Catholic bible and the Deuterocanon

  • Thread starter Thread starter Wandile
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
BrianH said:
I am trying to find out what Anna and Coptic are really objecting to…the Catholic Church is not anti-scholarship. Certainly not. We know that scholars examine scripture to determine what constitutes a quote. We also know that not everything we do with the Bible must directly be stated in the Bible. So what exactly do they object to?
:confused:
I personally think it is the messenger. They are so determined to argue with me that cannot agree with me even when I am not saying anything controversial. 🤷:(😃
Click to expand...
I agree with you that you are not sayiing anything controversial.🤷😊🙂
 
CopticChristian said:
Anna,

I answered that by saying that I was looking at Wikipedia and not comparing each bible…I cannot find the link right now…but I answered this question sometime back…

Pax
Click to expand...
I was a bit confused about whether or not you still maintain “translation corrections” were made to make the RSV acceptable for Catholics.

Peace,
Anna

P.S. I realize this was a side bar to the DC discussion.
 
BrianH said:
I see. So you do not wish to state the point that he is trying to make. However, you are comfortable telling me, twice, that I do not get the point. I see…:dts:
Click to expand...
BriahH,

Wow…you know that Anna is a little more OCD than I am and I believe that you fall into the OCD department as well and that is not a good thing. I see you are getting lots of attention and now you have PerryJ asking questions…

I do have one question that if you can answer would make my day…you can see that PerryJ is a regular member, interestingly joining on the same day 4 years apart…now I am only 300 postings shy of your mark and Anna, PerryJ, and you are regular members…I am only a Junior member…so my question is why?
 
CopticChristian said:
BriahH,

Wow…you know that Anna is a little more OCD than I am and I believe that you fall into the OCD department as well and that is not a good thing. I see you are getting lots of attention and now you have PerryJ asking questions…
Click to expand...
Yes, I do have OCD issues. When Christmas shopping for Holiday place mats, I found myself organizing them, and I didn’t even work at the store. I was a bit embarrassed when I realized what I was doing. Hope there were no cameras filming my OCD. The good news is that my house is orderly. lol. But-----those quote button mishaps driving me nuts. :eek:
CopticChristian said:
I do have one question that if you can answer would make my day…you can see that PerryJ is a regular member, interestingly joining on the same day 4 years apart…now I am only 300 postings shy of your mark and Anna, PerryJ, and you are regular members…I am only a Junior member…so my question is why?
Click to expand...
You know I’m a fan Coptic, but even I don’t understand this question–other than noting you have posted quite a bit in a short period of time.

Peace,
Anna
 
Anna_Scott said:
Yes, I do have OCD issues. When Christmas shopping for Holiday place mats, I found myself organizing them, and I didn’t even work at the store. I was a bit embarrassed when I realized what I was doing. Hope there were no cameras filming my OCD. The good news is that my house is orderly. lol. But-----those quote button mishaps driving me nuts. :eek:

You know I’m a fan Coptic, but even I don’t understand this question.

Peace,
Anna
Click to expand...
Why am I still a junior member?
 
PerryJ said:
I find your thought process interesting. The Protestant Reformation is based upon the removal of books in the Bible and without the removal of these books it would not have occurred from a philisophical point of view. Of course it truly occurred becuase of political motives not philisophical motives. Luther was losing a debate to Eck at Leipzig about purgatory and reverted back to St Jerome’s false assertation that the DC should not be included in the Bible. As Dead Sea Scrolls proved that they should be included; based upon them being found in the original language, the books should be included. Luther’s basis for rejecting these books has been proven historically wrong.

As his rejection of these books and the basis he rejected them upon has been proved incorrect how does one then support his faith? Everything it was based upon has been proved to be in error. He has admited that if these books are included in the Bible then his faith was erroneous. How does one refute the founder of Protestant thought.

With that how does one state that it makes little impact? It is in fact the removal of the books was the basis of him changing the faith. This of course is abandoning many of the true reasons: Luther’s relationship with his father and the political climate of the monarchs being the two truly decisive turning points.

I would hope that we are all past the fake notion that it was based upon indulgences and Catholic corruption.
Click to expand...
Lets clarify first. What do you mean by the statement underlined? Elaborate please. What" them" were found?
 
BrianH said:
Lets clarify first. What do you mean by the statement underlined? Elaborate please. What" them" were found?
Click to expand...
St Jerome did not believe the DC books belonged in the Catholic Bible as they could only be found in Greek. After the conquests of Alexander the Great the original Jewish Bibles were tranlsated into Greek. As St Jerome could not find these books in their original language he stated that they were not inspired. That was his belief; however, he never strayed from the faith. He followed the teachings of the Church.

The 7 Deuterocanonical not found in Protestant Bibles.

