Early Church Fathers - Lets be honest

[CWBetts]

No Gabe you have not done what was asked.
What you have done was copied and pasted a list of someone who has a very vivid imagination.

I dont have time to go through each and every citation you have given so Ill pick one the last.

Rev 21: 17 Then he measured its wall: one hundred and forty-four cubits, according to the measure of a man, that is, of an angel. 18 The construction of its wall was of jasper; and the city was pure gold, like clear glass. 19 The foundations of the wall of the city were adorned with all kinds of precious stones: the first foundation was jasper, the second sapphire, the third chalcedony, the fourth emerald, 20 the fifth sardonyx, the sixth sardius, the seventh chrysolite, the eighth beryl, the ninth topaz, the tenth chrysoprase, the eleventh jacinth, and the twelfth amethyst. 21 The twelve gates were twelve pearls: each individual gate was of one pearl. And the street of the city was pure gold, like transparent glass.

Tobit 13: 17 Your streets will be paved with rubies and precious jewels.

Your assertion does not hold up.
Also what do you do besides ignore the point that the NT quotes books that no one claims to be inspired?

As your best champion Jerome would say the Apocrapha is usefull but not inspired. Why do you ignore Jeromes preface which he clearly states the Apocrapha is not inspired.

Why do you ignore the fact that St. Jerome submitted to the councils?

 

[SemperReformada]

Why do you ignore the fact that St. Jerome submitted to the councils?

There is no indication that Jerome “submitted” to the councils.

 

[SemperReformada]

Depends on the perspective one takes as authoritative. IF its the Church council you look to which canonized the bible as authority, these books always remained. IF you look to the Theologians and biblical scholars like St. Jerome who argued placing the Deutero books in the canon because he had no Hebrew counterparts to the Greek to authenticate them, which was part of the scrutiny to meet the canon. The Pope instructed St. Jerome to include them in his “Vulgate” translation, and St. Jerome complied to his obedience to the Pope. The books have been labeled Duetero, because they came to us in the second “Duetero” language, although the Catholic saints labeled them Duetero because they continued to be disputed over again.

The Vulgate also included Jerome’s prefaces to the deutero’s which was clearly negative as to their canonicity.

 

[Stephen168]

There is no indication that Jerome “submitted” to the councils.

The Vulgate also included Jerome’s prefaces to the deutero’s which was clearly negative as to their canonicity.

 

[SemperReformada]

Stephen168:
Stephen,

I fail to see how Jerome submitted to the councils when he clearly rejected the deutero’s as demonstrated by the prefaces he wrote for each dc book. It’s true the dc’s were placed in the Vulgate but you have to account for the fact that the prologue to each dc in the vulgate stated that the dc’s were not to be equated with canonical scripture.

I am assuming that the poster who brought up Jerome’s supposed submission was implying that Jerome accepted the dc’s canonocity based on the North African councils authority and that just doesn’t appear to be the case. Had Jerome accepted the dc’s it is doubtful he would have included his disparaging remarks regarding their canonocity.

 

[Stephen3970]

I was trying to find a non catholic view of the Deuterocanonical Books (The Apocrypha) and ended up on lots of evangelical, presybeteryian and other non catholic christian web sites. Whilst there i noticed that virtually none of them made any mention of how we got the bible even though on the same sites you would see references to John Wycliffe, Luther, Calvin etc.

The intersting thing was that whenever a site did mention the origins of the bible they referred to the “early Church Fathers”. The thing is they would include the Councils of Hippo, Carthage and Nicea in the list of early church fathers but fail to say WHICH church they were in. My thoughts were that the thought of their flocks knowing the truth about the origins of the bible must be so frightening for many church leaders that they either gloss over it or are deceptive.

