A
- Status
C
CopticChristian
Guest
I believe that you may presume that my motives at least are somehow tied to your belief that there is some impact to be had by accepting them as Scripture. I will put it simply.
The removal or replacement is the issue. The Principle is the issue. The impact is not a concern for me. I am more concerned with the Principle. Many read these posts and in my opinion appealing to authority as an argument may lead a reader to believe that Scholarship, as Anna, has pointed out will provide clarity…makes my head swim sometimes.
So…on what Principle and Authority were the DC removed? You equate the opinions of Jerome and Luther. Catholic priests have no right to remove anything from any Bible.
There was no ecclessial body that did so. It happened in time and I would like to know if you believe that this was the result of Scholarship or as I have said the result of the cost of printing. I believe that once they were removed by the cost of printing then after the fact Scholarship surfaced to not put them back…thus the 1611 King James with the DC.
You read more into this than I do…It is the Principle for me.
B
BrianH
Guest
Before I delve into your response, please clarify. What do you mean “you equate the opinions of Jerome and Luther”?
P
PerryJ
Guest
That statement is in error. As a former Protestant the Bible is read and memorized verbatim by a large group of individuals within their churches. If those books were in the Bible it is very clear that purgatory exists in some capacity. Again it is not defined by time but is defined as a cleansing of the soul.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!
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.
It is also in error because all Christian denominations are based upon Jewish beliefs and their Bibles. I am not sure how you came to the conclusion that Christians are not concerned with the Jewish roots or the belief that mainline Protestants are not educated in their faith. Perhaps every Protestant does not memorize the Bible; however, the elders of the many denominations do and they are often the individuals in charge of the Church. In fact in many Churches the elders elect who the pastor is and that pastor will mirror their beliefs and not the beliefs of a central authority.
I agree most baptist may not know what doulbe predestination means; however, the know that their founders were incorrect in believing in it. They have basically discarded this thought.
P
PerryJ
Guest
In all the history books I have read I have never heard of the cost of printing being a factor in reducing the size of the Bible. Does someone have a book or article that supports this tought with facts?
In all my readings it was the reverse that occurred. Catholic Priets manually copied the Bible. It was expensive for the Catholics to do this because on average it took one Preist a year to copy a Bible. This means that one priest had to be supported during this time. Many of the Preists copying the Bible were monks etc that did not live within Rome etc. Note also that Preist did this manually up to the 1600s.
Yesterday I mentioned that two big factors drove the Reformation; however, I missed the third big factor. That is the creation of the printing press. The printing press allowed the individuals such as Luther to have thoughts printed and distributed thoughout Europe. These items sold very well and actually were big money makers for the print shops.
Remember also that individuals such as the German Monarch Frederick did not want to submit to the rule of the Church. As such they fully supported these items being printed within their states. When Luther supported and requested that the German Monarch’s kill 400,000 of his followers they were peasants. These peasants read or were read to Luthers writings. Printing had become inexpensive and spread throughtout Europe quickly.
In all my readings it was the reverse that occurred. Catholic Priets manually copied the Bible. It was expensive for the Catholics to do this because on average it took one Preist a year to copy a Bible. This means that one priest had to be supported during this time. Many of the Preists copying the Bible were monks etc that did not live within Rome etc. Note also that Preist did this manually up to the 1600s.
Yesterday I mentioned that two big factors drove the Reformation; however, I missed the third big factor. That is the creation of the printing press. The printing press allowed the individuals such as Luther to have thoughts printed and distributed thoughout Europe. These items sold very well and actually were big money makers for the print shops.
Remember also that individuals such as the German Monarch Frederick did not want to submit to the rule of the Church. As such they fully supported these items being printed within their states. When Luther supported and requested that the German Monarch’s kill 400,000 of his followers they were peasants. These peasants read or were read to Luthers writings. Printing had become inexpensive and spread throughtout Europe quickly.
