P
Pax
Guest
Dave,
You did an admirable job in this thread…keep up the good work
You did an admirable job in this thread…keep up the good work
- Status
I
itsjustdave1988
Guest
With regard to “historical basis” I would also recommend the following from Protestant patristic scholar J.N.D. Kelly, from his book *Early Christian Doctrines, *Harper Collins Revised Edition, San Francisco CA, 1978, 52-56.
If you actually read the New Catholic Encyclopedia article “canon, biblical”, Vol. 3, this source is in agreement with the above Protestant scholarship. It states,
I
itsjustdave1988
Guest
More ‘historical basis’ from another Protestant source…
The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church (2nd ed., edited by F.L. Cross & E.A. Livingstone, Oxford Univ. Press, 1983, p.232) states:
The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church (2nd ed., edited by F.L. Cross & E.A. Livingstone, Oxford Univ. Press, 1983, p.232) states:
I
itsjustdave1988
Guest
Thanks Pax. I think that many Protestants dont’ want to know the historical basis of the Catholic Bible, because they won’t like what they learn.Dave,
You did an admirable job in this thread…keep up the good work
Protestantism had no authority to change the Bible. Yet, they did. Then some have the gall to charge Catholics with adding books to the Bible. Even Protestant scholars such as P. Schaff and J.N.D Kelly admit that the Catholic Bible was fixed by the 4th century and remained unchanged to present. That’s a lot of historical basis. What is really ironic is that Protestants will cite the synods of Hippo and Carthage as their source of authority for the NT canon, yet these very same canons list the OT books, which they reject.
M
Maccabees
Guest
Another good point is that while there was little disagreemnt in the churches first 4 centuries that the dueteros were scripture there was more disagreemnt on the NT canon. The canon that very few protestants even question even though historically only the synoptic gospels and the letters of Paul were never held in question as to their canonicity.Thanks Pax. I think that many Protestants dont’ want to know the historical basis of the Catholic Bible, because they won’t like what they learn.
Protestantism had no authority to change the Bible. Yet, they did. Then some have the gall to charge Catholics with adding books to the Bible. Even Protestant scholars such as P. Schaff and J.N.D Kelly admit that the Catholic Bible was fixed by the 4th century and remained unchanged to present. That’s a lot of historical basis. What is really ironic is that Protestants will cite the synods of Hippo and Carthage as their source of authority for the NT canon, yet these very same canons list the OT books, which they reject.
The gospel of John, Acts, all of the catholic epistles and Revelation were all in doubt at one time or another in church history. In fact the fundies favorite book Revelation was not canonical till the fourth century.
But protestants conveniently leave that one out.
I
itsjustdave1988
Guest
bbas 64,
So that you are more familiar with the context of the *New Catholic Encyclopedia *excerpt that you provided. The quotation in question from the *New Catholic Encyclopedia, 1st Edition *(1967)is on pages 396-397 of the 2nd Volume (Baa - Cam) under Bible III. In the *Second Edition *(2003) one will find it in the first volume (A-Azt) under Apocrypha, pages 549-550.
The following quote appears in the First Edition, under section four, titled “Apocrypha of the Old Testament”, which tells us:
Do you still insist that this source included amont the “apocrypha” the 7 deuterocanonical books and the portions of Daniel and Esther called “apocrypha” by Protestants?
So that you are more familiar with the context of the *New Catholic Encyclopedia *excerpt that you provided. The quotation in question from the *New Catholic Encyclopedia, 1st Edition *(1967)is on pages 396-397 of the 2nd Volume (Baa - Cam) under Bible III. In the *Second Edition *(2003) one will find it in the first volume (A-Azt) under Apocrypha, pages 549-550.
The following quote appears in the First Edition, under section four, titled “Apocrypha of the Old Testament”, which tells us:
The article then goes on to discuss in more detail, each apocryphal book. It does not discuss the deuteroncanonicals or the portions of Daniel and Esther that the Protestants call “apocryphal.”
Do you still insist that this source included amont the “apocrypha” the 7 deuterocanonical books and the portions of Daniel and Esther called “apocrypha” by Protestants?
I
itsjustdave1988
Guest
bbas 64,
Given that you are now more informed as to what that source called “apocryphal” and what it DID NOT include as “apocryphal”, this excerpt makes a heck of a lot more sense, no?
Given that you are now more informed as to what that source called “apocryphal” and what it DID NOT include as “apocryphal”, this excerpt makes a heck of a lot more sense, no?
In hindsight, don’t you think it was rather* ridiculous* to assume that this Catholic source, which has the Imprimatur and Nihil Obstat of the Catholic Church, was saying that those books asserted as truly Sacred Scripture by the Catholic Chruch were in fact “characterized by heresies, inconsistencies and historical inaccuracies which invalidate their being given the status of Scripture”?