If you are interested in something ont he deuterocanonicals from a protestant perspective, I would recommend The Apocrypha: Bridge of the Testaments by Robert Denton. It is out of print but is worth looking up. His estimation of these books is as follows:

"No one deliberately buys a book with a missing section, even though defective copies are sometimes accidentally sold in stores. If we have ever purchased one, we remember the vexation we felt on first noticing that the last sentence on a certain left hand page did not continue on the right and that the numbering of the pages suddenly leaped from, say 128 to 145…no one regards such a book as satisfactory and no sane person intentionally buys a copy of an ordinary book he knows to be incomplete.

A Bible without an Apocrypha is very much like a book with a missing section…no essential point of doctrine is affected and the main course of the Biblical narrative is clear even without the apocryphal books. but it is still a fact that a Bible without an Apocrypha is an incomplete Bible…"

This quote alone encouraged me to start using an RSV-CE as my primary bible.

 

[greggy53]

Stephen,

I fail to see how Jerome submitted to the councils when he clearly rejected the deutero’s as demonstrated by the prefaces he wrote for each dc book. It’s true the dc’s were placed in the Vulgate but you have to account for the fact that the prologue to each dc in the vulgate stated that the dc’s were not to be equated with canonical scripture.

I am assuming that the poster who brought up Jerome’s supposed submission was implying that Jerome accepted the dc’s canonocity based on the North African councils authority and that just doesn’t appear to be the case. Had Jerome accepted the dc’s it is doubtful he would have included his disparaging remarks regarding their canonocity.

You fail to see it because as a Protestant you are used to doing your own thing and not submitting to any ultimate authority other than your own. St Jerome submitted to the final authority of the Church, and the Holy Spirit who guides it.

 

[SemperReformada]

You fail to see it because as a Protestant you are used to doing your own thing and not submitting to any ultimate authority other than your own. St Jerome submitted to the final authority of the Church, and the Holy Spirit who guides it.

Greggy,

I don’t see how rejecting the dc’s can be considered as submitting to a provincial council.

How did Jerome submit to the councils when he didn’t accept the canonocity of the dc’s?

 

[tmac1956]

If you are interested in something ont he deuterocanonicals from a protestant perspective, I would recommend The Apocrypha: Bridge of the Testaments by Robert Denton. It is out of print but is worth looking up. His estimation of these books is as follows:

"No one deliberately buys a book with a missing section, even though defective copies are sometimes accidentally sold in stores. If we have ever purchased one, we remember the vexation we felt on first noticing that the last sentence on a certain left hand page did not continue on the right and that the numbering of the pages suddenly leaped from, say 128 to 145…no one regards such a book as satisfactory and no sane person intentionally buys a copy of an ordinary book he knows to be incomplete.

A Bible without an Apocrypha is very much like a book with a missing section…no essential point of doctrine is affected and the main course of the Biblical narrative is clear even without the apocryphal books. but it is still a fact that a Bible without an Apocrypha is an incomplete Bible…"

This quote alone encouraged me to start using an RSV-CE as my primary bible.

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

No Gabe you have not done what was asked.
What you have done was copied and pasted a list of someone who has a very vivid imagination.

I dont have time to go through each and every citation you have given so Ill pick one the last.

Rev 21: 17 Then he measured its wall: one hundred and forty-four cubits, according to the measure of a man, that is, of an angel. 18 The construction of its wall was of jasper; and the city was pure gold, like clear glass. 19 The foundations of the wall of the city were adorned with all kinds of precious stones: the first foundation was jasper, the second sapphire, the third chalcedony, the fourth emerald, 20 the fifth sardonyx, the sixth sardius, the seventh chrysolite, the eighth beryl, the ninth topaz, the tenth chrysoprase, the eleventh jacinth, and the twelfth amethyst. 21 The twelve gates were twelve pearls: each individual gate was of one pearl. And the street of the city was pure gold, like transparent glass.

Tobit 13: 17 Your streets will be paved with rubies and precious jewels.

Your assertion does not hold up.
Also what do you do besides ignore the point that the NT quotes books that no one claims to be inspired?