P
PerryJ
Guest
I would like to state that I have read Bart Ehrman’s books and he is not a scholar. I realize he is a professor; however, his books clearly merge impactful changes in the Bible with items that have no bearing on beliefs.
He also focuses only upon changes in the Bible and not the actual practices. For example as Protestant his belief was Sola Scriptura. If the Bible changed then his beliefs were shaken. If he would have went further and read the early Church Fathers the meanings and translations are very straigth forward. He tends to ignore writings that clarify and quote the earliest Bibles.
This gentleman protrays himself as a scholar; however, his books are more full of fluff then actual thought and historical review.
B
BrianH
Guest
Jewish eschatology ranges from annihilationism to an undefined and vague belief in Sheol in parts of the Old Testament. Mainline Protestants are certain aware that Jewish eschatology in intertestamental times included a belief in an intermediate state. The inclusion of the Deuterocanonical Books does not change Christian eschatology. It just would not in the mainline denominations. However your background and what you are describing is certainly not mainline it appears. Elders?
The polity you are describing is what denomination exactly?
C
CopticChristian
Guest
The opinions of Jerome and Luther as it regards the DC mean that two priest had an opinion that in my opinion mean two priests had an opinion. They equate to two priests with an opinion and nothing more.
C
CopticChristian
Guest
Below is from the Catholic Answers Browse and has been discussed on CA radio…the onus is to prove otherwise…
Who took the Apocrypha out of the Bible?
Originally it was effectively against the law to print the Bible in America, because the Crown held the copyright on the King James Version (it still does in England) but did not license any printers in their American colonies. The American Revolution made the United States an independent country. Since there were no international copyright treaties at the time, it was possible to print an English Bible in the United States. Shortly after the Revolution, the First Great Awakening created a big demand for Bibles.
For the first time, it was both profitable and legal to print English-language Bibles in America.
American printers discovered that they could leave out the Apocrypha and sell the Bible for the same price, and no one would care because it wasn’t used much. So they left out the Apocrypha to increase their profits. Some of the homegrown religious groups naïvely assumed that whatever was not in their Bible was not in the canon. Later, when Catholics became a significant segment of the population, a non-Catholic would say, “That’s not in my Bible” to a Catholic, completely unaware that it was the printer who left it out. A Lutheran pastor told me that one of his parishioners was insistent that the Lutheran Church did not recognize the Apocrypha as Scripture. The parishioner was astonished when he saw the church by-law that says it is. The parishioner had assumed that his copy of the Bible was complete when it wasn’t.
Catholics, Protestants, and Orthodox Christians use the Apocrypha and it is part of the Bible for them. Many independent churches and low-church denominations are only aware that it is not in their printing of the Bible, and think it is a Catholic addition when it is really a printer’s subtraction.
In other words, printers removed the Apocrypha from the Bible, not any church.
P
pablope
Guest
I think this happened, from what I have read in some threads…around the mid-1820s or so. I think it was the a Bible Society…British…that started it…so save on paper and printing costs.
Hope this helps in your research.
B
BrianH
Guest
Okay. I think I understand. You said “you equate” and I had not mentioned Luther or Jerome. I thought that you thought that I had mentioned them. I have not.
Second thing you say “There was no ecclessial body that did so”.
The Council of Trent officially canonized the Deuterocanonical Books and that was circa 1545 to around 1560 or so.
The thirty nine articles of the Church of England (from which we stem) in 1563 did state:
A
Anna_Scott
Guest
PerryJ,
I don’t think you can say Ehrman is not a scholar. Do a google search of “Bart Ehrman” and “scholar” and you will find many people who disagree with you. He is the James A. Gray Distinguished Professor at The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill and has published numerous books and articles.
Like all scholars, he brings his bias to the table, and certainly his views as a Protestant affected his conclusions. I think he did get lost in his own scholarship, and I think he is leading many people astray with his conclusions (IMHO.) The issue for any scholar is how to interpret their findings. Put 4 scholars in a room, give them the same findings, and you will probably get 5 different conclusions about the data. Sadly, Ehrman’s findings are leading people away from the Gospel of Christ.
