians 1:19 1 Corinthians 1:31 1 Corinthians 2:9 1 Corinthians 3:19 1 Corinthians 9:9 1 Corinthians 10:7 1 Corinthians 14:21 1 Corinthians 15:45 2 Corinthians 4:13 2 Corinthians 8:15 2 Corinthians 9:9 Galatians 3:10 Galatians 3:13) Galatians 4:22 Galatians 4:27 Hebrews 10:7 1 Peter 1:16) which are not used for non-canonical writings. . There is a difference btwn alluding to or invoking a Truth spoken in non-canonical books in order to support a teaching, but not as authoritative such as "it is written," versus quoting such as being authoritative which men were expected to know and submit to, as in the case with the Lord's reproof of the Jews.

This is demonstrated in Scripture by the Sadducees, who accepted only the Torah as Scripture, unlike the Pharisees. Multiple canons were floating around.

But the Lord did not say "The Sadducees sit in Moses' seat" (Matthew 23:2) but "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," "It is written" and other terms denoting authority which are not used for the deuteros. And to which tripartite canon the Lord is seen referring to in Luke 24:44,45 which He calls Scriptures.

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.

• One was the Palestinian canon, which corresponds to what Jews and Protestants use today.

Which gives the Protestant canon the most ancient strongest authority. “...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.” (The Catholic Encyclopedia>Canon of the Old Testament)

"Why didn't Paul, Peter, John, James, etc. - or Jesus for that matter - ever speak of these books as the word of God like they did most of the others? " -- actually they did

WRONG. They never did, unless you mean by merely making allusions to such or even some reference versus actually calling such Scripture.or authoritative as "it is written," or "the word of God/the Lord."

Jesus quoted from these books -- Matthew 7:12, and Luke 6:31, He referenced Tobit 4:16

Your uncritical, unattributed, non-referenced lifting this poorly punctuated section from http://www.ewtn.com/v/experts/showmessage.asp?number=351097 bites you, since "Give of thy bread to the hungry, and of thy garments to them that are naked; and according to thine abundance give alms: and let not thine eye be envious, when thou givest alms." (Tobit 4:16) is not quoted or referenced in Matthew 7:12, (Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them: for this is the law and the prophets," cf. Luke 6:31), which is actually alludes to Leviticus 19:18. At best all you can try to claim is a similarity in Tobit 4:16 in part to a basic teaching such as seen in Ezekiel 18:7,8 ("hath given his bread to the hungry, and hath covered the naked with a garment") which was written long before Tobit, and to 2 Corinthians 8:14 ("at this time your abundance may be a supply for their want") and the "evil eye" of Mark 7:22. The issue however, is not whether the deuteros contains moral teaching or not, which other writings also can, but that it is not wholly inspired Scripture.

Next on your desperate attempt:

Matthew 9:13, He quoted Hosea 6:6

Which "But go ye and learn what that meaneth, I will have mercy, and not sacrifice" along with Mt. 12:7 refers to, but is not referenced, Hosea 6:6." For I desired mercy, and not sacrifice; and the knowledge of God more than burnt offerings." (Hosea 6:6) But the preface "go ye and learn what that meaneth," denotes authority, and Hosea is canonical.

Next up,

Matthew 13:43, He quoted Wisdom 3:7

Which is not a quote, but partly a similarity with the righteous shining with "they shall shine:" "Then shall the righteous shine forth as the sun in the kingdom of their Father. Who hath ears to hear, let him hear." (Matthew 13:43) "And in the time of their visitation they shall shine, and run to and fro like sparks among the stubble." (Wisdom 3:7)

Thus the Lord is simply affirming a prophetic Truth, but does not invoke the source as Scripture, or otherwise as an authoritative source. That said, I wold say that , apart from false attribution, the Wisdom of Solomon is the closest book to inspired Scripture among the deuteros.