As your best champion Jerome would say the Apocrapha is usefull but not inspired. Why do you ignore Jeromes preface which he clearly states the Apocrapha is not inspired.

Apochrypha is never attached to the Deutero books as you percieve to be indicating. Protestants reference the Deutero books as Apochrypha = not inspired, the Catholic Church label then canonized and Duetero as I explained above. They only came to us in the Greek translation from the Septuagint which is the original Hebrew/ Greek translation which included the Duetero books, long before the Jamnia council who rejected them in order to prove Jesus a false prophet because he and his apostles quoted from the Greek Septuagint Deutero books as I have provided above.

Once again the main argument for the dispute of the Duetero books because the Hebrew translation (counter parts) were missing at that time until 1947 which difused the ancient argument over the Hebrew counter parts to the dispsuted books.

St. Jerome disputed the books as well as other catholic theologians, Luther and the Jews removed them from their cannons. This is huge difference in action which resulted. The Catholic Church never removed them. St. Jerome does not speak alone for the Catholic Church. Peter his successor and the successors to the apostles, which was and remains today in the Present Pope and Unity with all the Bishops who canonized the Deutero books, not St. Jerome and other independent thinkers.

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

Greggy,

I don’t see how rejecting the dc’s can be considered as submitting to a provincial council.

How did Jerome submit to the councils when he didn’t accept the canonocity of the dc’s?

He obeyed Pope Damasus to place them in His Vulgate translation, which were already canonized in the Greek translation. St.Jerome nor the Pope had the authority to remove them from the canon of scripture. St. Jerome carried the argument that the Jews from 100a.d removed them from their original Alexandria canon from the B.C period, and made a new canon called the Palestinian canon which removed the Deutero books and the Jews added writings to the Palestianian canon. Remember the Jews removed the Deutero books from the original canon because the Hebrew counterparts were missing, and to discredit “The Way” Jesus and his apostles teachings.

As much as a heavy weight St. Jerome is, his opinion of the Deutero books never removed them from the canon of bible books.

 

[Sword_Brethren]

Greggy,

I don’t see how rejecting the dc’s can be considered as submitting to a provincial council.

How did Jerome submit to the councils when he didn’t accept the canonocity of the dc’s?

St. Jerome was not a Rebel. He has nothing incommon with Arius, Hus, or Fr. Luther.

 

[Contarini]

St. Jerome was not a Rebel. He has nothing incommon with Fr. Luther.

That’s a silly statement (all human beings have lots of things in common, for starters). More to the point, you are dodging the fact, acknowledged by the CE, that Jerome’s opinions found considerable support within medieval theology and hence that Luther was drawing on a tradition of questioning the authority of the deuteros. He did not simply decide to reject them for his own nefarious purposes.

That being said, the “rebellion” point is relevant. Because Luther was questioning Catholic tradition far more radically on other points, he quite naturally felt free to put his doubts about the canon into the form of practical action, which an orthodox Catholic theologian would not have done.

This issue just won’t bear the propagandistic weight that *both *sides try to put on it.

Edwin

 

[Sword_Brethren]

That’s a silly statement (all human beings have lots of things in common, for starters). More to the point, you are dodging the fact, acknowledged by the CE, that Jerome’s opinions found considerable support within medieval theology and hence that Luther was drawing on a tradition of questioning the authority of the deuteros. He did not simply decide to reject them for his own nefarious purposes.

That being said, the “rebellion” point is relevant. Because Luther was questioning Catholic tradition far more radically on other points, he quite naturally felt free to put his doubts about the canon into the form of practical action, which an orthodox Catholic theologian would not have done.

This issue just won’t bear the propagandistic weight that *both *sides try to put on it.

Edwin

Not questioning but in rebellion

 

[Contarini]

He obeyed Pope Damasus to place them in His Vulgate translation, which were already canonized in the Greek translation.