M
Maccabees
Guest
Who is posting these lies Dan Rather?
Next time check your sources!
Next time check your sources!
B
bbas_64
Guest
Good Day, Dave
The source was from the first volume of the work, not the 3rd. In that part of the work the term " apocrypha" is used in refence to Jerome. As I have cited in some other posts.
Newadvent.com
"
Etymologically, the derivation of Apocrypha is very simple, being from the Greek apokryphos, hidden, and corresponding to the neuter plural of the adjective. The use of the singular, “Apocryphon”, is both legitimate and convenient, when referring to a single work. When we would attempt to seize the literary sense attaching to the word, the task is not so easy. It has been employed in various ways by early patristic writers, who have sometimes entirely lost sight of the etymology. Thus it has the connotation “uncanonical” with some of them. St. Jerome evidently applied the term to all quasi-scriptural books which in his estimation lay outside the canon of the Bible, and the Protestant Reformers, following Jerome’s catalogue of Old Testament Scriptures – one which was at once erroneous and singular among the Fathers of the Church – applied the title Apocrypha to the excess of the Catholic canon of the Old Testament over that of the Jews. Naturally, Catholics refuse to admit such a denomination, and we employ “deuterocanonical” to designate this literature, which non-Catholics conventionally and improperly know as the “Apocrypha”. (See CANON OF THE OLD TESTAMENT.) "
So it is clear that when using the term, with some of the othger works of Jerome that the “apocrypha” refers to some thing that was outside of the Hebrew cannon, as did the writers of that work.
From the same work vol 1.
“St Jerome distinguished between canonical books and ecclesiastical books. The latter he judged were circulated by the Church as good spiritual reading but were not recognized as authoritative Scripture”
What ever gets you though the day, brother.
Peace to u,
Bill
B
bbas_64
Guest
Good Day, Maccabees
Thanks for your (name removed by moderator)ut, not that it brings any thing new to the topic. But hey thanks any way.
Peace to u,
Bill
M
Maccabees
Guest
You also cited Origen. But nowhere does he designate the dueteros as apocrapha.
Yet Another lie.
The only church father that designates these books as apocrapha is Jerome. And the other apocraphal works is of a different disgnation than the Spetugient extra canonical books.
Your entire evidence is held by one person.
Not very convincing.
Not one father besides Jerome designates apocrapah to these books becuase they were not hidden in any way they were the constant tradition in the church. Regualry read in the liturgy of the word and used in cathechism of the early christians.
Jerome was straying with tradition here due perhaps to respect to the Rabbis who taught him Hebrew but who had disdain to the dueteros these opinions had an effect on Jerome 400 years after the fact that the Septugient was the preferred version of the Bible in the early Christian communites.
Yet Another lie.
The only church father that designates these books as apocrapha is Jerome. And the other apocraphal works is of a different disgnation than the Spetugient extra canonical books.
Your entire evidence is held by one person.
Not very convincing.
Not one father besides Jerome designates apocrapah to these books becuase they were not hidden in any way they were the constant tradition in the church. Regualry read in the liturgy of the word and used in cathechism of the early christians.
Jerome was straying with tradition here due perhaps to respect to the Rabbis who taught him Hebrew but who had disdain to the dueteros these opinions had an effect on Jerome 400 years after the fact that the Septugient was the preferred version of the Bible in the early Christian communites.
B
bbas_64
Guest
In hindsight, don’t you think it was rather* ridiculous* to assume that this Catholic source, which has the Imprimatur and Nihil Obstat of the Catholic Church, was saying that those books asserted as truly Sacred Scripture by the Catholic Chruch were in fact “characterized by heresies, inconsistencies and historical inaccuracies which invalidate their being given the status of Scripture”?
Good Day, Dave
No, the source used the term apocryphal in the terms that Jerome used that term. The question then becomes IMHO how in history did Jerome use the term?
From the historical POV of Jerome all books that were not Hebrew were seen by him as apocryphal writings. That is how that source uses the term as it is related to Jerome, that is how I am using the term. I have searched Jerome for the term deuterocanonicals, but have come up with none is this a newer term.
Peace to u,
Bill
R
Reformed_Rob
Guest
I, for one am sincerely following this thread. So much so, that I wanted to, early on, make sure it did’nt “die in the water.” Some admonishments have flown, and bbas has taken them well I think. Someone’s proposition is wrong, and the wrong party should be corrected. Please keep up this thread, it’s too good to let personal grievances get in the way of such what seems to be good discussion.