Next,

Matthew 22:32, He quoted Exodus 3:6

Which is Scripture, and notice the preface: "have ye not read that which was spoken unto you by God, saying, I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob? God is not the God of the dead, but of the living." (Matthew 22:31-32) This is a quote indeed, and is clearly invoked to as the authoritative word of God they were expected to have read.

Matthew 22:37, He quoted Deuteronomy 6:5

This is also a quote, though "might: in Dt. 6:5 is "mind" in Mt. 22:37, and Mk 12:29, and Lk. 10:27 have both. But which is prefaced by, "Master, which is the great commandment in the law?" (Matthew 22:36) thus invoking it as Scripture.

Matthew 22:39, He quoted Leviticus 19:18

Likewise as above. Your priest is trying to show both the Hebrew canon and the deuteros being referenced as authoritative Scripture but fails to see the differences.

Matthew 22:44, He quoted Psalms 110:1

Likewise, this is prefaced by "David in spirit call him Lord, saying," (v. 43) this clearly referring to this as wholly inspired of God, which is not what your proffered postulations are.

Mark 7:6-8, He quoted Isaiah 29:13 Again, the Isaiah 29:13 paraphrase in Mark "This people honoureth me with their lips, but their heart is far from me" is prefaced by "Well hath Esaias prophesied of you hypocrites, as it is written," (Mark 7:6) thus being referenced as authoritative writing which they were expected to heed.

John 14:23, He referenced Ecclesiasticus (Sirach)2:15-16, (Septuagint) or Sirach 2:18 (Confraternity).

It must take a lot of desperate wrangling and eisegesis to get "For a while he will abide with thee, but if thou begin to fall, he will not tarry. An enemy speaketh sweetly with his lips, but in his heart he imagineth how to throw thee into a pit: he will weep with his eyes, but if he find opportunity, he will not be satisfied with blood." (Sirach 12:15-16) And, Saying, We will fall into the hands of the Lord, and not into the hands of men: for as his majesty is, so is his mercy. (Sirach 2:18) Out of "Jesus answered and said unto him, If a man love me, he will keep my words: and my Father will love him, and we will come unto him, and make our abode with him." (John 14:23)

Thus rather than your pilfered polemic supporting your case, it manifests distinctions which weaken it.

Then Paul -- the most allusions are found in Paul’s letter to the Romans with a total of 76 instances. The Wisdom of Solomon is particularly prominent, especially within the first few chapters – perhaps reflecting their shared belief that wisdom (and the divine) can be learnt through an observation of creation.

The same rule would apply as above. But as with Enoch, Scripture can show us what parts of a writing are fit to be invoked as authoritative.

We declare them as worthy of canon because they were decided in Canon by people far closer to the time of the Apostles in teh 4th century. Why do you say they shouldnt' be included? On what basis? On the basis of some 17th or 18th century dudes?

Once again you are guilty of engaging in the typical Catholic practice of engaging in an argument that was already refuted. The In reality, scholarly disagreements over the canonicity (proper) of certain books continued down through the centuries and right into Trent, until it provided the first "infallible," indisputable canon - after the death of Luther.

Thus Luther was no maverick but had substantial RC support for his non-binding canon.

The Catholic Encyclopedia even 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)

These book sare in the KJV and Luther's bible, not as a reaction to Trent and Trent wasn't a counter-reaction

Again, the issue is not where the deuteros can be edifying, which Pilgrims Progress is, but whether they warrant being classed as Scripture. Following an ancient practice, Luther did translate and include most of the deuteros in his Bible, and stated his canon was not binding, and which Prots do not wholly follow. Instead of him because the cause of the absence of the deuteros, our canonical books were established as being so essentially due to their unique enduring supernatural qualities and attestation (like as great men of God are to be), since the word of God is as Hebrews 4:12 says, and not by conciliar decree and mandated inclusion and reading. Consequently, the deuteros were dropped from KJV Bibles due to lack of popularity and thus in order to save publishers money, back in the day when that cost was more significant.

In contrast, your basis for assurance that the deuteros is Scripture is ot rest upon the novel and unScriptural premise of ensured perpetual magisterial infallibility.

