Different versions of the Bible

[unacanta]

Second, unacanta tries to downplay Judith by saying there is a “Historical error”. However, scholarly work has concluded that these books are in fact Parables. In fact, in there are tons of “apparent contradictions” even in the Protestant Bible, and what does Protestants do? They find a solution, but unacanta is not willing to find a solution to the suppose “errors” of the deuterocanonical. There is no error in the deuterocanonical that cannot be solved using the same tactics that Protestants./Catholics use when defending the Bible from Atheists. There are also “supposed” errors (historically) in the books of Esther and Joshua. As someone said, " If you keep focusing on the superficialities of the biblical stories, you’ll miss the message entirely."

Nice try, but there is no place in the text which even hints at a parable. Further more there is nothing similar within the books of the Protestant canon. The reason I can not nor anyone else find a solution to the “supposed” errors is the books are not inspired and one is not able to defend blated errors.
I quote the following:
One of the first questions that naturally rises regarding this book is whether it is historical. The consensus, at least among Protestant and Jewish scholars, is that the story is, sheer fiction…The book teems with chronological, historical, and geographical improbabilities and downright errors…For example, Holofernes moves an immense army about three hundred miles in three days (2:21). The opening words of the book, when taken with 2:1ff. and 4:21, involve the most astonishing historical nonsense, for the author places Nebuchadnezzar’s reign, over the Assyrians (in reality he was king of Babylon) at Nineveh (which fell seven years before his accession!) at a time, when the Jews had only recently returned from the captivity (actually at this time they were suffering further deportations)! Nebuchadnezzar did not make war on Media (1:7), nor capture Ecbatana (1:14)…The rebuilding of the Temple (4:13) is dated, by a glaring anachronism, about a century too early. Moreover, the Jewish state is represented as being under the government of a high priest and a kind of Sanhedrin (6:6-14; 15:8), which is compatible only with a post-exilic date several hundred years after the book’s presumed historical setting.
I think enough is said there. The errors were not a “Parable”, but rather an uninspired writer make the error which would never have been made had they been writing under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit.

Third, unacanta tries to say that there is a “theological” error in the book of Tobit. But as we have seen, all there is a difference of the Old Covenant and New Covenant. Tobit was written in a time period when people were saved by adhering to the Law. Jesus hadn’t died yet. Giving alms to the poor would be adhering to part of the Law and so coming to salvation. There are similar passages in the canonical books.But unacanta want us to believe that Tobit deny Jesus death even though it was written hundreds of years before Christ was even born!

Giving alms to the poor is one thing, giving alms to deliver from all sin and death be a great confidence before the most high God is entirely a different matter. No where in the Law can you find a person being able to pay alms to be deliver from sin under new or old testament.

Tobit4:11-12
11 For alms deliver from all sin, and from death, and will not suffer the soul to go into darkness. 12 Alms shall be a great confidence before the most high God, to all them that give it.

Fourth, unacanta tries to prove that there were at least 50 Fathers who rejected the deuterocanoicals, but as we have seen, there is in fact Zero support for this statement. All there is a misunderstanding in the definition of the word “canon” as it was used in the Fathers age. The common meaning: “Books are not inspired” is very different in Fathers age.

Throughout Church history, the word “canonical” has been used in several ways. It does not always mean what Martin Luther and the Protestants mean when they speak of a book being canonical or non-canonical. Rather, “non-canonical” can mean that:

1. a book is heretical (e.g. the Gospel of Thomas), or
2. That it is a good book with historical and spiritual merit, but uninspired (e.g. the Shepherd of Hermas), or
3. That it is an inspired book, but not used in the Liturgy of a particular city-church or even in the Liturgy of many city-churches (e.g. Revelation or 2 Maccabees).

The word “canonical” has indeed been used and mis-used for that matter. In this discussion I have used it to mean that a book is inspired or not. I thought that was clearly understood.

All unacanta did was list Fathers, without even giving reliable citations. The Fathers unacanta listed actually accepted these books, and there writings speak for themselves. If Unacanta wants to prove that these books are inspired, he or she would have to cite a Fathers in which He specifically said “Tobit is not inspired” (etc)

 

[victus]

Contrary to what Darkmark says, it was not the Church (RCC Church) which established the OT canon. It was those whom were entrusted with the ordinances (Rom3:2), likewise we see the Apostles entrusted with the gospel 1Thes2:24, and those whom they taught (1Tim6:20). It is not the Church that was entrusted but rather those whom were members of the Church that were given authority. This must also include the Eastern Church if we are to conclude it was the Church.

And what scriptures did the Jews use, because if Romans 3:2 means that the Jews determine the Canon of the Old Testament, than my question is why don’t we have the Book of Enoch in our Old Testament? Obvisously James uses it. So, therefore the Jews must have used it.

