Apocrypha? Pope added?

[Calvinator]

I see. So we actually needed an English to English translator.

Yes.

 

[NotWorthy]

I believe the Jews had a closed canon before the apostolic era…before Jamnia…

No, the Jews didn’t close the Canon until the 14th century, actually. Although it’s commonly accepted that Jamnia did this, I’m pretty sure this is not true. For instance the Ethiopian Jews accept the OT Canon of either the Catholic Church or the Septuagint (I know you are aware of the couple of differences).

I do have a question for you on the “canon established in the 4th century” though. Do you believe that the councils of Rome and or Carthage (I think these were the councils we are talking about)…I don’t know the right phrase to use here…hmm…“bound” it upon Christians to accept the deutero’s as canonical?

No, the Church doesn’t work that way. The Pope approved of these councils, which made it apply to the entire Church. But it wasn’t “dogma-tized” at this time. The Church usually doesn’t make things infallibly defined until such a ruckus comes up to necessitate a decree. For instance, the Church taught Transubstantiation (even if it wasn’t formally defined as such until the 4th century) for over 1100 years before it was made dogma. Why the 12th century? Because only then was there a huge controversy over the Real Presence in the Eucharist. Because of the uproar caused by the Reformers, the Council of Trent was tasked to “bind the Canon” so to speak. The Church, though, had accepted the findings of Hippo and Carthage with only a few challenges for over 1000 years until Trent.

Somwhere in this thread or another thread perhaps, I explained why I hate saying you guys “added” the deutero’s.

Yes, and I was showing why we hate it, too. No big deal.

We agree. Why do you think some posters on this forum will bring this fact up? In other words, I’m not sure what it is supposed to prove.

In actuality, it proves nothing and we both know that. I don’t agree with this technique **IF **someone knows that it was included while not being considered inspired. Many, but not all, posters are not aware of that “if”.

 

[Calvinator]

No, the Church doesn’t work that way. The Pope approved of these councils, which made it apply to the entire Church. But it wasn’t “dogma-tized” at this time. The Church usually doesn’t make things infallibly defined until such a ruckus comes up to necessitate a decree. For instance, the Church taught Transubstantiation (even if it wasn’t formally defined as such until the 4th century) for over 1100 years before it was made dogma. Why the 12th century? Because only then was there a huge controversy over the Real Presence in the Eucharist. Because of the uproar caused by the Reformers, the Council of Trent was tasked to “bind the Canon” so to speak. The Church, though, had accepted the findings of Hippo and Carthage with only a few challenges for over 1000 years until Trent.

NotWorthy,

Thanks for your post.

When I look at the history, from Trent back to say the councils I see prominent Catholics rejecting the deutero’s. For example, at the time of the reformation I believe Cajetan and Ximenes had issues with some or all the deutero’s.

I doubt that they willingly put themselves in opposition to the church and they were certainly very well educated so they couldn’t have been ignorant of the earlier councils concerning the canon.

It seems to me that they were free to reject or accept the deutero’s, as well as other books I guess up until the time of Trent.

I guess I am curious to know how you explain disent from the canon as declared at say Carthage or Rome by what would by all appearances be loyal churchmen.

 

[Calvinator]

No, the Jews didn’t close the Canon until the 14th century, actually. Although it’s commonly accepted that Jamnia did this, I’m pretty sure this is not true. For instance the Ethiopian Jews accept the OT Canon of either the Catholic Church or the Septuagint (I know you are aware of the couple of differences).

Okay, you got me here. I’ve heard the OT canon was closed at several different points in history but never have I heard the 14th century. Can you elaborate?

It sounds like we agree that Jamnia didn’t close the canon but I believe it was closed before Jamnia and you believe it was closed a looooooong ways after Jamnia.

 

[NotWorthy]

NotWorthy,

Thanks for your post.

When I look at the history, from Trent back to say the councils I see prominent Catholics rejecting the deutero’s. For example, at the time of the reformation I believe Cajetan and Ximenes had issues with some or all the deutero’s.

I doubt that they willingly put themselves in opposition to the church and they were certainly very well educated so they couldn’t have been ignorant of the earlier councils concerning the canon.

It seems to me that they were free to reject or accept the deutero’s, as well as other books I guess up until the time of Trent.

I guess I am curious to know how you explain disent from the canon as declared at say Carthage or Rome by what would by all appearances be loyal churchmen.

It’s interesting that you note “ximenes” and “cajetes” and leave out St. Jerome, another dissenter who proved to bow to Papal authority. Don’t assume that these two were “free” to dispute or reject the deutero’s. It didn’t stop Martin Luther!!!