Now these debates were in the 3rd and 4th century and canon was closed and accepted for 1200 years. Even in the first KJV and Luther's bible you have these books. ..You don't state your opinion,just the opinions of folks 1700 years after Christ. Come on, that is nonsensical.

Why do you still parrot such propaganda which has been exposed as such so many times on FR? Or have you forgotten. As said and substantiated, In reality, scholarly disagreements over the canonicity (proper) of certain books continued down through the centuries and right into Trent, until it provided the first "infallible," indisputable canon - after the death of Luther.

Thus Luther was no maverick but had substantial past and contemporary RC support for his non-binding canon, and which was thus not made part of the papal list of offenses against him, unlike anachronistic RCs like you.

If i must, even if just as regards Trent in part,

Among those dissenting at Trent was Augustinian friar, Italian theologian and cardinal and papal legate Girolamo Seripando. As Catholic historian Hubert Jedin (German), who wrote the most comprehensive description of the Council (2400 pages in four volumes) explained, “he was aligned with the leaders of a minority that was outstanding for its theological scholarship” at the Council of Trent.” Jedin further writes:

►: “Tobias, Judith, the Book of Wisdom, the books of Esdras, Ecclesiasticus, the books of the Maccabees, and Baruch are only "canonici et ecclesiastici" and make up the canon morum in contrast to the canon fidei. These, Seripando says in the words of St. Jerome, are suited for the edification of the people, but they are not authentic, that is, not sufficient to prove a dogma. Seripando emphasized that in spite of the Florentine canon the question of a twofold canon was still open and was treated as such by learned men in the Church. Without doubt he was thinking of Cardinal Cajetan, who in his commentary on the Epistle to the Hebrews accepted St. Jerome's view which had had supporters throughout the Middle Ages.” (Hubert Jedin, Papal Legate At The Council Of Trent (St Louis: B. Herder Book Co., 1947), pp. 270-271)

►“While Seripando abandoned his view as a lost cause, Madruzzo, the Carmelite general, and the Bishop of Agde stood for the limited canon, and the bishops of Castellamare and Caorle urged the related motion to place the books of Judith, Baruch, and Machabees in the "canon ecclesiae." From all this it is evident that Seripando was by no means alone in his views. In his battle for the canon of St. Jerome and against the anathema and the parity of traditions with Holy Scripture, he was aligned with the leaders of a minority that was outstanding for its theological scholarship.” (ibid, 281-282; https://aomin.org/aoblog/index.php?blogid=1&query=cajetan)

Cardinal Cajetan who himself was actually an adversary of Luther, and who was sent by the Pope in 1545 to Trent as a papal theologian, had reservations about the apocrypha as well as certain N.T. books based upon questionable apostolic authorship.

►"On the eve of the Reformation, it was not only Luther who had problems with the extent of the New Testament canon. Doubts were being expressed even by some of the loyal sons of the Church. Luther's opponent at Augsburg, Cardinal Cajetan, following Jerome, expressed doubts concerning the canonicity of Hebrews, James, 2 and 3 John, and Jude. Of the latter three he states, "They are of less authority than those which are certainly Holy Scripture."⁶³

►The Catholic Encyclopedia confirms this saying that “he seemed more than three centuries in advance of his day in questioning the authenticity of the last chapter of St. Mark, the authorship of several epistles, viz., Hebrews, James, II Peter, II and III John, Jude...”— http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03145c.htm

►Erasmus likewise expressed doubts concerning Revelation as well as the apostolicity of James, Hebrews and 2 Peter. It was only as the Protestant Reformation progressed, and Luther's willingness to excise books from the canon threatened Rome that, at Trent, the Roman Catholic Church hardened its consensus stand on the extent of the New Testament canon into a conciliar pronouncement.⁶⁴http://bible.org/article/evangelicals-and-canon-new-testament#P136_48836

►Theologian Cardinal Cajetan stated, in his Commentary on All the Authentic Historical Books of the Old Testament (dedicated to Pope Clement VII ):

"Here we close our commentaries on the historical books of the Old Testament. For the rest (that is, Judith, Tobit, and the books of Maccabees) are counted by St. Jerome out of the canonical books, and are placed amongst the apocrypha, along with Wisdom and Ecciesiasticus, as is plain from the Protogus Galeatus. Nor be thou disturbed, like a raw scholar, if thou shouldest find anywhere, either in the sacred councils or the sacred doctors, these books reckoned as canonical. For the words as well of councils as of doctors are to be reduced to the correction of Jerome.