 

[DianJo]

Smarty pants - you beat me to it!!!

 

[DianJo]

Contrary to what Darkmark says, it was not the Church (RCC Church) which established the OT canon. It was those whom were entrusted with the ordinances (Rom3:2), likewise we see the Apostles entrusted with the gospel 1Thes2:24, and those whom they taught (1Tim6:20). It is not the Church that was entrusted but rather those whom were members of the Church that were given authority. This must also include the Eastern Church if we are to conclude it was the Church.

I’m not sure who or what you think the Church was/is.
Those “members” that you speak about were the hierarchy of the Church - they were the Bishops. It’s called Apostolic Succession.

You obviously believe in the “invisible” church.

 

[DianJo]

Nice try, but there is no place in the text which even hints at a parable. Further more there is nothing similar within the books of the Protestant canon. The reason I can not nor anyone else find a solution to the “supposed” errors is the books are not inspired and one is not able to defend blated errors.
I quote the following:
One of the first questions that naturally rises regarding this book is whether it is historical. The consensus, at least among Protestant and Jewish scholars, is that the story is, sheer fiction…The book teems with chronological, historical, and geographical improbabilities and downright errors…For example, Holofernes moves an immense army about three hundred miles in three days (2:21). The opening words of the book, when taken with 2:1ff. and 4:21, involve the most astonishing historical nonsense, for the author places Nebuchadnezzar’s reign, over the Assyrians (in reality he was king of Babylon) at Nineveh (which fell seven years before his accession!) at a time, when the Jews had only recently returned from the captivity (actually at this time they were suffering further deportations)! Nebuchadnezzar did not make war on Media (1:7), nor capture Ecbatana (1:14)…The rebuilding of the Temple (4:13) is dated, by a glaring anachronism, about a century too early. Moreover, the Jewish state is represented as being under the government of a high priest and a kind of Sanhedrin (6:6-14; 15:8), which is compatible only with a post-exilic date several hundred years after the book’s presumed historical setting.
I think enough is said there. The errors were not a “Parable”, but rather an uninspired writer make the error which would never have been made had they been writing under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit.

You seem to making alot of the same, old, tired arguments - so much so that entire articles have been written about “your objections”:

From an article in "This Rock:
In reading Scripture, it is imperative that we understand the genre of the work. Is it a historical passage? An apocalyptic one? A parable? A proverb? Knowing this influences how the book should be read. When Jesus says that the mustard seed is the smallest of seeds (Matt.13:32), he is not providing a treatise on botany. After all, there are seeds smaller than the mustard seed. When Jesus spoke in parables, the people understood that he was telling a story, and they did not expect it to conform to historical or scientific precision.

The same goes with the book of Judith. “Judith” means “lady Jew,” and she personifies the nation of Israel, as “Nebuchadnezzar, king of the Assyrians” personifies the enemies of the nation. The Jews of the time were aware that Nebuchadnezzar was not the king of the Assyrians but that the Babylonians and Assyrians were two of the nation’s worst foes joined into one by the author of Judith for the sake of parable.

From Mark Shea “5 Myths about 7 Books”:
Let’s take the problem of alleged “factual errors” first. The Church teaches that to have an authentic understanding of Scripture we must have in mind what the author was actually trying to assert, the way he was trying to assert it, and what is incidental to that assertion.

Both Judith and Tobit have a number of historical and geographical errors, not because they’re presenting bad history and erroneous geography, but because they’re first-rate pious stories that don’t pretend to be remotely interested with teaching history or geography, any more than the Resurrection narratives in the Gospels are interested in astronomy. Indeed, the author of Tobit goes out of his way to make clear that his hero is fictional. He makes Tobit the uncle of Ahiqar, a figure in ancient Semitic folklore like “Jack the Giant Killer” or “Aladdin.” Just as one wouldn’t wave a medieval history textbook around and complain about a tale that begins “once upon a time when King Arthur ruled the land,” so Catholics are not reading Tobit and Judith to get a history lesson.

The reason these books are inspired is because they teach spiritual lessons. They are to teach us something. Just as you can also say that there was no such “man with two sons” in the story of the Prodical Son, or that when the prophet Nathan tells King David the story of the “rich man” who stole a “poor man’s” ewe lamb and slaughtered it, Nathan is not a liar if he cannot produce the carcass or identify the two men in his story. I don’t think you would condone throwing out those stories from the canon?

I don’t expect scripture to be perfectly logical and in perfect alignment with history. I prefer to listen to the lessons each book or story presents. Too bad non-catholics seem to want proof and absolute historocity.

 

[DianJo]

I
We see over fifty of the patristic Fathers of the Church prior to Trent declaring these books are not inspired. Even Jerome whom translated the Vulgate also included the Apocrypha, but he did not consider them inspired. Rather he considered them as secondary works, beneficial for reading but not establishing doctrine.

