No. Because no noncanonical books are referenced as scripture in the NT. However NOT ALL canonical books are referenced in the NT. The Deutrocanonical books are never referenced as scripture in the NT. But you already knew that.Correct. The guy talking to the OP did. And I mentioned to you it’s specious criteria anyway. Do you agree?
The most absurd part is when he says that older books reference newer books…it would be funny but how many people have sent this link thinking it was on the up and upFrom our perspective, that list of quotes from scripture catholic discredits your case because when we look at the NT references, we find them in most cases making reference to OT passages. You would be better off going through that list yourself, narrowing it down to the few references that can not easily be links to an OT passage.
From our perspective both the “extra book” and NT are simply making reference to the same OT passage in most of your examples. It is poor scholarship like this that discredits the Scripture Catholic site.
What was the date of the Council of Trent? Up until that time, Catholics were free to have and voice opinions regarding the canon of the OT. Erasmus and Cajetan and others did.Let me know if I understand this correct. Catholic scholars, fathers would debate a topic until it was settled by a council. Can one show the dates of the disputing fathers in reference to councils that addressed old testament canon? What are those dates?
That passage does not say he went there to swim, nor to baptize, nor that John was baptizing there at the time. It only says he went to the place.John 10: 40 Then Jesus went back across the Jordan to the place where John had been baptizing in the early days.
Would not the water be ice?
burrr
[BIBLEDRB]Matthew 2:23[/BIBLEDRB]Here is an example of something referenced as scripture but clearly not part of the OT. It would have been copied directly from the Greek translation of the source.No. Because no noncanonical books are referenced as scripture in the NT. However NOT ALL canonical books are referenced in the NT. The Deutrocanonical books are never referenced as scripture in the NT. But you already knew that.
It has some importance.
Actually the idea that the Catholic biblical canon was not settled until Trent is false. The canon was settled in the 4th or 5th century (can’t remember) at the local council of Rome. It was reaffirmed at Trent to refute the assertions of the Protestants.I think he is just as much relaying his agreement with Jerome.
I’ll look, but the point was that not all Catholics, prior to Trent, were of one mind regarding the canonicity of the D-C’s, dating back to St. Jerome In fact, said canonicity was even debated at Trent.
But then, I’m one Lutheran who looks at the fact that Luther felt strongly enough about them to translate and include them, and the fact that the Lutheran Confessions do not exclude them (they don’t mention specific books at all), and wonder if we need to lend them more credence than we do.
Jon
No.[BIBLEDRB]Matthew 2:23[/BIBLEDRB]Here is an example of something referenced as scripture but clearly not part of the OT. It would have been copied directly from the Greek translation of the source.
By some of the ECFs at least Enoch. There are others that were in the early years that were used as if they were Scripture such as the books of Hermas, Epistle of Barnabas, the Epistles of Ignatius, and some others that no longer exist.are Enoch, the Assumption of Moses cited as being scripture?
Well the facts argue against you, because if the canon was settled, Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox and others would have the same canon…but they do not.Actually the idea that the Catholic biblical canon was not settled until Trent is false. The canon was settled in the 4th or 5th century (can’t remember) at the local council of Rome. It was reaffirmed at Trent to refute the assertions of the Protestants.
Also concerning St. Jerome, he latter in his life defended the canonicity of the DCs against some who he claimed misrepresented what he originally said about the DCs. He said that he was taken out of context and that in fact he was outlining the thoughts of the Jewish scholars view of the DCs. Now whether he originally believed in their canonicity and latter changed his view or was as he said misunderstood is open to debate, but it doesn’t change the fact that the older and wiser Jerome defended their canonicity. From what I understand this defense is in the introduction he wrote on the DCs, but I cannot find personally an English copy of it so I have to trust those that are in the know.
If the OP’s critic were to insist that quotation must be accompanied by some specific “I am quoting Scripture” every time, then there would be even less quotations of “Scripture”. As you say, Enoch is not said to be “Scripture” when Jude quotes it. The point here is that the use of the books in the early Church must be ratified by a Spirit-guided authority, namely the Church. All these scientific formulas for determining Scripture that you see bandied about like folks described in the OP are flawed.I guess it depends if a passage is quoted as scripture. It would at least prove that the passages quoted as scripture are scripture. But, if a book is not quoted then I would agree it really does not say anything about books not quoted as being scripture or not being such. It is like trying to prove a negative in the absence of data.
What importance is that specifically?No. Because no noncanonical books are referenced as scripture in the NT. However NOT ALL canonical books are referenced in the NT. The Deutrocanonical books are never referenced as scripture in the NT. But you already knew that.
It has some importance.
The Eastern church accepts all of the books we have except they have a few more that was originally kept for spiritual reading much like the original protestants view was was latter called the DCs. I still am unclear if they view these now as canonical or not. Most probably they would say they are not sure since they have never reaffirmed what is canonical after the schism.Well the facts argue against you, because if the canon was settled, Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox and others would have the same canon…but they do not.
