B
benhur
Guest
Not as clearly and authoritatively as Trent.
- Status
B
benhur
Guest
Well put ,I thought something like that was the case.
po18guy
Well-known member
Well-known Lutheran theologian and Christian history expert Jaroslav Pelikan wrote a series entitled “Sacred Writings” which contained the written texts used by the six major religions of the world. In his edition on Christianity, he naturally included the New Testament, but went beyond that and included the Deuterocanon (“Apocrypha”). Since those books mention the resurrection, eternal life and offered clear prophecies of Christ. He saw their obvious value. Even though a Lutheran pastor at the time, he later converted to Orthodoxy and reverted to being a layman.
B
benhur
Guest
In that lies the problem. Absolute authority absolutely corrupts. It is dangerous when men ( and women) of the Church are less than the Church. Does one for all and all for one fit ? Like here in the US we are usually at trouble’s doorstep when the Government is bigger than the people. The Church has had it’s share of saints whose wisdom on this matter was “set aside” for the supposed good of the bigger Church. I am thinking of Jerome as an example. Even the 50 -60 scholars of the original KJV, who included the books in a seperate section I think.
po18guy
Well-known member
You have just described the reformers! Men who thought themselves superior to the God-given authority of the Church. You have read Acts 15? That first authoritative Church decision is the only reason why you do not have to find a Rabbi with a scalpel.
Truthfully, it would do you great good to actually read the Deuterocanonical books. When you read about seven angels who appear before the throne of God (Tobit - agreeing with Revelation), when you read a clear prophecy of Christ (Wisdom 2), when you read about Israel’s deliverance from evil via the action of a single unmarried woman (Judith as proto-Mary), when you hear of the resurrection and eternal life, when you read about the purification of the Temple and the first Hanukkah celebration that ensued (2 Maccabees) as well as much more, you might be a little closer to agreeing with protestant theologian Jaroslav Pelikan.
But, be warned! While he could not bring himself to be Catholic, he converted to Eastern Orthodoxy after realizing the error of protestantism.
D
Dave_Noonan
Guest
No such thing as the “two listings.” The Council of Jamnia, a favorite Catholic canard, is totally bogus. You can read threads here about it or look on Wikipedia.
R
Robyn_p
Guest
I don’t know if that’s the adjective I’d use
I can only contribute so much here because I do accept them as inspired Scripture. However, it would be erroneous to say that all Christians accepted them for 1500 years. Many did not.
You two are right. I misspoke.
There were some disagreements. Especially before the councils.But are there any examples, after the councils, of Christians still rejecting these books? That’s what I was mostly thinking of. This is an honest question as I haven’t researched the topic all that much.
House Harkonnen, you mentioned Jerome, but didn’t he eventually change his mind on the canon after Rome? I could be wrong, but I thought I remember reading that.
Thanks. That’s interesting, I didn’t know that. But what exactly is it that places them on a lower level than the rest, if you don’t mind me asking?
That’s what I’m mostly confused about. I can’t seem to find a criterion for inspiration that would exclude Wisdom for example, but include Ecclesiastes. Because I look at a book like Ecclesiastes, which has an almost nihilistic depiction of life and death, and then I read Wisdom, which has one of the clearest prophecies of Christ’s passion I’ve ever read. And I just have a hard time seeing why that book is considered not inspired and Ecclesiastes is.
So what’s the reasoning behind saying the deuterocanon is on a lesser level than the rest?
D
Dave_Noonan
Guest
Trent only included a portion of the LXX; Luther’s canon (which included the deuterocanonicals plus the Prayer of Manasseh) had nothing to do with the Hebrew canon.
B
Bradthecatholic
Guest
Read my other statments. Besides, the councils at Hippo, Rome, and Florence also made it clear about the canon. Trent made it very clear in order not to have any kind of Protestant thought on these books get into the Church. Trent was a council reaffirming the doctrines of the Catholic Church.
po18guy
Well-known member
For the sake of this argument, let’s disregard the “council” - real or imagined. The 39 book “canon” is that of the Pharisees! What did our Lord have to say about them? A hint is found in Matthew 23. That Pharisaic canon was not used in Christianity until the German rebellion in the 16th century. Nothing more should have to be said!
The Pharisees!
po18guy
Well-known member
- What was Luther’s authority to formulate a canon, and from where did he get it?
- Full disclosure, please. The DC remained in the 1545 Luther Bibel, but they were downgraded by no less than the authority of Dr. Luther and placed between the two testaments. That placement was perhaps the best thing he did in one sense, as they were anticipatory of Christ.
N
Novocastrian
Guest
What, like Matthew 23.2-3?
S
surritter
Guest
Agreed on the bit about Jamnia. But what do you mean there was “no such thing as the ‘two listings’?” Are you saying that no one thought of subtracting seven books until Luther came along?