The fact remains there was not “golden index” telling us which books were to be considered sacred scripture and which were not. The books which are sacred scripture are so because God and God alone determines so. No council, Prophet, Church Committee, can determine what God has already established. Yet, Jesus and the Apostles knew exactly which books were inspired and which were not.

From Mark Shea "5 Myths about 7 Books: as I said previously, you agruments are predictable:

No Church Father is infallible. That charism is reserved uniquely to the pope, in an extraordinary sense and, in an ordinary sense, corporately to all the lawful bishops of the Catholic Church who are in full communion with the pope and are teaching definitively in an ecumenical council.

The canon of Scripture, though it more or less assumed its present shape - which included the deuterocanonical books - by about A.D. 380, nonetheless wasn’t dogmatically defined by the Church for another thousand years. In that thousand years, it was quite on the cards for believers to have some flexibility in how they regarded the canon. And this applies to the handful of Church Fathers and theologians who expressed reservations about the deuterocanon. Their private opinions about the deuterocanon were just that: private opinions.

this myth begins to disintegrate when you point out that the overwhelming majority of Church Fathers and other early Christian writers regarded the deuterocanonical books as having exactly the same inspired, scriptural status as the other Old Testament books. Just a few examples of this acceptance can be found in the Didache, The Epistle of Barnabas, the Council of Rome, the Council of Hippo, the Third Council of Carthage, the African Code, the Apostolic Constitutions, and the writings of Pope St. Clement I (Epistle to the Corinthians), St. Polycarp of Smyrna, St. Irenaeus of Lyons, St. Hippolytus, St. Cyprian of Carthage, Pope St. Damasus I, St. Augustine, and Pope St. Innocent I.

St. Jerome, in his later years, did indeed accept the Deuterocanonical books of the Bible. In fact, he wound up strenuously defending their status as inspired Scripture, writing, “What sin have I committed if I followed the judgment of the churches? But he who brings charges against me for relating the objections that the Hebrews are wont to raise against the story of Susanna, the Son of the Three Children, and the story of Bel and the Dragon, which are not found in the Hebrew volume (ie. canon), proves that he is just a foolish sycophant. For I wasn’t relating my own personal views, but rather the remarks that they [the Jews] are wont to make against us” (Against Rufinus 11:33 [A.D. 402]). In earlier correspondence with Pope Damasus, Jerome did not call the deuterocanonical books unscriptural, he simply said that Jews he knew did not regard them as canonical. But for himself, he acknowledged the authority of the Church in defining the canon. When Pope Damasus and the Councils of Carthage and Hippo included the deuterocanon in Scripture, that was good enough for St. Jerome. He “followed the judgment of the churches.” And that’s the important part - he deferred to the judgement of the Church and it’s authority to pronounce such things.

The fact of the matter is that neither the Council of Trent nor the Council of Florence added a thing to the Old Testament canon. Rather, they simply accepted and formally ratified the ancient practice of the Apostles and early Christians by dogmatically defining a collection of Old Testament Scripture (including the deuterocanon) that had been there since before the time of Christ, used by our Lord and his apostles, inherited and assumed by the Fathers, formulated and reiterated by various councils and popes for centuries and read in the liturgy and prayer for 1500 years.

When certain people decided to snip some of this canon out in order to suit their theological opinions, the Church moved to prevent it by defining (both at Florence and Trent) that this very same canon was, in fact, the canon of the Church’s Old Testament and always had been.

With such agruments, I don’t believe in reinventing the wheel when it’s already there for us to use - hence, the quote.

 

[DianJo]

One last thing and I won’t say another word -
Please stop referring to the Deuterocanonical books as the Apocrypha. That is actually incorrect.

The Apocrypha refers to another set of books such as the Assumption of Moses, 3rd & 4th Esdras, 3 Maccabees, Prayer of Manasses, etc.

The Deuteros refer to the “second canon” which usually refers to the set of books we are discussing. It’s very confusing when you use incorrect terminolgy.

Finally, the Church decided upon a canon of 46 Old Testament books and 27 in the New Testament. This decision was ratified by the councils at Hippo (393), Carthage (397, 419), II Nicea (787), Florence (1442), and Trent (1546).

The only reason the Council of Trent made the declaration it did concerning the canon was because of people like Luther who were threatening to “remove” books from approved scripture without authority and it was leading the faithful away from the truth. Up until that point, there was no reason the close the canon infallibly - it had already been decides centuries ago.

And the Eastern Church you refer to - was not the Eastern Church then. It was the One, Holy, Catholic, Apostolic Church at the time the canon of scripture was defined and ratified by Pope Damascus.

There, 'nough said, I’m done. See ya!