Peace,
Anna
A
Anna_Scott
Guest
BrianH,
I think you are making an assumption here that you can’t really support. I grew up in Southern Baptist Churches and we never discussed Jewish eschatology, other than the Pharisees believed in the resurrection of the dead, and the Sadducees did not. That was the extent of awareness of Jewish eschatology. I think this limited knowledge is more widespread than an awareness of a Jewish belief in an intermediate state.
Peace,
Anna
B
BrianH
Guest
Yes very good. Let me elaborate.
Doctrine in mainline churches is top down. In other words, a hypothetical decision to allow/put in/whatever the Deuterocanonical books in mainline denominations would be top down. In other words, take the UMC, it would occur at General Conference. Likewise, any denominational change in doctrine would be started by/initiated by denominational leaders who are seminary trained or lay people very involved with and conversely knowledgable about doctrine etc. Yes, I understand that most denominational bodies have substantial lay presence but that is not where the power in terms of doctrinal issues resides.
While I may have some people argue, no mainline denomination has had any substantial change in doctrine in the last 50 years as a result of a bottom up initiative. Take the ordination of homosexuals by the UCC, Episcopal Church, or PCUSA. Those efforts were led by denominational leaders with mixed lay support. Just giving an example, not wanting to delve into that.
When I speak of a mainline denomination in terms of doctrine, it is referring to leadership and those who make the curriculum, participate in large synods/conferences that will determine these things. Mainline leaders are absolutely aware of Old Testament eschatology. I would say, because our curriculum also addresses these isssues, that most lay leaders are as well. I would agree that many, in the pew average Joe and Jane, mainline Protestants are as you say. However, those are not the folks that determine these things in my experiences and estimation of mainline Protestant polity and doctrinal decision making.
You mention Southern Baptists. Southern Baptists are not a mainline denomination.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mainline_(Protestant
I hope this helps. Mainline presuppositions and Southern Baptist presuppositions are two very different things. Experiences in one do not transfer to the other in my estimation.
A
Anna_Scott
Guest
PerryJ,
Like others, I have read about the omission of the Deuterocanonical Books to save on printing costs; but I can’t remember which books contained this history.
I did a quick search for an online reference to this. I found an article that does explain cost was a factor in removing the Deuterocanonical Books. See the section entitled, Who took the Apocrypha out of the Bible? Link: kencollins.com/bible/bible-p1.htm (Copyright ©1995-2011 by the Rev. Kenneth W. Collins and his licensors. All rights reserved.) I’m really not familiar with Rev. Collins. His website say he is an ordained minister in the Christian Church (Disciples of Christ),
You can do a search and find other articles.
Hope this helps,
Anna
A
Anna_Scott
Guest
BrianH,
Then say “leadership” in mainline denominations. As I said before, we can’t read your mind Brian.
Peace,
Anna
A
Anna_Scott
Guest
. . .You mention Southern Baptists. Southern Baptists are not a mainline denomination.
BrianH,
Wikipedia???
Southern Baptists can be considered evangelical to a degree:
However, the SBC is not part of the National Association of Evangelicals, unless that has changed since I left the SBC: See member list: nae.net/membership/current-members.I’m open to correction, if you have more recent information.
Peace,
Anna
B
BrianH
Guest
So are you saying that Southern Baptists should not be considered evangelicals?BrianH,
Wikipedia???
Southern Baptists can be considered evangelical to a degree:
However, the SBC is not part of the National Association of Evangelicals, unless that has changed since I left the SBC: See member list: nae.net/membership/current-members.
Peace,
Anna
What then?
They are not mainline so what other category are you suggesting?
A
Anna_Scott
Guest
The SBC is evangelical in a sense, but they are not part of the National Association of Evangelicals; and they consider themselves too conservative to be categorized as “mainline protestants.” Southern Baptists are Southern Baptists.
Peace,
Anna
- Status