•Tobit
•Judith
•1 Maccabees
•2 Maccabees
•Book of Wisdom
•Ecclesiasticus
•Baruch
•8 parts of the Book of Esther
•2 sections of the Book of Daniel

The copies of these 7 books and the missing parts of Daniel and Esther were found among the Dead Sea Scrolls and were dated to:

•Tobit: 4th – 3rd century BC
•Judith: 2nd – 1st century BC
•1 Maccabees: late 2nd or early 1st century BC
•2 Maccabees: circa 124 BC
•Wisdom: approximately 40 BC or earlier
•Sirach: 180 BC
•Baruch: 200-60 BC
•Parts of Daniel 3rd – 2nd century BC
•Parts of Esther: 2nd – 1st century BC

As such St Jerome and Luther’s thought has been proved to be in error.

Note also that one can find the early Church Father quoting from these books in the first century.
 
PerryJ said:
St Jerome did not believe the DC books belonged in the Catholic Bible as they could only be found in Greek. After the conquests of Alexander the Great the original Jewish Bibles were tranlsated into Greek. **As St Jerome could not find these books in their original language he stated that they were not inspired. That was his belief; however, he never strayed from the faith. He followed the teachings of the Church. **

As such St Jerome and Luther’s thought has been proved to be in error.

Note also that one can find the early Church Father quoting from these books in the first century.
Click to expand...
Let add some more…St. Jerome was obedient to the Pope, after Pope Damasus issued his proclamation of what should be in the Canon…and even commissioned Jerome to translate the writings into Latin.

St. Jerome also did not separate and form his own religion or denomination…not like Luther…😃
 
PerryJ said:
St Jerome did not believe the DC books belonged in the Catholic Bible as they could only be found in Greek. After the conquests of Alexander the Great the original Jewish Bibles were tranlsated into Greek. As St Jerome could not find these books in their original language he stated that they were not inspired. That was his belief; however, he never strayed from the faith. He followed the teachings of the Church.

The 7 Deuterocanonical not found in Protestant Bibles.

•Tobit
•Judith
•1 Maccabees
•2 Maccabees
•Book of Wisdom
•Ecclesiasticus
•Baruch
•8 parts of the Book of Esther
•2 sections of the Book of Daniel

The copies of these 7 books and the missing parts of Daniel and Esther were found among the Dead Sea Scrolls and were dated to:

•Tobit: 4th – 3rd century BC
•Judith: 2nd – 1st century BC
•1 Maccabees: late 2nd or early 1st century BC
•2 Maccabees: circa 124 BC
•Wisdom: approximately 40 BC or earlier
•Sirach: 180 BC
•Baruch: 200-60 BC
•Parts of Daniel 3rd – 2nd century BC
•Parts of Esther: 2nd – 1st century BC

As such St Jerome and Luther’s thought has been proved to be in error.

Note also that one can find the early Church Father quoting from these books in the first century.
Click to expand...
So what you are saying is the St. Jerome voiced an opinion, did as he was asked, sounds like humility working here…and acknowledged a power greater than himself.
 
PerryJ said:
The 7 Deuterocanonical not found in Protestant Bibles.

•Tobit
•Judith
•1 Maccabees
•2 Maccabees
•Book of Wisdom
•Ecclesiasticus
•Baruch
•8 parts of the Book of Esther
•2 sections of the Book of Daniel

The copies of these 7 books and the missing parts of Daniel and Esther were found among the Dead Sea Scrolls and were dated to:

.
Click to expand...
Thank you for clarifying. You are wrong however. Where did you find your information?
Fragments of three deuterocanonical books have been found among the Dead Sea scrolls found at Qumran. Sirach, whose Hebrew text was already known from the Cairo Geniza, has been found in two scrolls (2QSir or 2Q18, 11QPs_a or 11Q5) in Hebrew. Another Hebrew scroll of Sirach has been found in Masada (MasSir).[7]:597 The Book of Tobit has been found in Qumran in four scrolls written in Aramaic and in one written in Hebrew.[7]:636 The Letter of Jeremiah (or Baruch chapter 6) has been found in cave 7 (7Q5) in Greek.[7]:628
Click to expand...
mp4download.org/deuterocanonical_books/encyclopedia.htm
For the “deuterocanonical” Old Testament books, the same cave has yielded three copies of Tobias in Aramaic (doubtless the original language), and one in Hebrew: all four witness to a very full recension, which supports the general tendency of recent Catholic scholarship to value most highly the ample form of text found in Greek in the codex Sinaiticus, and in the Latin of the version prior to St. Jerome’s. The Books of Maccabees (originating from circles in Judaism to which the Qumran community seems opposed), Baruch (except for chapter six), Judith, Wisdom (this last an exclusively Greek book), and the deuterocanonical parts of Daniel have not been found. As respects Daniel, its text at Qumran is more consistently faithful to the received tradition, including the change from Hebrew into Aramaic and back into Hebrew just as in modern editions, than would be true of almost any other Old Testament book. The Hebrew of Ecclesiasticus (Sirach), known previously from medieval copies in the Cairo geniza, as mentioned above, has been found again in the second cave (only) at Qumran, in two limited fragments which are yet enough to vouch (Ecclus. 6:20-31) for the stichometric arrangement and the basic authenticity of the medieval copies. This is of special interest, inasmuch as a rising chorus of unwillingness to credit the medieval copies (which do include retroversions from the Syriac) with any value has been making itself heard in recent years.
Click to expand...
catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?id=2849
 
pablope said:
Let add some more…St. Jerome was obedient to the Pope, after Pope Damasus issued his proclamation of what should be in the Canon…and even commissioned Jerome to translate the writings into Latin.