 

[unacanta]

You seem to making a lot of the same, old, tired arguments - so much so that entire articles have been written about “your objections”:

From an article in "This Rock:
In reading Scripture, it is imperative that we understand the genre of the work. Is it a historical passage? An apocalyptic one? A parable? A proverb? Knowing this influences how the book should be read. When Jesus says that the mustard seed is the smallest of seeds (Matt.13:32), he is not providing a treatise on botany. After all, there are seeds smaller than the mustard seed. When Jesus spoke in parables, the people understood that he was telling a story, and they did not expect it to conform to historical or scientific precision.

True about Jesus, however Jesus never presented anything specific facts that were not true. He always explain his parables.

The same goes with the book of Judith. “Judith” means “lady Jew,” and she personifies the nation of Israel, as “Nebuchadnezzar, king of the Assyrians” personifies the enemies of the nation. The Jews of the time were aware that Nebuchadnezzar was not the king of the Assyrians but that the Babylonians and Assyrians were two of the nation’s worst foes joined into one by the author of Judith for the sake of parable.

Ok…so I suppose the other errors are supposed personifications, that we are to believe, when a historical error occurs we are to read in to it some great and profound mystery.

From Mark Shea “5 Myths about 7 Books”:
Let’s take the problem of alleged “factual errors” first. The Church teaches that to have an authentic understanding of Scripture we must have in mind what the author was actually trying to assert, the way he was trying to assert it, and what is incidental to that assertion.

Both Judith and Tobit have a number of historical and geographical errors, not because they’re presenting bad history and erroneous geography, but because they’re first-rate pious stories that don’t pretend to be remotely interested with teaching history or geography, any more than the Resurrection narratives in the Gospels are interested in astronomy. Indeed, the author of Tobit goes out of his way to make clear that his hero is fictional. He makes Tobit the uncle of Ahiqar, a figure in ancient Semitic folklore like “Jack the Giant Killer” or “Aladdin.” Just as one wouldn’t wave a medieval history textbook around and complain about a tale that begins “once upon a time when King Arthur ruled the land,” so Catholics are not reading Tobit and Judith to get a history lesson.

Pious stories?? first-rate?? We are not building nor binding to the Christian conscience doctrine with King Arthur. Good thing that we don’t read Tobit or Judith for history or anything else which we might be held accountable.

The reason these books are inspired is because they teach spiritual lessons. They are to teach us something. Just as you can also say that there was no such “man with two sons” in the story of the Prodical Son, or that when the prophet Nathan tells King David the story of the “rich man” who stole a “poor man’s” ewe lamb and slaughtered it, Nathan is not a liar if he cannot produce the carcass or identify the two men in his story. I don’t think you would condone throwing out those stories from the canon?

I don’t expect scripture to be perfectly logical and in perfect alignment with history. I prefer to listen to the lessons each book or story presents. Too bad non-catholics seem to want proof and absolute historocity.

No, but we do expect the scripture in which we read to be at least reliable. Which of course we can not do with the Apocrypha.

There was a reason that the Jewish canon was 22 in number. Many of the Fathers, and I will be glad to list them, totally stated that the books were not inspired. They did acknowledge that the books were edifying to read but not for establishing doctrine

 

[inthecloud]

No, but we do expect the scripture in which we read to be at least reliable. Which of course we can not do with the Apocrypha.

There was a reason that the Jewish canon was 22 in number. Many of the Fathers, and I will be glad to list them, totally stated that the books were not inspired. They did acknowledge that the books were edifying to read but not for establishing doctrine

Yeah. Genesis 1 to 11 is totally reliable. Sure. And Daniel and Esther.

I love when fundies cherrypick the Fathers.

Most of them did consider the Deuteros as scripture and even preached on them. Only a minority questioned them.
Other that St Melito, St Jerome and St Athanasius I would be glad to hear names.

 

[victus]

Most of them did consider the Deuteros as scripture and even preached on them. Only a minority questioned them.
Other that St Melito, St Jerome and St Athanasius I would be glad to hear names.

Actually your right, but questioning them doesn’t mean rejecting all of them.

St. Athanasius in his 39th Festal Letter

…Then Isaiah, one book, then Jeremiah with Baruch, Lamentations, and the epistle, one book; afterwards, Ezekiel and Daniel, each one book. Thus far constitutes the Old Testament.

If Protestants say St. Athanasius was right about the Canon or that he rejected all of the Deuterocanon, why does St. Athanasius include Baruch and the Epistle of Baruch in his list of Canonical Books?

Protestants can’t find one source that rejects all of the Deuterocanonal Books. If they find one person I can guarantee that same person who questioned the Deuterocanon quoted from the Deuterocanonical Books.