Rob
Rob
I
itsjustdave1988
Guest
bbas 64,
C’mon Bill! I quoted from the 1967 edition of this source and it says the same as the 2003 edition, which says the same as the 1909 edition… It lists the “apocrypha” and it does not include in its list the 7 deuterocanonical books and parts of Daniel and Esther. If this source took the effort to precicely tell us what the term “apocrypha” means and then proceeded to list these books, isn’t is clear what they mean?
If you can’t even admit that you are mistaken in something so obvious, then clearly you have some issues that cannot be resolved here in this discussion.
Just so I’m clear … you still assert that the 1st edition of the New Catholic Encyclopedia is asserting the 7 deuterocanonical and parts of Daniel and Esther have “have serious internal difficulties in that they are characterized by heresies, inconsistencies and historical inaccuracies which invalidate their being given the status of Scripture.”
C’mon Bill! I quoted from the 1967 edition of this source and it says the same as the 2003 edition, which says the same as the 1909 edition… It lists the “apocrypha” and it does not include in its list the 7 deuterocanonical books and parts of Daniel and Esther. If this source took the effort to precicely tell us what the term “apocrypha” means and then proceeded to list these books, isn’t is clear what they mean?
If you can’t even admit that you are mistaken in something so obvious, then clearly you have some issues that cannot be resolved here in this discussion.
B
bbas_64
Guest
Good Day, Maccabees
Seeing the source is not me, and you feel the authors have lied may be you should take it up with them. It has been quite some time for me in reading Origen, and do not have the time right now. Seems that Jerome points to this 3 rd century father alot with reguards to the Hebrew Scripture, is Jerome lying also IYO?
.
The weight of this one person looms large with regaurds to this issue IMO, seeing that he was the greatest Scripturaul scholar of his time and impacted the views of many till the 16 th century.
Jermone was straying from tradition…Septugient was the preferred version, Nice assertions prove them from the writings of the 2-4 th century.
Peace to u,
Bill
B
bbas_64
Guest
Good Day, Dave
All I am sayingis that this source uses the term when it cites Jerome in the same way Jerome used it, which I have provided.
I do not have a problem with them redefining the term, later in the work.
May be this will help, from a historical point of view did Jerome see Judith as part of the Apocryphal writtings? yes/no, why
I have no problem in admitting when I have made a error, I see not reason to believe that I have.
Peace to u,
Bill
I
itsjustdave1988
Guest
It is not Jerome’s use of the word that is relevant. It’s the fine scholars from Notre Dame who published the New Catholic Encyclopedia. It is how *THEY *intended to use that word that is important in understanding what “apocrypha” they called “heresy.”
Furthermore, just because Jerome used the word in a specific way, doesn’t mean that he believed the deuterocanonical books, such as Sirach, was not Scripture.
For example, in AD 404, Jerome wrote in his letter to Eustochium…
Jerome quotes from Sirach as Scripture. Do protestants? Some do. Anglicans read from deuterocanonicals during the Scritpural readings in their liturgy. Being Scripture, it is the word of God. Catholics insists that every word of God is inspired and inerrant, and an important part of his supernatural revelation.
M
Maccabees
Guest
bbas 64:
Jerome was very much his own man he agreed with church fathers and disagreed with them especially Origen who was suspect in some areas. Origen’s New Testament was not the one you use today and he did refer to the dueteros as scripture but he did make distinctions as to what was the Jewish Canon and what the early Christians used as scripture. ie the Septugient.
Jerome was straying from tradition. The witness were all the church councils they all included the dueteros you had the entire western church opposing Jerome. If you think Jerome is the final authority you must have some weird theology. This is the man who beleived in the Papacy the Bishop of Rome as Supreme Pontiff, Mary’s ever virginity, The real presneces and sacrifice of the eucharistic mass. Regenerative nature of Baptism, Believed in faith and works, beleived in the church tradition as authoritative. and so on and so on. He was catholic in every respect as you consider him the greatest scripture scholar your going to be very catholic. Look after the councils were ratified he was mum he had to be he beleived in the authority over the church over the individual he was catholic. I don’t think you understand that he accepted the church’s authority there is nothing in his writings that deny that. In fact his writings spell the authority of the Bishop of ROme the authroity of the church not the individual he was not a protestant in any sense.
Also His opinion on the canon predated the Bishop of Rome ratifying these councils after which he retracts his earlier stronger statements.
I find this hilarious you are quoting a catholic church father as your final authority of any church matter. You do this out of conveniene are you going to quote me Jerome’s postion on the papacy or the mass or Mary. I don’t think so.
But hey coming from a person who doesn’t even check his sources what should I expect from the Dan Rather of Theology.
You see what you want to see.
Ok wait a minute your going to assert this as fact from a third party without studying the source. Jeez that isn’t scholarship that’s spin. Check your sources no wonder your so gullible. Well so and so said this so I believe it. That doesn’t pass in court of law as eye witness testimony and it shouldn’t here. So you have the time to make assertion but not to read the sources. This is polemics at its worst.