If so, then why did the Eastern Church take so long to recognize these books as canonical?

Remember the Jews removed the Deutero books from the original canon because the Hebrew counterparts were missing, and to discredit “The Way” Jesus and his apostles teachings.

No “remembering” is involved here. This is a polemical claim you are making without providing support. There is no evidence that there was ever an “original” Jewish canon that included these books. There is no direct evidence for anything as formal as an “Alexandrian canon,” for that matter. The only Jewish canonical statements of which I’m aware correspond to the “Palestinian” canon–and we have the evidence of Josephus (at least I think he’s the source for this) that the Sadducees had an even smaller canon (as did the Samaritans, I believe).

Edwin

 

[greggy53]

Greggy,

I don’t see how rejecting the dc’s can be considered as submitting to a provincial council.

How did Jerome submit to the councils when he didn’t accept the canonocity of the dc’s?

He remained a faithful servant to mother Church. If he hadn’t he wouldn’t have been sainted. That is why we call him Saint Jerome. Martin Luther is the guy you are looking for. He’s the one that rejected 1500 years of Christian teaching. He’s your man, St Jerome is ours.

 

[greggy53]

There is no indication that Jerome “submitted” to the councils.

While St Jerome may or may not have disagreed with certain decisions of the councils there is no indication that he did not submit to the councils. On the contrary it’s self evident that if he remained a faithful servant of the Church he submitted to it’s teachings. And indeed we know that he did by the obvious fact the he was canonized.

 

[greggy53]

No “remembering” is involved here. This is a polemical claim you are making without providing support. There is no evidence that there was ever an “original” Jewish canon that included these books. There is no direct evidence for anything as formal as an “Alexandrian canon,” for that matter. The only Jewish canonical statements of which I’m aware correspond to the “Palestinian” canon–and we have the evidence of Josephus (at least I think he’s the source for this) that the Sadducees had an even smaller canon (as did the Samaritans, I believe).
Edwin

It doesn’t matter what books the Hebrews included or excluded. The Church had the authority and guidance of the Holy Spirit. You may recall from Acts at the council of Jeruselem where the Church decided to go against the Old Testament and not require circumcision. St Peter and the Church had the authority to do so. Whatever the Holy Catholic Church decided to call scripture is scripture.
“Whatsoever you bind on earth is bound in Heaven.”

 

[SemperReformada]

While St Jerome may or may not have disagreed with certain decisions of the councils there is no indication that he did not submit to the councils. On the contrary it’s self evident that if he remained a faithful servant of the Church he submitted to it’s teachings. And indeed we know that he did by the obvious fact the he was canonized.

It could also be that no one understood the councils as being binding. For a reference look at the Augustine quote I provided earlier. He apparently did not see the councils as settling the issue of the canon although he not only presided over the council but also accepted the dc’s as canonical.

I guess I just don’t see how he can “submit” to the councils and at the same time publicly reject the dc’s.

It’s also curious that the Vulgate was sent out complete with Jerome’s disparaging prologues to the dc’s. If the North African councils were binding or somehow settled the issue of the OT canon why would the church turnaround and undermine it’s position in such an obvious way?

In fact, it’s Jerome’s prologues to the dc’s in the Vulgate that caused many in the middle ages to reject the dc’s.

 

[Stephen168]

If so, then why did the Eastern Church take so long to recognize these books as canonical?

I understand history can be complicated and you seem to be nuancing quite a bit, but how would you order the following statements for how true they are?

A. The Catholic Church adapted the canon of the Septuagint (circa 2000BC) as their canon of the Old Testament.
B. The Catholic Church adapted their canon of the Old Testament based on the Septuagint.
C. The Catholic Church added seven books to the Hebrew Canon (circa 90AD) in the 4th century.
D. The Catholic Church added seven books to the Hebrew Canon at the Council of Trent(16th century).

My answer would be B, A, C, D.