 

[unacanta]

And what scriptures did the Jews use, because if Romans 3:2 means that the Jews determine the Canon of the Old Testament, than my question is why don’t we have the Book of Enoch in our Old Testament? Obvisously James uses it. So, therefore the Jews must have used it.

The direct quotation from 1 Enoch does not mean that Jude considered the work to be canonical or inspired anymore than the quoting of pagan poets by Paul would lend credence to any idea that he considered them inspired.

I have been stating and still do, that none of the Apocrypha were ever placed in the category of inspired by Jesus or an Apostle by the statement "It is written, according to Scripture, etc.
Historically the following is true.

1. The Jewish canon (the books which were recognized as inspired) was 22 in number.
   a) Jesus and the Apostles confirm that the OT was comprised of the Law, the Prophets, Psalms.
   Mk12:10 Have you not even read this Scripture:
   '(A)THE STONE WHICH THE BUILDERS REJECTED,
   THIS BECAME THE CHIEF CORNER stone;
   Jesus is using Psalm 118:22 to rebuke the
   Lk. 24:27Then beginning with Moses and with all the prophets, He explained to them the things concerning Himself in all the Scriptures.
   Notice He does not use the books from the Apocrypha to explain Himself.

b) The ancient writer Josephus in clearly defined the OT canon to be 22 books, none of the Apocrypha were listed.

c) Philo though never actually gives a formal statement on the canon, he never ever quotes from the Apocrypha.

d) It goes without saying that Jerome made clear that the Jewish canon consisted of the 22 books which makes up the three fold structure of the OT.

e) There were many others including Origen whom stated that the Jewish canon consisted of 22 books. Others included in stating that there were 22 books were Hilary of Poitiers, Cyril of Jerusalem, Athanasius, Epiphanius, who was a native of Palestine, Gregory of Nazianzus, Basil the Great, and Rufinus,23 while Jerome24 gave numberings of both twenty-two and twenty-four.

Clearly the accepted canon for the OT and by canon I mean which books which are considered inspired was numbered 22. Yes, many church Fathers followed and believed that the Apocrypha were inspired. I am not debating that.

See my post concerning these books:
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=3438171&postcount=22

You said that they are 52 Fathers who said these books were not inspired, just show me 1! You can tell that to somebody who never read the Fathers. I can give you every Father’s quote proving they accepted these books as inspired!

Here is a link, you may read to your hearts content which will demonstrate that not all Fathers accepted these books as inspired. However, you must read with an open mind which you can not do because you are bound by the Council of Trent.
christiantruth.com/apocryphaintroduction.html

One of the problems in having a dialog with Catholics and Protestants in this area is this. The council of Trent stated and made a rule of faith which books were considered inspired. You must defend no matter what history states since the Magisterium is infallible in its pronouncements.

As a Protestant, I can actually ready and discern from various sources and determine if what is being said is true or not, you as a Catholic do not have that option unfortunately. So far, there has been a preponderance of material listed here in this thread, yet most is illogical or side steps historical fact that the Jewish inspired canon consisted of 22 books.

Last thing to review:
The New Catholic Encyclopedia actually makes this statement:
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. The situation remained unclear in the ensuing centuries…For example, John of Damascus, Gregory the Great, Walafrid, Nicolas of Lyra and Tostado continued to doubt the canonicity of the deutercanonical books. According to Catholic doctrine, the proximate criterion of the biblical canon is the infallible decision of the Church. This decision was not given until rather late in the history of the Church at the Council of Trent. The Council of Trent definitively settled the matter of the Old Testament Canon. That this had not been done previously is apparent from the uncertainty that persisted up to the time of Trent (New Catholic Encyclopedia, The Canon).

Again and I quote:

[SIGN]According to Catholic doctrine, the proximate criterion of the biblical canon is the infallible decision of the Church. This decision was not given until rather late in the history of the Church at the Council of Trent. The Council of Trent definitively settled the matter of the Old Testament Canon.[/SIGN]
This is of course very true for the Catholic Church. The fact still remains that the OT canon of the Hebrews consisted of 22 books, none of the Apocrypha or if you prefer deutercanonical books were considered inspired by the Jews or many within the ancient church.

The reason are numerous, the one as I stated in one of my previous post concerning Tobit.

Tobit4:11-12
11 For alms deliver from all sin, and from death, and will not suffer the soul to go into darkness. 12 Alms shall be a great confidence before the most high God, to all them that give it.

It was said well, that is OT teaching and not for the NT.

Giving alms to the poor is one thing, giving alms to deliver from all sin and death be a great confidence before the most high God is entirely a different matter. No where in the Law can you find a person being able to pay alms to be deliver from sin under new or old testament.

Blessings,

Una

 

[unacanta]

Actually your right, but questioning them doesn’t mean rejecting all of them.

