Bible Canon

[itsjustdave1988]

What sin was St. Jerome speaking of? See Heb 13:17.

Heb 13:17 “Obey your leaders and submit to them, for they are keeping watch over your souls and will give an account. Let them do this with joy and not with sighing—for that would be harmful to you.”

Luther rejected the epistle of Hebrews as authoritative, as well as many other books of the Old and New Testament. In essence, Protestantism disregarded Heb 13:17 by pretending they had no superior on this earth excepting their own fallible judgment. Therefore, instead of obedience to the Ecumenical Council of Florence in 1442, they chose disobedience.

This ‘historical basis’ is unrefuted…

Ecumencial Council of Florence, Session 11, 4 February 1442:

We, therefore, to whom the Lord gave the task of feeding Christ’s sheep’ … have delivered in the name of the Lord in this solemn session, with the approval of this sacred ecumenical council of Florence, the following true and necessary doctrine…
Most firmly [the Church] believes, professes and preaches that … one and the same God is the author of the old and the new Testament — that is, the law and the prophets, and the gospel — since the saints of both testaments spoke under the inspiration of the same Spirit. It accepts and venerates their books, whose titles are as follows.

Five books of Moses, namely Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy; Joshua, Judges, Ruth, four books of Kings, two of Paralipomenon, Esdras, Nehemiah, Tobit, Judith, Esther, Job, Psalms of David, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Song of Songs, Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Baruch, Ezechiel, Daniel; the twelve minor prophets, namely Hosea, Joel, Amos, Obadiah, Jonah, Micah, Nahum, Habakkuk, Zephaniah, Haggai, Zechariah, Malachi; two books of the Maccabees; the four gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John; fourteen letters of Paul, to the Romans, two to the Corinthians, to the Galatians, to the Ephesians, to the Philippians, two to the Thessalonians, to the Colossians, two to Timothy, to Titus, to Philemon, to the Hebrews; two letters of Peter, three of John, one of James, one of Jude; Acts of the Apostles; Apocalypse of John.

The synod of Pharisees gathered at Jamnia in AD 98 is no more authoritative now than it was to the Christians in AD 98. Obedience to them is not obligatory. Obedience to the 4th century Synod of Rome, Hippo, and Carthage, and the 15th century Council of Florence, although not intended to be definitive, was binding canon law, all opinions to the contrary notwithstanding. The Council of Florence affirmed for the* entire Church* what books were included within Scripture. A century later, the Reformers chose to disobey their superiors and go their own way. This was not St. Jerome’s way no matter how much they pretend it is. He specifically stated that his way was that of “following the judgement of the Churches,” even in those instances when his opinion may have differed from that of the Churches. To do otherwise is to commit sin.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

bbas 64,

Regarding Origen, you said:

Seems that Jerome points to this 3 rd century father alot with reguards to the Hebrew Scripture, is Jerome lying

If you read from your own excerpt above, Jerome stated: "Origen … in all his books explains and expounds not only the Septuagint but the Jewish versions."

No, Jerome is not lying.

Origen did not limit his view of “inspiration” to only the Jewish versions. In fact, he believed the Shephard of Hermas to also be “divinely inspired.” **Origen **described the Shephard of Hermas as “a work which seems to me very useful, and, as I believe, divinely inspired. (Comm. in Rom. 10.31, written about 244-6).”

 

[itsjustdave1988]

Origen is quoted by Eusebius (4th century historian) as including Baruch and Maccabees as “canonical books.” Observe,

" 'It should be stated that the canonical books, as the Hebrews have handed them down, … are the following: That which is called by us Genesis, but by the Hebrews, from the beginning of the book, Bresith, which means, ‘In the beginning’; … the Proverbs of Solomon, Me-loth; Ecclesiastes, Koelth; the Song of Songs (not, as some suppose, Songs of Songs), Sir Hassirim; Isaiah, Jessia; Jeremiah, with Lamentations and the epistle in one, Jeremia[Baruch 6]; Daniel, Daniel; Ezekiel, Jezekiel; Job, Job; Esther, Esther. And besides these there are the Maccabees, which are entitled Sarbeth Sabanaiel."

(Origen, Canon of the Hebrews, Fragment in Eusebius’ Church History, 6:25[A.D. 244],in Philip Schaff’s NPNF2,I:272)

And here, Origen describes the respect that he holds for the Septuagint *:

"In all these cases consider whether it would not be well to remember the words, ‘Thou shalt not remove the ancient landmarks which thy fathers have set.’ Nor do I say this because I shun the labour of investigating the Jewish Scriptures, and comparing them with ours

, and noticing their various readings. This, if it be not arrogant to say it, I have already to a great extent done to the best of my ability, labouring hard to get at the meaning in all the editions and various readings; while I paid particular attention to the interpretation of ***the Seventy ***** , lest I might to be found to accredit any forgery to the Churches which are under heaven, and give an occasion to those who seek such a starting-point for gratifying their desire to slander the common brethren, and to bring some accusation against those who shine forth in our community."