I am quite unfamiliar with these two, so I’ll try to look more into them.

But honestly, the Church was rather accepting of the Canon in it’s current state.

When you look at Donatist, Arius, Martin Luther, and others, you certainly can understand that some people were quite willing to “buck the system” when they felt they were right (even when they were wrong ).

 

[NotWorthy]

Okay, you got me here. I’ve heard the OT canon was closed at several different points in history but never have I heard the 14th century. Can you elaborate?

It sounds like we agree that Jamnia didn’t close the canon but I believe it was closed before Jamnia and you believe it was closed a looooooong ways after Jamnia.

This comes from the Agape Bible Study:

After the destruction of Jerusalem and God’s Holy Temple by the Romans in 70AD a group of Jewish scholars received permission from the Roman government to gather at a town called Jamnia [Jabneh]. These Jewish scholars, Pharisees and rabbis, formed a religious council and a school to study Sacred Scripture.

Since the followers of Jesus were using the Greek Septuagint translation for apologetic and evangelistic purposes–using the text to prove that Jesus fulfilled the prophecies of the Old Covenant and was indeed the promised Messiah-- this translation became an anathema to the Jewish scholars of Jamnia. Christians, for example, were using the Greek text from Isaiah 7:14 “The virgin shall conceive and bear a son…”, quoted from the Septuagint in Matthew 1:23 as proof of the prophecy of the virgin birth.

In response to the conversion of many Jews to Christianity through the Septuagint translation, in about 100AD the scholars of Jamnia authorized a new Greek translation specifically to hinder such “proofs” of fulfillment of Old Covenant prophecy, thereby hoping to hinder the spread of Christianity. For example, the Jewish scholar Aquila, with the approval of the council, changed the Greek word "parthenos" = “virgin” in the Isaiah 7:14 passage to the Greek word for “young woman” = “neanis” in the newer Greek translation. These scholars also began to debate the Old Covenant canon and began recording the Oral Law [c. 200AD], which had been passed down through the ministerial priesthood from the time of Moses. This recording of the Oral Law would become the Mishnah. The Mishnah and its commentary, the Gemara [there are two, the Babylonian and the Palestinian], comprise the Jewish Talmud.

Even though challenges to the canonicity of Ecclesiastes and Song of Solomon were debated at Jamnia, none of the 46 books of the 1st century AD Septuagint that we have in our Catholic Bibles were dropped until the early Middle Ages when the Masorites, a school of Jewish scholars, re-translated the altered Greek language Old Testament that was constructed in Jamnia back into Hebrew. At this time 7 books which we include were dropped from the Old Covenant canon including the only books of the Old Testament that recounted the story of the Jewish feast of Hanukkah, 1 and 2 Maccabees. The other books dropped from the Jewish canon were Tobit, Judith, Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, and Baruch, along with parts of the texts of Daniel and Esther. Later in the 16th century AD, after over a thousand years of accepting the Catholic canon, Protestant Christians rejected the canon of the Catholic Old Testament and instead accepted both the translations and canon of the anti-Christian Masoretic Jewish Old Testament.

 

[Janet_S]

Janet,

Your last paragraph is a bit of cool trivia…thanks for posting that.

Also, I didn’t realize the Gutenberg Bible placed the deutero’s in a canonical status. I’ll try to read a little more on that.

The information about taking an oath on the Bible (which had to include the deuteros) came from Kevin Edgecomb’s blog on this site:

bombaxo.com/index.html

He’s an Eastern Orthodox Christian.

I can’t find his post now, but if you would like more information about it, maybe you can ask him for references.

 

[Ani_Ibi]

…Why do you think some posters on this forum will bring this fact up? In other words, I’m not sure what it is supposed to prove.

It’s supposed to prove the contradictory notions passed along to people about the Bible. People are led to believe that they have a fair degree of freedom in reading the Bible, interpretting the Bible, but in fact they have bupkiss.

Before 1880 the KJV included the deuteros. Then they took it out. Then they put it back in. This achieved two things. It disallowed folks to choose what they would read, even if just for their own edification. And it confused them.

As for “some posters”: you are able to say what posters say what rather than relying on innuendo.

 

[Ani_Ibi]

**IF **someone knows that it was included while not being considered inspired.

I’m pretty sure I posted this link about the deutero disappearing and reappearing in the KJV:

thelostbooks.com/missing.htm

 

[Janet_S]

To address the “added” issue.