Read about the Septuagint… Although there was much flux along the way, there was essentially the Greek OT and the Jewish canon. Count 'em – two listings (again, albeit variations within each of those).
From the Wikipedia entry about the Septuagint:
“The Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox Churches include most of the books that are in the Septuagint in their canons; however, Protestant churches usually do not. After the Protestant Reformation, many Protestant Bibles began to follow the Jewish canon and exclude the additional texts.”
D
dronald
Guest
So 3 Maccabees is inspired right?
B
Bradthecatholic
Guest
It is not canonicle, but I personally believe it to be inspired. Many other Catholics believe that too about 3 Maccabees.
D
dronald
Guest
So Catholics are the Protestants of Orthodoxy?
C
cajunhillbilly
Guest
I actually am beginning to think they should be included.
H
House_Harkonnen
Guest
You two are right. I misspoke.
But are there any examples, after the councils, of Christians still rejecting these books? That’s what I was mostly thinking of. This is an honest question as I haven’t researched the topic all that much.
House Harkonnen, you mentioned Jerome, but didn’t he eventually change his mind on the canon after Rome? I could be wrong, but I thought I remember reading that.
Thanks. That’s interesting, I didn’t know that. But what exactly is it that places them on a lower level than the rest, if you don’t mind me asking?
That’s what I’m mostly confused about. I can’t seem to find a criterion for inspiration that would exclude Wisdom for example, but include Ecclesiastes. Because I look at a book like Ecclesiastes, which has an almost nihilistic depiction of life and death, and then I read Wisdom, which has one of the clearest prophecies of Christ’s passion I’ve ever read. And I just have a hard time seeing why that book is considered not inspired and Ecclesiastes is.
So what’s the reasoning behind saying the deuterocanon is on a lesser level than the rest?
Yes. Loads of Christians disputed the canon for centuries. Even councils themselves blundered and got it wrong, the Council of Rome declares that only one epistle of John is canon. The councils of Rome and Carthage couldn’t even agree on that. Since there was debate, Trent had to declare the canon for the RC once and for all, since there had yet been no official declaration.
Sure. But that doesn’t really matter. Lots of Christians change their mind about lots of things, that doesn’t mean that there wasn’t debate.
Their lack of presence in the Hebrew canon and their myriad errors. Doesn’t mean they aren’t valuable, they just aren’t as great as the rest of scripture.
R
rfournier103
Guest
I have always wondered this myself. WHO decided for all of Protestantism that these books were not inspired? I have never been given an answer for that…I know, I know, another canon of Scripture thread. These are always fun.But I’m hoping this discussion will turn out to be worthwhile for both sides. (hey, you never know.)
Anyways, I’ve wondered this for a while now, but I’ve never been able to ask a Protestant in person, so I thought I’d do it here.
My question is two parts basically:
Thanks!
- Why exactly do protestants not accept as Scripture the seven books that Catholics do? What’s the criterion you use to determine what belongs and what doesn’t?
- What do you guys think of the fact that for 1500 years all Christians accepted those books as inspired? Does that put the inspiration of any of the other books of the Bible in doubt for you? If not, why not?
Why don’t Protestants think these books are inspired today?For my fellow Catholics: Usually when this topic comes up, someone will make the claim that Martin Luther took out these books because they disagreed with his teachings. That may or may not be true, but I’d rather not turn this thread into a debate about that. It usually just goes nowhere. So let’s avoid bringing Luther’s motives into the discussion ok?I just want to focus on why Protestants today don’t accept these books.
Because they haven’t been seen as being inspired since the Reformation; and to change their mind and admit that they ARE in fact inspired, would be to admit that the Catholic Church is correct and the “Reformed” Canon is wrong.
Also, as much as many hard-core Protestants hate the word: TRADITION. “That’s the way it’s ALWAYS been”, some say.
My wife was raised Protestant, and had no idea those books ever existed. I never knew Protestant translations of the Bible DIDN’T have them! I wish I had a video of us at holy mass the day there was a reading from the Book of Wisdom…
Lector: A reading from the Book of Wisdom.
Wife (to me): The book of what???
Me (to my wife): Wisdom. You’ve never heard of the Book of Wisdom?
Wife: No!
Me: I thought you knew the Bible? (Her father was a Pentecostal minister)
Wife: I do and I have never heard of it… It’s not in any Bible that I’ve ever seen.
Me: It’s not?
Wife: No.
Me: Hmm.
As soon as we got home, two Bibles come out and we go through them together. That was the day we BOTH discovered that there is a seven book discrepancy between the two. That was quite a day for us…
She’s Catholic now, and the Old Testament reading at our wedding was from Tobit.
D
Dave_Noonan
Guest
No. The Pharisees? There is no evidence for this whatsoever. Zero.
- Status