Now, according to his judgment, in the epistle to the bishops Chromatius and Heliodorus, these books (and any other like books in the canon of the Bible) are not canonical, that is, not in the nature of a rule for confirming matters of faith. Yet, they may be called canonical, that is, in the nature of a rule for the edification of the faithful, as being received and authorised in the canon of the Bible for that purpose. By the help of this distinction thou mayest see thy way clearly through that which Augustine says, and what is written in the provincial council of Carthage.” . ("A Disputation on Holy Scripture" by William Whitaker (Cambridge: University, 1849), p. 48. Cf. Cosin's A Scholastic History of the Canon, Volume III, Chapter XVII, pp. 257-258 and B.F. Westcott's A General Survey of the Canon of the New Testament, p. 475.)

►Following Jerome, Cajetan also relegated the deuterocanonical books of the Old Testament to a secondary place where they could serve piety but not the teaching of revealed doctrine. — Jared Wicks tr., Cajetan Responds: A Reader in Reformation Controversy (Washington: The Catholic University Press of America, 1978). See also Cardinal Cajetan, "Commentary on all the Authentic Historical Books of the Old Testament," Bruce Metzger, An Introduction to the Apocrypha (New York: Oxford, 1957), p. 180.)

Cajetan was also highly regarded by many, even if opposed by others: The Catholic Encyclopedia states, "It has been significantly said of Cajetan that his positive teaching was regarded as a guide for others and his silence as an implicit censure. His rectitude, candour, and moderation were praised even by his enemies. Always obedient, and submitting his works to ecclesiastical authority, he presented a striking contrast to the leaders of heresy and revolt, whom he strove to save from their folly." And that "It was the common opinion of his contemporaries that had he lived, he would have succeeded Clement VII on the papal throne.” — Catholic Encyclopedia>Tommaso de Vio Gaetani Cajetan

Thanks for your lengthy and detailed criticism of Post #91. What I have found is that in trying to answer the many instances of Cronos' obfuscation, misdirection, and just plain errors one can quickly get bogged down. So I was trying to formulate a response to just one portion of it that you also have addressed in this post, and the essence of the passages included:

Cronos: Jesus quoted from these books -- Matthew 7:12, and Luke 6:31, He referenced Tobit 4:16

daniel 1212: Your uncritical, unattributed, non-referenced lifting this poorly punctuated section from http://www.ewtn.com/v/experts/showmessage.asp?number=351097 bites you, . . .

Your observation here is, I believe, not quite right (as will be shown), but it certainly is not wrong.

What I have observed that Cronos, and others like him (they?) continually draw their water from wells that inevitably are tainted with Romishness, that do not poison unless one sips of them for nourishment. Like the waters from Laodicea, you just rinse your mouth with it and spirit it out, then drink from the clean, pure wells of Salvation (Is. 12:3).

After sloshing around in this mess for a couple of hours, trying to find comparable sources for the DC passages cited, getting tired, putting it down for a while, then coming back, the following is a summary of what I've been led to. Here are various renderings of the particular lesson attributed to Tobit:

======

KJV/AV translation from the Textus Receptus (Byzantine/Majority Textform):
Mt. 7:12 Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them:
for this is the law and the prophets.
Lk. 6:31 And as ye would that men should do to you, do ye also to them likewise.