St. Athanasius in his 39th Festal Letter

If Protestants say St. Athanasius was right about the Canon or that he rejected all of the Deuterocanon, why does St. Athanasius include Baruch and the Epistle of Baruch in his list of Canonical Books?

Protestants can’t find one source that rejects all of the Deuterocanonal Books. If they find one person I can guarantee that same person who questioned the Deuterocanon quoted from the Deuterocanonical Books.

Again you seem to be mixing apples with oranges, YES some of the Apocrypha were listed by various sources in the bible, that does not mean that the people who listed them there believed or did not believe they were inspired.

You ask for one soures, I have listed many…again, Josephus writes that the books were 22 in number, none of the Apocrypha were included.

 

[Axion]

Contrary to what Darkmark says, it was not the Church (RCC Church) which established the OT canon. It was those whom were entrusted with the ordinances (Rom3:2), likewise we see the Apostles entrusted with the gospel 1Thes2:24, and those whom they taught (1Tim6:20). It is not the Church that was entrusted but rather those whom were members of the Church that were given authority. This must also include the Eastern Church if we are to conclude it was the Church.

The Canon of Scripture was established by the united Catholic Church at the Councils of Rome and Carthage in 382 and 397 AD respectively, and approved by the Pope. Until that date there was no Bible as such. the new Testament was just collections of writings that claimed to be Apostolic, and over which there was much disagreement. The Old was the Greek Septuagint scriptures of the early Christians which included the deuterocanonicals. Once defined the canonical books were bound together in one big book (Latin: Biblia) which word is the origin of Bible.

 

[sodak]

Giving alms to the poor is one thing, giving alms to deliver from all sin and death be a great confidence before the most high God is entirely a different matter. No where in the Law can you find a person being able to pay alms to be deliver from sin under new or old testament.

Blessings,

Una

Oh really? Would you consider a temple offering to be alms? What do you think the High Priest would use an unblemished animal for? Blood of sacrifice is required for redemption from sins. Always has been, always will be. I suggest you look up the word redemption. We now have the Blood of the Lamb, as the song says, but before Christ, they didn’t. I’m surprised that you would overlook something so obvious.

Refusing to use the term Deuterocanonical, and instead, using the incorrect term Apocrypha is quite telling about your intentions, however.

 

[inthecloud]

You ask for one soures, I have listed many…again, Josephus writes that the books were 22 in number, none of the Apocrypha were included.

If I recall Josephus was a Pharisee and he was following Hillel list (or canon). Since when Pharisees determinate Christian doctrine?

 

[juliamajor]

oh goody! lets start throwing out books of the bible because of “historical” inaccuracies .Start lining them up folks!. By that methodology we should throw out Esther(which almost didn’t make it into the Canon)Full of historical who ha and nonsense-Daniel - has a lot of the dynastic errors in Tobit-Jonah which is really a satire.That’s just the Tip of the iceberg- huge problems in the historicity over Joshua(was it a war of Conquest) or was it like Judges(some friction with the natives, tribal difficulties and more assimilation than conquering)?Samuel&Kings Vs the Chronicles-which has got it straight? (Chronicles cleans up the life of David) did he or didn’t he commit murder and adultery? two little things Chronicles omits. the argument doesn’t stick -it’s made of smoke and mirrors.Deuteros are invaluable- there is a well of information about 1st C.theology.Did the theology of Resurrection of the Body, Retribution after death, a non dreary afterlife just pop up with Jesus-along withe the Formation of the Pharisees(who probably came out of Hasidim)and Sadducees-(from the hellenistic period)? Or did the hints of these theologies in the OT come to fruition and to become part of theology of Jesus’ time?From the last writing of the Deuteros to birth of Christ is only about 100-150 yrs before Christ- yet in that time the Resurrection of the Body was a doctrine that came to be well accepted in a relatively short amount of time. there was no “400 yrs of silence”! The core of Messianic beliefs and Christian theology were formed at that time. To bad- you’re really missing out

 

[inthecloud]

Julia I love your post,are you a biblist?

b) The ancient writer Josephus in clearly defined the OT canon to be 22 books, none of the Apocrypha were listed.

c) Philo though never actually gives a formal statement on the canon, he never ever quotes from the Apocrypha.

d) It goes without saying that Jerome made clear that the Jewish canon consisted of the 22 books which makes up the three fold structure of the OT.

e) There were many others including Origen whom stated that the Jewish canon consisted of 22 books. Others included in stating that there were 22 books were Hilary of Poitiers, Cyril of Jerusalem, Athanasius, Epiphanius, who was a native of Palestine, Gregory of Nazianzus, Basil the Great, and Rufinus,23 while Jerome24 gave numberings of both twenty-two and twenty-four.