Jerome was very much his own man he agreed with church fathers and disagreed with them especially Origen who was suspect in some areas. Origen’s New Testament was not the one you use today and he did refer to the dueteros as scripture but he did make distinctions as to what was the Jewish Canon and what the early Christians used as scripture. ie the Septugient.
Jerome was straying from tradition. The witness were all the church councils they all included the dueteros you had the entire western church opposing Jerome. If you think Jerome is the final authority you must have some weird theology. This is the man who beleived in the Papacy the Bishop of Rome as Supreme Pontiff, Mary’s ever virginity, The real presneces and sacrifice of the eucharistic mass. Regenerative nature of Baptism, Believed in faith and works, beleived in the church tradition as authoritative. and so on and so on. He was catholic in every respect as you consider him the greatest scripture scholar your going to be very catholic. Look after the councils were ratified he was mum he had to be he beleived in the authority over the church over the individual he was catholic. I don’t think you understand that he accepted the church’s authority there is nothing in his writings that deny that. In fact his writings spell the authority of the Bishop of ROme the authroity of the church not the individual he was not a protestant in any sense.
Also His opinion on the canon predated the Bishop of Rome ratifying these councils after which he retracts his earlier stronger statements.
I find this hilarious you are quoting a catholic church father as your final authority of any church matter. You do this out of conveniene are you going to quote me Jerome’s postion on the papacy or the mass or Mary. I don’t think so.
But hey coming from a person who doesn’t even check his sources what should I expect from the Dan Rather of Theology.
You see what you want to see.
I
itsjustdave1988
Guest
bbas 64,
I think a difference you fail to appreciate between Protestant and the scholarship of St. Jerome is:
What Protestants mean by Apocrypha is “non-Scritpural.”
Is that what St. Jerome meant? No.
Protestants only pretend to accept Jerome’s scholarship as a polemical appeal. It is, however, unconvincing when you really study the matter.
Have you ever quoted from Sirach, prefacing the quote “According to Scritpure…”? Have you heard a Protestant pastor do such a thing? If not, then you really have to ask yourself if Jerome believed the same thing about the Book of Sirach that you do.
I think a difference you fail to appreciate between Protestant and the scholarship of St. Jerome is:
What Protestants mean by Apocrypha is “non-Scritpural.”
Is that what St. Jerome meant? No.
Protestants only pretend to accept Jerome’s scholarship as a polemical appeal. It is, however, unconvincing when you really study the matter.
Have you ever quoted from Sirach, prefacing the quote “According to Scritpure…”? Have you heard a Protestant pastor do such a thing? If not, then you really have to ask yourself if Jerome believed the same thing about the Book of Sirach that you do.
I
itsjustdave1988
Guest
As for ‘historical basis’ do you agree with Protestant historian J.N.D Kelly’s view? He says that "**the Old Testament thus admitted as authoritative in the Church … **always included, though with varying degrees of recognition, the … deutero-canonical books. …
In the first two centuries at any rate the Church seems to have accepted all, or most of, these additional books as inspired and to have treated them without question as Scripture. … Towards the close of the second century, when as a result of controversy with the Jews it became known that they [the Jews] were united in repudiating the deutero-canonical books, hesitations began to creep in…. For the great majority, however, the deutero-canonical writings ranked as Scripture in the fullest sense."
I believe the historical basis of the first two centuries of Christianity is much more compelling than quoting the opinion of some who had hesitations about the deuterocanonicals which, only later, “began to creep in” as a result of Jewish polemics.
In the midst of such hesitations, St. Augustine’s view prevailed and all of the traditional books of Scripture were canonized in the 4th century. St. Jerome, in his own words, followed “the judgment of the Churches,” clearly decreed at the end of the fourth century, because to do otherwise would be a sin.
In the first two centuries at any rate the Church seems to have accepted all, or most of, these additional books as inspired and to have treated them without question as Scripture. … Towards the close of the second century, when as a result of controversy with the Jews it became known that they [the Jews] were united in repudiating the deutero-canonical books, hesitations began to creep in…. For the great majority, however, the deutero-canonical writings ranked as Scripture in the fullest sense."
I believe the historical basis of the first two centuries of Christianity is much more compelling than quoting the opinion of some who had hesitations about the deuterocanonicals which, only later, “began to creep in” as a result of Jewish polemics.
In the midst of such hesitations, St. Augustine’s view prevailed and all of the traditional books of Scripture were canonized in the 4th century. St. Jerome, in his own words, followed “the judgment of the Churches,” clearly decreed at the end of the fourth century, because to do otherwise would be a sin.
- Status