(Origen, To Africanus, 5 (ante A.D. 254), in Philip Schaff’s ANF, IV:387)Notice that Origen explicitly distinguishes between the “Jewish Scriptures” and “ours,” making it clear that he believes the Jews have “variant readings” when compared to “ours.” He paid particular attention to the Septuagint, as this was the version accepted by the Churches.

Origen, in defending against Africanus’ charge that some portions of Origen’s version of Scripture are forgeries, stated:

I used the Scripture

which contains the prophecy of Daniel when yet a young man in the affair of Susanna … (ibid)
Note that Origen here is specifically the portion of Daniel "Scripture which you call “apocrypha.” (cf. Dan ch. 13 of the Catholic Bible, “Susanna” of the NRSV with apocrypha).

Origen goes on to defend these portions of the Christian Book of Daniel against Africanus’ charge of forgery by asserting, the History of Susanna as"found in every Church of Christ" (ibid). In the same work, Origen refers to those Scripture versions having the History of Susanna (Dan ch 13), Bel and the Dragon (Dan ch. 14), and the Song of the Three Children (Dan 3), as “our version” of Scripture.

Why aren’t they your version of Scripture? They were part of Origen’s version. They were part of Jerome’s version. They were “found in every Church of Christ” since apostolic times. Surely you have more than the authority of Pharisees from Jamnia in AD 98, right?*

 

[bbas_64]

Good Day, Dave and Mercy Gate

Let me first thank you for this discussion, as this will be last post in this thread has I feel it has run it’s course. My wife has not been feeling to well thus this is why I am late in getting back to this. With regards to Jerome, and some of the comments about my theology they are different matters, but as one starts to look at this issue Jerome can not be over looked. I will also submit as I did earlier that his views impacted the thoughts of many people down thru the 16 th century.

Cardinal Cajetan…Commentary on All the Authentic Historical Books of the Old Testament

.

“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 Ecclesiasticus, as is plain from the Prologus 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.” **[36]

%between%

Cont.****

 

[bbas_64]

---

I have not seen one source here that would proved that Jerome changed his mind on this issue. He always seems to have an understanding of what the Hebrew Scriptures are, and calls a distinction to the other writing of “Greek” origins. I do not deny the “book of the Seventy” existed or was used ‘quoted’ by the men of old for the edification of the Church, I have read some of them in my RSV Catholic version in that version they also make a distinction over how Jerome view these writings.

I have no problem with the Church at Trent defining for them self’s and others who may see them as authority in matters of faith. I just see that Trent was in error in doing so by adding to the oracles of God given to the Jews.

I know that I may have not addressed all your points and for that I apologize as time is short. For me like Jerome I to can see a clear historical understanding of what the OT writings were and from that point of view there is no evidence that the Greek writings should be included with in them.

Thanks again,

Bill

 

[bbas_64]

Only cause it has been raised, and not an issue any longer in this debate for either side now.

The so-called Council of Jamnia was more in the nature of a school or an academy that sat in Jamnia between the years 75 and 117. There is no evidence of a decision drawing up a list of books. It seems that the canon of the Jewish Scriptures was not definitively fixed before the end of the second century. Scholarly discussion on the status of certain books continued into the third century.

There are some bigger questions as to if “the so called” even really happened at all.

vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/pcb_documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20020212_popolo-ebraico_en.html#1.%20In%20Judaism

Peace to u,

Bill

 

[Maccabees]

bbas 64:

Only cause it has been raised, and not an issue any longer in this debate for either side now.

There are some bigger questions as to if “the so called” even really happened at all.

vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/pcb_documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20020212_popolo-ebraico_en.html#1.%20In%20Judaism

Peace to u,

Bill

Well Yes I would agree the council of Jaminia most likely wasn’t a council of all at best it was decisions by handful of Jerusalme Rabiis with no authority to decide upon universal Judaism.
THere is no closed canon in the Jesish OT until the late 2nd century or early 3rd entury. THis makes it far more problematic for the Protestant position as this points to no Jewish Authority to close the OT canon as after the temple Judaism split into many competing factions.
Which leads to the question why does the opinion of Jews after the time after Chirst have the authority to determine the Christian OT canon. Truth is they don’t. The Christian Jews has their own OT tradtion and what a rabbis in Jamnia said would have not universal juridiction over a Jewish Christian.
Ahh see yuy avoided the catholic exegesis of Jerome in interpretation.
Since when does the rule of faith in the early church depend on one man no matter how charasmatic and infulential he may be.
If that was the case we would all be arians by now. THe church overuled Arius and Jerome by consensus and the Holy SPirit speaking through the magisterium/ But of course protestants attatch themselves to indivduls who are charasmatic and infulential no matter how far they stray from the early church.
Of course Arius left the church after the council rejected his opinion. There is no evidence that Jerome has any dispute with the councils which overuled him.

 

[Maccabees]

The opinion of the Jamnia not being that important is affirmed here.