St. Jerome also did not separate and form his own religion or denomination…not like Luther…😃
Click to expand...
How do you explain St. Jerome’s prologues to the deutero’s which clearly painted the DC’s as being non-canonical? These prologues were included in the Vulgate.
 
Anna_Scott said:
That is correct. 😃

Peace,
Anna
Click to expand...
Anna
Coptic has stated he does not mind the help. You see, I do not think I missed his point at all. And you know that of course…but lets see what you can come up with. Or you could just you were wrong Anna. Either way:shrug:
 
CopticChristian said:
Everything in the Bible is the result of people and those people do not exist in a vacuum…I understand what you are saying and the question is Independent Scholarship or Scholarship within the confines of the Church. You choose the former and I choose the latter. The result is that I do not rely directly on Scholarship and you do. That is OK for you but not for me.
Click to expand...
Very good. I never thought we were as far apart as it was being made out to be.
 
BrianH said:
Anna
Coptic has stated he does not mind the help. You see, I do not think I missed his point at all. And you know that of course…but lets see what you can come up with. Or you could just you were wrong Anna. Either way:shrug:
Click to expand...
BrianH,
I’m not sure exactly what you want me to comment on, unless it is the scholarship issue. I agree that scholars play a role in the transmission of Scripture at this point in history. However, as I’m sure you know, different scholars may translate the same manuscript differently. Bible translations/versions are manipulated by what is placed in the main body of text and what is placed in the footnotes (which many people never bother to read.) Bible translations/versions are also manipulated by using a translation from Greek or from Hebrew, depending on which is more in line with the theology of the translator(s). Later manuscript variants may be used in Bible versions, even though earlier and more reliable manuscripts say something different. It goes on and on.

So, for me, Tradition plays a strong role in what I accept as Scripture and how Scripture is interpreted. This is very much the case for CopticChristian, since he is Catholic–the Magisterium has the last word.

Some scholars get lost in their own scholarship and lose their faith altogether. IMHO, this is, to some degree, what seems to have happened to Bart Ehrman–a brilliant scholar who has fallen into agnosticism.

I think we have to be careful. I went through a period of reading one book after another—one scholar after another; and I almost got lost myself. Scholarship and the intellectual approach to Spiritual matters can sometimes lead us to a slippery slope. I’ve been there.

Upon reflection, I think I have been a bit hard on you—perhaps due to my own experiences. So, I apologize, Brian.

Peace,
Anna
 
Anna_Scott said:
BrianH,
I’m not sure exactly what you want me to comment on, unless it is the scholarship issue. I agree that scholars play a role in the transmission of Scripture at this point in history. However, as I’m sure you know, different scholars may translate the same manuscript differently. Bible translations/versions are manipulated by what is placed in the main body of text and what is placed in the footnotes (which many people never bother to read.) Bible translations/versions are also manipulated by using a translation from Greek or from Hebrew, depending on which is more in line with the theology of the translator(s). Later manuscript variants may be used in Bible versions, even though earlier and more reliable manuscripts say something different. It goes on and on.

So, for me, Tradition plays a strong role in what I accept as Scripture and how Scripture is interpreted. This is very much the case for CopticChristian, since he is Catholic–the Magisterium has the last word.

Some scholars get lost in their own scholarship and lose their faith altogether. IMHO, this is, to some degree, what seems to have happened to Bart Ehrman–a brilliant scholar who has fallen into agnosticism.

I think we have to be careful. I went through a period of reading one book after another—one scholar after another; and I almost got lost myself. Scholarship and the intellectual approach to Spiritual matters can sometimes lead us to a slippery slope. I’ve been there.

Upon reflection, I think I have been a bit hard on you—perhaps due to my own experiences. So, I apologize, Brian.

Peace,
Anna
Click to expand...
No problem Anna.
I appreciate that. Your points about scholarship are important ones.
 
PerryJ
Let me return to an important point. To me anyway. What is one specific way that you think the Deuterocanonical Books would influence mainstream Protestant belief or practice?
Let me anticipate one potential response…
Remember, mainline Protestant eschatology is not likely to be effected by intertestamental Jewish eschatology concerning an intermediate state. And I suspect you know the reasons why. Mainline Protestants are barely interested in Christian eschatology it seems!🤷:o
I can say I disagree with the lack of emphasis but I cannot pretend that it does not exist. On the other hand, outside of evangelicals and fundamentalists, I am not sure it is a hot topic, cracked myself up on that one, for most Christians.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top