Clearly the accepted canon for the OT and by canon I mean which books which are considered inspired was numbered 22. Yes, many church Fathers followed and believed that the Apocrypha were inspired. I am not debating that.

a)Josephus was a Pharisee, period.
b) Philo lived before some of the deuterocanonicals books were written and might have wrote one of them according to some. (Wisdom).
c) Jerome was thinking the Pharisees canon was right but he was rebutted by Augustine and others. For the same reason I think they belong in the Bible. The Pharisees (not the Jews uncanta, not the Jews) have nothing to do with the Christian Bible canon. They rejected Jesus.
d) Origen never challenged the authority of those books, he told people not to use them anymore in debates with tannaitic Jews because they no longer believed in those books. Hence the name Aphocrypha meaning hidden books. I would like to read the actual quotes of the Early Church Fathers you mentioned. I guess that they must be as accurate as the Origen quote.

The Pharisees list of 22 books was made by Rabbi Hillel and modified at Yavneh. Tell me Uncanta, was Hillel inspired to make book list for Christian bibles. By whom? Were is that in the Bible?
That was the point of Augustine rebbutal of St Jerome. Are Pharisees rabbis allowed to determine the canon of the Christian Church or is the Christian Church the one that says what books are sacred?
If that true I will convert to orthodox judaism tomorrow.

 

[DarkMark]

unacanta. I will not post no more after this.

First, you will never find a Church Fathers who rejected all the deuteros books, which is why you haven’t quoted a Church Fathers saying “Tobit is not inspired”. I wrote to you many quotes from variable sources proving that the same Fathers you mentioned said these books were inspired but you ignore it because you know you are dead wrong

1. What the Jewish canon consist of has no value to us Christians. They do not even accept the NT. Therefore, if you want to follow Jewish people in determine what belongs in the Canon, instead of the Church, then you should become a Jew unacanta.

1. Jesus and the Apostles never quoted from about 12 books of the OT. Your remark is that these was in the “approved” books, yet there is no support of that in Scriptures.
2. Josephus was a Jews who rejected Christ and the NT. Why are following Him as your “leader” in determining the OT Canon? He was Jew. Period. He has no authority to determined what Christians should believe or not. Shame on you for believing otherwise!
3. Again, Philo was a Jew. Why not go to these Jews (who rejected Christ and NT) and determined if Jesus really is the Messiah? You seem to believe they have “authority” instead of Christ’s Bride (The Church). Shame on you.
4. 1. St. Jerome did doubt them AT FIRST, but He later accepted. His argument with the other Church leaders was that this list was the canon. Here are some quotes:

Does not the SCRIPTURE say: ‘Burden not thyself above thy power’ [SIRACH 13:2] Jerome, To Eustochium, Epistle 108 (A.D. 404), in NPNF2, VI:207

“I would cite the words of the psalmist: 'the sacrifices of God are a broken spirit,’ [Ps 51:17] and those of Ezekiel 'I prefer the repentance of a sinner rather than his death,’ [Ez 18:23] AND THOSE OF BARUCH,'Arise, arise, O Jerusalem,’ [Baruch 5:5] AND MANY OTHER PROCLAMATIONS MADE BY THE TRUMPETS OF THE PROPHETS.” Jerome, To Oceanus, Epistle 77:4 (A.D. 399), in NPNF2, VI:159

There are other quotes. In Jerome, Letter 1:9, NPNF2, VI:2, 370 AD and Jerome, to Eustochium, Letter 22:21, 384 AD, NPNF2, VI:30, he uses Judith and the Three Children in Daniel and the story of Susanna as Scripture to prove doctrines. Therefore, Jerome later accepted them. And He use them to reprove doctrine. I challenge you to find a quote from Jerome or the 50 Church Fathers you said that wrote that everyone of these books are “not inspired” not “non-canonical” as I alreadly explain to you how the Church Fathers used the word “canon”. I give $1,000. Think you hack it?

 

[DarkMark]

1. That is not the case. Origin believed HIMSELF that these books were Scripture. He said the Church of His time uses it. Who has more authority? The Jewish people of Christ Bride (The Church)?

" ‘It should be stated that the canonical books, as the Hebrews have handed them down, are twenty-two; corresponding with the number of their letters.’ Farther on he says: ‘The twenty-two books of the Hebrews 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’; Exodus, Welesmoth, that is, ‘These are the names’; Leviticus, Wikra, ‘And he called’; Numbers, Ammesphekodeim; Deuteronomy, Eleaddebareim, ’ These are the words’; Jesus, the son of Nave, Josoue ben Noun; Judges and Ruth, among them in one book, Saphateim; the First and Second of Kings, among them one, Samouel, that is, ‘The called of God’; the Third and Fourth of Kings in one, Wammelch David, that is, ‘The kingdom of David’; of the Chronicles, the First and Second in one, Dabreiamein, that is, ‘Records of days’; Esdras, First and Second in one, Ezra, that is, ‘An assistant’; the book of Psalms, Spharthelleim; 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 NPNF2,I:272

He does not mention all the Deuterocanonical books, he does put Baruch and the two Maccabees books in the canon. Remember, canonical does not necessarily mean all that is Scripture.In the Fathers age, it was also meant “books are not read in Church but are still Scripture”.