“Four points of caution should be noted: (1) Although Christian authors seem to think in terms of a formal church council at Jamnia, there was no “council of Jamnia.” At Jamnia there was a school for studying the Law, and the Jamnia rabbis exercised legal functions in the Jewish community. (2) There is no evidence that any list of books was drawn up at Jamnia. The rabbis, of course, recognized that certain books were uniquely sacred and “soiled the hands,” so that purification was necessary after using them (Mishnah, Yadaim 3:2). But this attitude may represent the popular acceptance of 22 or 24 books that we saw in Josephus and in 4 Ezra at roughly the same period. It is no proof that a definite list had been drawn up. (3) A specific discussion of acceptance at Jamnia is attested only for Eccl and Cantacles, and even in these instances arguments persisted in Judaism decades after the Jamnia period. There were also subsequent debates about Est. (4) We know of no books that were excluded at Jamnia. A book like Sir, which did not eventually become part of the standard Hebrew Bible (based on the putative Jamnia canon), was read and copied by Jews after the Jamnia period. Tosephta, Yadaim 2:13, records that Sir was declared as not soiling the hands, but does not say where or when this was decided.

“Perhaps the safest statement about the closing of the Jewish canon is one which recognizes that although in the 1st cent. ad there was popular acceptance of 22 or 24 books as sacred, there was no rigidly fixed Hebrew canon until the end of the 2nd cent. or the early 3rd cent. In this period various Jewish groups continued to read as sacred, books that were not included in the 22/24 count.”

Brown, Raymond Edward, The Jerome Biblical Commentary, ed. by Raymond E. Brown, Joseph A. Fitzmyer and Roland E. Murphy [Englewood Cliffs, NJ : Prentice Hall, 1968], 521–522).

 

[spectre49]

I was attracted to this subject because I’ve recently had a discussion with a Protestant friend on the same issue. I’m overwhelmed with all the information on the original simple question.

My friend had the following arguments which I could use some help on:

1. None of the “extra” books claim to be inspired by God. (Do all of the other books make such a claim?)
2. The author of 2 Mac admits this is an abridgement of another man’s work (2Mac2:23). When considering inspiration by God, my friend doesn’t think of someone writing “Cliff Notes” of a longer history book.
3. Melito, bishop of Sardis did not list the extra books; nor did Athanasius, a bishop of Alexandria.
4. “Any book inspired by God should not contain errors.” He indicated some historical and geographic errors in Tobit, and said that None of the other books of the bible contain historical or geographical errors. Does God make mistakes?

Thanks for any assistance.

 

[mayra_hart]

and i quoted : " for evangelicals and reformers alike, there are no objective criteria sufficient for faith. this is most obvious when we discuss the canon. evangelicals have no good , objective explanation for accepting the canon they do accept. catholics did not change the canon of the early church or the deposit of faith to make them fit preconceived ideas. the fact that the reformers did is one of the saddest chapters in all christendom." thank you mr david currie for this info. santa maria madre de dios … amen

 

[Maccabees]

spectre49:

I was attracted to this subject because I’ve recently had a discussion with a Protestant friend on the same issue. I’m overwhelmed with all the information on the original simple question.

My friend had the following arguments which I could use some help on:

1. None of the “extra” books claim to be inspired by God. (Do all of the other books make such a claim?)
2. The author of 2 Mac admits this is an abridgement of another man’s work (2Mac2:23). When considering inspiration by God, my friend doesn’t think of someone writing “Cliff Notes” of a longer history book.
3. Melito, bishop of Sardis did not list the extra books; nor did Athanasius, a bishop of Alexandria.
4. “Any book inspired by God should not contain errors.” He indicated some historical and geographic errors in Tobit, and said that None of the other books of the bible contain historical or geographical errors. Does God make mistakes?

Thanks for any assistance.

Well most of your questions are the typical ones.
I found most of you answers at envoy magazine
try reading the article.
5 Myths about 7 Books"
Here are the answers to five common arguments Protestants give for rejecting the Deuterocanonical books of the Old Testament
**By Mark Shea **

envoymagazine.com/backissues/1.2/marapril_story2.html

As far as Melito is concerned he is listing the OT according to the Jews he does not say this is the church’s canon. So his list is inconclusive also his NT list is incomplete its missing some books and funny eneough has the dueterocanonical book of Wisdom in the NT. So one were to use Melito as an authority your missing 4 to 5 books in the NT and have Wisdom in your Bible needless to say his list is not the definitive canon of any church. It shows a development if anything since some NT books are not included and dueteros are never denied canoncity in the church just denied as scripoture by the Jews at this time. Something catholics would agree with.

Athanasisus includes Baruch and the Letter of Jeremiah in his canon and never refers to dueteros as apocrapha. He does put them on lesser honor than the proto-canonical books but he reads them as scritpure and inspired much like the church did at trent thus the desgination proto and dutero canonicals. By the way there are proto and dutero canonicals in the New Testament but in the end they are all inspired. We don’t say Hebrews is not as inspired as Mark although Mark was a protocanonical books and Hebrews a duterocanonical NT book. They are both inspried and the Word of God we simply knew Mark was inspired earlier than Hebrews. The church wishes not to rank the measure the level of inspiration of each books Like Luther did but deem all books the word of God.