Look at it this way. We both agree that God only inspired a definite number of books and that He is certain of His canon. Any addition to that canon would be just that, an addition. That much I am sure we agree on.

Past that, we aren’t going to see eye to eye on the deutero’s.

I agree that God the Holy Spirit inspired the writers of Scripture and that a definite number of books are considered inspired (included in the canon).

What I don’t understand, though, is how exactly did God reveal to you that the deuteros are not inspired.

If God inspired Scripture but left no way to reveal to us which books were inspired, how can we be sure we have all the right books?

What I’m saying is that what good is inspired Scripture if we don’t know where to find it?

Will we see eye to eye? Probably not unless we agree about how God chose to make his revelation known.

 

[Ignatius]

Someone left this message for me on a forum apparently trying to tell me that the Apocrypha isn’t inspired:

“The apocrypha was originally considered not to be scripture by the Catholic church, but was added many years later, by another pope. I personally do not believe in it, as most protestants do not”

Which pope is she claiming added these? This sounds fishy to me. I am ill equipped about the bible canonization but her remark sounds incorrect.

Any quick answer I might give her?
Thanks

kotes19

Actually, if you’re friend does some homework, she’ll discover that the Deuterocanonical books were removed from the Bible Protestant Bibles in the 1800’s. The original 1611 King James version, and every version up to the 1800;s had them. There were part of the Old Testament Septuagint Bible ever since 285 Before Christ.

 

[Calvinator]

It’s supposed to prove the contradictory notions passed along to people about the Bible. People are led to believe that they have a fair degree of freedom in reading the Bible, interpretting the Bible, but in fact they have bupkiss.

What is contradictory? I don’t recall a single reformer or any Protestant church accepting the deutero’s so what is so confusing? I also don’t recall any of the credal professions of faith stating that people have a fair degree of freedom in interpretting the Bible.

As to having a fair degree of freedom in reading the Bible, who is restricting anyone from reading the scriptures? Most folks, at least non-Catholics don’t included the deutero’s in the Bible, you do realize that right?

Before 1880 the KJV included the deuteros. Then they took it out. Then they put it back in. This achieved two things. It disallowed folks to choose what they would read, even if just for their own edification. And it confused them…

C’mon, who did it confuse? Did any of the reformers accept the deutero’s? Can you show us any proof that there was confusion concerning the status of the deutero’s in the 1880’s?

Are there any Baptists or Presbyterians running around today wringing there hands lamenting the the status of the deutero’s?

The deutero’s were never given canonical status in any KJV of the Bible that I’m aware of.

As for “some posters”: you are able to say what posters say what rather than relying on innuendo.

I’m not sure what you mean by the above statement. You would only have to go back a few pages in this thread to see a poster make the point that the deutero’s were included in the the KJV of the Bible.

 

[Calvinator]

Actually, if you’re friend does some homework, she’ll discover that the Deuterocanonical books were removed from the Bible Protestant Bibles in the 1800’s. The original 1611 King James version, and every version up to the 1800;s had them. There were part of the Old Testament Septuagint Bible ever since 285 Before Christ.

Okay, how do you know they were part of the OT?

 

[Calvinator]

It’s interesting that you note “ximenes” and “cajetes” and leave out St. Jerome, another dissenter who proved to bow to Papal authority. Don’t assume that these two were “free” to dispute or reject the deutero’s. It didn’t stop Martin Luther!!!

I am quite unfamiliar with these two, so I’ll try to look more into them.

But honestly, the Church was rather accepting of the Canon in it’s current state.

When you look at Donatist, Arius, Martin Luther, and others, you certainly can understand that some people were quite willing to “buck the system” when they felt they were right (even when they were wrong ).

I just picked these two, Cajetan and Ximenes becaue they were, if memory serves me, active at the time of the reformation.

Martin Luther broke away completely and some of the folks who rejected the deutero’s are seemingly loyal to the church.

 

[vern_humphrey]

Okay, how do you know they were part of the OT?

Because the only authority qualified to determine the canon says so – the Catholic Church.

 

[Calvinator]

Because the only authority qualified to determine the canon says so – the Catholic Church.

You answered my question, thank you, but I meant to ask about the 285 BC date.

Do you have any idea what the other poster meant?

 

[vern_humphrey]

You answered my question, thank you, but I meant to ask about the 285 BC date.

Do you have any idea what the other poster meant?

There are no accurate, reliable dates for the translation of specific books into Greek. We can say with confidence, however, that the earliest books were probably not translated before the reign of Ptolemy II Philadelphus (287-47 BC), and translation was complete before 100 BC.