You begin by saying, that when, in my discussion with our friend Bassus,**I used the Scripture which contains the prophecy of Daniel when yet a young man in the affair of Susanna, I did this as if it had escaped me that this part of the book was spurious. You say that you praise this passage as elegantly written, but find fault with it as a more modern composition, and a forgery; and you add that the forger has had recourse to something which not even Philistion the play-writer would have used in his puns between prinos and prisein, schinos and schisis, which words as they sound in Greek can be used in this way, but not in Hebrew. In answer to this, I have to tell you what it behoves us to do in the cases not only of the History of Susanna, which is found in every Church of Christ in that Greek copy which the Greeks use, but is not in the Hebrew, or of the two other passages you mention at the end of the book containing the history of Bel and the Dragon, which likewise are not in the Hebrew copy of Daniel; but of thousands of other passages also which I found in many places when with my little strength I was collating the Hebrew copies with ours… **( Origen,To Africanus, 5 (ante A.D. 254), in ANF,IV:386).

Origin believe it is Scripture.Origen defends the use of the passage in Daniel 3 that Catholics/Orthodox have, the Song of the 3 children, Susanna, and Bel and the Dragon, as found in Daniel 13 and 14 of the Catholic Bible/Orthodox Bible.

“We need not wonder, then, if this history of the evil device of the licentious elders against Susanna is true, but was concealed and removed from the Scriptures by men themselves not very far removed from the counsel of these elders.” Origen,To Africanus,9(ante A.D. 254),in ANF,IV:389

"But he ought to know that those who wish to live according to the teaching of Sacred Scripture understand the saying, ‘The knowledge of the unwise is as talk without sense,’ [Sirach 21:18] and have learnt 'to be ready always to give an answer to everyone that asketh us a reason for the hope that is in us.’ [1 Pt 3:15] " Origen, Against Celsus, 7:12 (A.D. 248),in ANF, IV:615

Sirach is Scripture according to Origin.

A]s is written in the book of Tobit: ‘It is good to keep close the secret of a king, but honourable to reveal the works of God,’ [Tobit 12:7]–in a way consistent with truth and God’s glory, and so as to be to the advantage of the multitude." Origen, Against Celsus, 5:19(A.D. 248),in ANF,IV:551.

“Tobias (as also Judith), we ought to notice, the Jews do not use. They are not even found in the Hebrew Apocrypha, as I learned from the Jews themselves.” However, since the Churches use Tobias, you must know that even in the captivity some of the captives were rich and well to do. ( Origen, To Africanus, 13 (ante A.D. 254), in ANF, IV:391.)

Tobit too. Other quotes can be given. I stop here. Again, you will never find a Church who said all these books were “not Scriptures”. You will never find a Church who rejected all 7 books.

 

[DarkMark]

7). I covered the other Church Fathers in my other posts, which you ignore. They all believed in the 7 books

You said, “Clearly the accepted canon for the OT and by canon I mean which books which are considered inspired was numbered 22.”.

The accepted OT for Jews not Christian. As Origin and other Church Fathers said, the 7 books found only in the Greek Version of the OT (which Christ and the Apostles use) are Scripture and are used by the Church.

1. There are no Historical error, or Theological errors in the Deutros that do not have a solution. Tobit was written during a time period that obeying the law. Also, Blood of sacrifice is required for redemption from sins in the OT. They needed to DO something to have redemption (all in the OT). They needed to sacrifice animals. By all means, Alms!
2. The fact that many Scholars (Both Catholic and Protestant) have concluded that Tobit and Judith are not actual stroies but rather a “parable” teaching spiritual truth. Thereby, Historical errors do not matter.* Jesus told parables, and not always did He explain them either!* The fact is that Esther, Joshua and other books have “apparent [some historical] contradiction/errors”.

10). First you said that over 50 Church Fathers rejected these books, and now in post 70, you said that many Church Fathers accepted them. Which one is it? First you said, the Apocrypha were never quoted or alluded to it by the Bible, then in post 70 you said that some it were listen by various sources in the Bible. Even you are confused. The fact is that the Church Fathers accepted them, and none rejected ALL the deutros.

You still have not proven why these books are not Scripture. Catholics, Orthodox, and Some Protestant Churches accept these books. That is the Majority of Christians! That means, only a small percentage of Christians reject them. The Councils of Rome and Carthage in 382 and 397 AD said these books were Scripture. I will rather listen to the Early Church rather than your personal Protestant view.