DRB Translation from ??? source(s):
Mt. 7:12 All things therefore whatsoever you would that men should do to you, do you also to them.
For this is the law and the prophets.
Lk. 6:31 And as you would that men should do to you, do you also to them in like manner.

Jerome's Vulgate:
Mt. 7:12 omnia ergo quaecumque vultis ut faciant vobis homines et vos facite
eis haec est enim lex et prophetae
Lk. 6:31 et prout vultis ut faciant vobis homines et vos facite illis similiter
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Septuagint (LXX) record of Tobit:
Tob. 4:15^A καὶ ὃ μισεῖς, μηδενὶ ποιήσῃς.^B οἶνον εἰς μέθην μὴ πίῃς, καὶ μὴ πορευθήτω μετὰ σοῦ μέθη ἐν τῇ ὁδῷ σου.
Tob. 4:16 ἐκ τοῦ ἄρτου σου δίδου πεινῶντι καὶ ἐκ τῶν ἱματίων σου τοῖς γυμνοῖς· πᾶν, ὃ ἐὰν περισσεύσῃ σοι, ποίει ἐλεημοσύνην, καὶ μὴ φθονεσάτω σου ὁ ὀφθαλμὸς ἐν τῷ ποιεῖν σε ἐλεημοσύνην.
Revised Standard Version Catholic Edition (RSVCE) translation:
Tob. 4:15^A RSVCE And what you hate, do not do^B to any one^C.
Do not drink wine to excess or let drunkenness go with you on your way.
Tob. 4:16 RSVCE Give of your bread to the hungry, and of your clothing to the naked.
Give all your surplus to charity, and do not let your eye begrudge the gift when you made it.

The Revised Standard Version of the Bible: Catholic Edition, copyright © 1965, 1966 the Division of Christian Education of the National Council of the Churches of Christ in the United States of America. All rights reserved.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Vulgate rendering of Tobit^D:

Tob 4:16 Vulgate quod ab alio odis fieri tibi vide ne alteri tu aliquando facias
Douay-Rheims Version rendering (translation from the Vulgate):
Tob 4:16 See thou never do to another what thou wouldst hate to have done to thee by another.
=========

You see what was done there? My conclusions are embodied in the notes as follows:

^A = irregularity in numbering of Tobit verses between versions (I think you unintentionally fell into this pothole)

^B = the correct, unembroidered true thought from Tobit that might have been a writing underlying Jesus' targum on the Golden Rule. But this merely originally says only, "What you hate, don't do" and no more.

^C = gratuitous addition by the translator, thus adding an uninspired human philosophical aspect, not a function of translation, but rather an uninvited interpretation of this phrase. This kind of amplification and conflation of, and tampering with Scripture has been characteristic of the Romanist tradition from its beginnings in Alexandria (Sinaitic, Vaticanus, Alexandrinus as compared to Byzantine Majority)

^D = not a translation but rather Jesus' targum given to the multitudes
on the Mount in Mt. 7:12; backwritten from NT translations by the translator/interpreter
**********

You see what Cronos did there, don't you?

Anyway, my gratefulness for your diligence and saving me from the sense of guilt for not being anxious to pursue this exercise of walloping a dead horse once again. I appreciate that you have a greater insight into the subtility of Jesuitic argumentation. Doubless it is because God has given the redeemed and spiritually mature disciple to discern the deep things of God with the mind of Christ (1 Cor. 2:15,16_c; Php. 2:5). This is a spiritual matter here, of how the Word of God is handled and transmitted, not merely a logical one. While like the Pharisees, the S. J. ones are extremely unparalleled in the logic of debate, so I never try to take them on on that basis alone, or I would be likely to fail. In the end, the spiritual man rests on the Word of God alone, and lets the Holy Ghost do the convincing.

My hermenutics would give the Tobit passage this (and I think faithful) way:

"What you hate ^{in others}, do not ^yourself do." (As compared to the Golden Rule, for which the Tobit thought must be expanded by the Mind of The Christ to encompass and solve the depraved human's dilemma.) Pax vobiscum.

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.