 

[NotWorthy]

Fr. Robert Altier has an interesting legend to tell about the Septuagint. While doing the translation, many of the 70 translators would go off by themselves and do their translations. When they got back together, it turns out they were all done exactly the same.

I don’t know if that is true, but it sure would have been cool.

 

[Ani_Ibi]

Calvinator:

What is contradictory? I don’t recall a single reformer or any Protestant church accepting the deutero’s so what is so confusing?

Simple.

1. The notion of the inerrancy of scripture.
2. The presumption of the few among the many to change scripture.
3. If scripture can be changed, then it is is not inerrant.
4. Therefore there is confusion about the inerrancy of scripture.

I believe I have set this out in detail before. What was the problem the first time?

Calvinator:

I also don’t recall any of the credal professions of faith stating that people have a fair degree of freedom in interpretting the Bible.

What is Sola Scriptura again? Or rather your interpretation of Sola Scriptura?

Calvinator:

Most folks, at least non-Catholics don’t included the deutero’s in the Bible, you do realize that right?

Ad populem and not germane to the question I raised about the instability of scripture since Luther.

Calvinator:

C’mon, who did it confuse?

I just told you. You’re flaming. Please calm down. If you cannot make your point by means of reason and rhetoric you will not make it by rhetoric. So why go there?

Calvinator:

The deutero’s were never given canonical status in any KJV of the Bible that I’m aware of.

And the average guy in the pew is going to make that distinction? You are evading. I gave you a link to the history of the deuteros in the KJV.

Calvinator:

I’m not sure what you mean by the above statement. You would only have to go back a few pages in this thread to see a poster make the point that the deutero’s were included in the the KJV of the Bible.

That was me.

 

[Calvinator]

Simple.

1. The notion of the inerrancy of scripture.
2. The presumption of the few among the many to change scripture.
3. If scripture can be changed, then it is is not inerrant.
4. Therefore there is confusion about the inerrancy of scripture.

I believe I have set this out in detail before. What was the problem the first time?

1.) Scripture is inerrant.

2.) IMHO your second point applies to your church. A few bishops gathered together to rule on what is and what isn’t scripture.

3.) Given the context of this thread I am assuming by change you mean, at least from your point of view, the deletion of the deutero’s from the canon.

4.) Wrong conclusion. I would guess most of the Catholics who have rejected the deutero’s throughout the ages as well as the reformers and later protestants who also reject the deutero’s accepted the inerrancy of scripture.

Believing that there are errors in scripture is one thing and possibly not recognizing scripture or perhaps believing something is scripture when it is not is another thing altogether.

Interestingly enough you bring up the inerrance of scripture. That is one of the reasons to reject parts of the deutero’s. Don’t one or two of the books have historical errors in them?

What is Sola Scriptura again? Or rather your interpretation of Sola Scriptura?

I believe I have set this out in detail before. What was the problem the first time?

Ad populem and not germane to the question I raised about the instability of scripture since Luther.

Scripture hasn’t been unstable since Luther, I guess that’s to obvious for you to see. Go to any bookstore…pretty much anywhere in the world and look through each of the available Bibles. See what books are listed. Go online and look around at the various versions of the Bible. I’m sure you can find some differences here, in a world this big there has to be somebody out there that is “confused” but the one out of a million doesn’t prove your assertion. Anyway, I bet most of the Bibles you will find are going to break down along the lines of; Jewish, Protestant, EO, and Catholic.

I just told you. You’re flaming. Please calm down. If you cannot make your point by means of reason and rhetoric you will not make it by rhetoric. So why go there?

Okay, what is your definition of flaming? Asking “C’mon, who is confused?” is probably not on anybody’s list of…flames.

You simply made a gross over exageration and now are caught in it.

BTW, flaming is, I’m pretty sure, against the rules here. Please report my post to the moderators so they can explain to you what a “flame” is and what it isn’t…okay?

And the average guy in the pew is going to make that distinction? You are evading. I gave you a link to the history of the deuteros in the KJV.

The deutero’s were never cosidered canonical by any of the reformers were they?

I’ve quickly read over the link you provided and I just don’t see the point.

From my point of view they should not have ever been included. Why read something that will only serve to lead one astray? Didn’t your church have a “forbidden books” list or something? Of course it did. If secular books can damage ones faith, how much more so could the deutero’s?

That was me.

You are not alone in making the pointless statement about the deutero’s being included in the KJV.