And us as well. You did not “settle” it for us. Your canon is too big.
Local councils were not ecumenical. If the local councils held the same authority as ecumenical councils, Orthodoxy would have the same OT canon as Rome.=ERose;7553583]Actually the idea that the Catholic biblical canon was not settled until Trent is false. The canon was settled in the 4th or 5th century (can’t remember) at the local council of Rome. It was reaffirmed at Trent to refute the assertions of the Protestants.
I was not aware he claimed he was misrepresented. I would appreciate a source.Also concerning St. Jerome, he latter in his life defended the canonicity of the DCs against some who he claimed misrepresented what he originally said about the DCs. He said that he was taken out of context and that in fact he was outlining the thoughts of the Jewish scholars view of the DCs. Now whether he originally believed in their canonicity and latter changed his view or was as he said misunderstood is open to debate, but it doesn’t change the fact that the older and wiser Jerome defended their canonicity. From what I understand this defense is in the introduction he wrote on the DCs, but I cannot find personally an English copy of it so I have to trust those that are in the know.
Erose,Also the reason why you have the canon you have is due to Luther using the Hebrew Masoretic text which comes from the 9th century, because of 2Mac teaching about purgatory.
Quite honestly they do. The additional literature that are normally found extra in the Orthodox bible: 3 Mac, 1 Esdras, PrMan, Ps 151 were also found in older Catholic Bibles in an appendix. I am not sure if they consider these extra as God inspired Sacred Scripture or if it is part of their Bibles just because these are normally found in the Septuigint.Local councils were not ecumenical. If the local councils held the same authority as ecumenical councils, Orthodoxy would have the same OT canon as Rome.
Here is a great link written by someone who spent much more time studying this subject than I and were I have spot checked his sources there is accuracy there.I was not aware he claimed he was misrepresented. I would appreciate a source.
I will accept the “older, wiser” Jerome comment, as it ought to be applied to Luther, as well, regarding the canon. The oft (partially) quoted Luther preface to James appeared in his first publication of the NT in 1522, but he withdrew it from all other versions, including his completed translation of the entire Bible, including the D-C’s and Prayer of Manasses, in 1534. The “older, wiser” Luther obviously considered James canon, and often used it in his homiletics.
Jopn
Jon, I apologize for this we Catholics have a tendency of throwing all “Protestant” denominations into one pot and although I do work on not falling into this trap there are still times were I do.Erose,
You are aware that Luther translated a 74 book Bible, including 2 Mac. Your comment about 2 Mac teaching about Purgatory as being the reason Luther questioned the D-C’s is speculative at best. Obviously, Luther could have easily accepted the other 6, if that were the reason.
In addition, while Lutherans generally view the D-C’s as secondary to the canon, the Lutheran confessions did not set a canon.
Jon
What evidence do you have that it was spoken only? It was quoted as scripture. That is enough for me that the writer regarded it as scripture.No.
It was spoken, not written. It can be either. Most of the time spoken does denote writing but not always.
There is no need to resort to mocking.And you know a written source of this…AND know it was in Greek?
Do tell…
No apology needed. The way to unity is a better understanding of each other.=ERose;7558355]Jon, I apologize for this we Catholics have a tendency of throwing all “Protestant” denominations into one pot and although I do work on not falling into this trap there are still times were I do.
Remember, also, that the 1611 KJV also had the D-C’s.That being said the favored protestant bibles such as the KJV old testament is translated from the Masoretic text and there are many more as well. I understand that many of the newer translations are a mishmash of various biblical traditions, but I think that it is safe to say that protestant theology over the last few hundred years in the English world is based upon the KJV and other Masoretic translations.
I think for the NT he used the Greek - Erasmus’s translation. For the OT, I’m not sure, other than to say he had help from a number of individuals, notably Justus Jonas and Philip Melanchthon.One question for you. Was Luther’s translation based upon the Vulgate?
=ERose;7558341]Quite honestly they do. The additional literature that are normally found extra in the Orthodox bible: 3 Mac, 1 Esdras, PrMan, Ps 151 were also found in older Catholic Bibles in an appendix. I am not sure if they consider these extra as God inspired Sacred Scripture or if it is part of their Bibles just because these are normally found in the Septuigint.
I don’t doubt that it did. The pope always had great sway, I am not denying that. I’m not convinced that even that, however, placed a local synod equal to an ecumenical council.Not only that this council albeit was a local council was ratified by Pope Damascus which believe or not carried much weight even back then.
Here is a great link written by someone who spent much more time studying this subject than I and were I have spot checked his sources there is accuracy there.
I’ll take a look,matt1618.freeyellow.com/deut.html#St. Jerome, [347-419/420 A.D]/