Origin of the Nephillim

[Prodigal1984]

Proemial Annotations of Volume I of the Old Testament of Douay, the 1635 edition from before Challoner’s revision:

“True it is that some of these books … were sometimes doubted of by some Catholics, and called Apocrypha, in that sense as the word properly signifieth hidden, or not apparent. So St. Jerome (in his prologue before the Latin Bible) calleth divers books Apocryphal, being not so evident, whether they were Divine Scripture, because they were not in the Jews’ Canon, nor at first in the Church’s Canon, but were never rejected as false or erroneous. In which sense the Prayers of Manasses, the third book of Esdras, and the third of Machabees are yet called Apocryphal. As for the fourth of Esdras, and the fourth of Machabees there is more doubt.” -Cardinal Allen

 

[Prodigal1984]

If a reconciliation of the Church and an Orthodox Church occurred, more than likely the existing churches in the Catholic Church would not be bound to accept them but the newly unified church would be allowed to retain them.
Just as other traditions are retained in eastern Catholicism when they have been reconciled in the past.
Eastern Catholics don’t use filioque.
That is only binding on Latin Rite Christian’s.

 

[Elf01]

Again, straw man argument. I’m not claiming “the Orthodox Eucharist is invalid”. However, you continue to miss (or misconstrue) my point: it’s not valid matter for the Latin Church . Please re-read those last words – they’re the critical part of the argument: the context of this discussion is what’s relevant in our Church, not someone else’s!

My understanding would be it’s valid, but illicit.

 

[De_Maria]

De_Maria:

Lol! Nice try, but the Catholic Answers website does not meet the qualification of a Church decree. You’ve not provided the Church quote you claimed you would provide.

It does not.

Thank you. No need to proceed any longer as you have admitted that your submission does not support your claim.

I rest my case.

However, it does do what you asked for: what the claim of the Catholic Church is, with respect to what is (and what isn’t) canonical Scripture.

Catholic Answers is not the Catholic Church, they are merely a group of people who happen to share your opinion on this matter. So, no, not evidence of any sort.

Actually, that was the claim made upthread: namely, that we can’t close Scripture, since it would damage efforts at reunification.

Nope. You have twisted and added that comment into the claim in order to knock down your strawman. You’ve provided no evidence to support your claim.

Since these texts have not been declared as “teaching from a divine source”, then their addition – by your own admission! – would constitute “new revelation”. Thanks for proving my point.

Your opinion is noted. I disagree. These were considered Scripture from Old Testament times and were considered Scripture in the early Church and are still considered Scripture by valid ancient Churches which provide valid Sacraments.

Your opinions to the contrary do not carry the weight you think they do.

History disproves your claim.
Catholic Documents disprove your claim.
The Catholic Church has not denied that these ancient texts, which are still considered Scripture by the Orthodox Church, are “teaching from a divine source”.

 

[Gorgias]

In which sense the Prayers of Manasses, the third book of Esdras, and the third of Machabees are yet called Apocryphal. As for the fourth of Esdras, and the fourth of Machabees there is more doubt.”

Thank you. In other words, the Church has declared that they aren’t part of the canon of Scripture. They’re “apocrypha”. So much for “the Church hasn’t declared them non-canonical”!

If a reconciliation of the Church and an Orthodox Church occurred, more than likely the existing churches in the Catholic Church would not be bound to accept them but the newly unified church would be allowed to retain them.

That’s a reasonable take. And even that, given that the Catholic Church has declared that they’re not Scripture!

Just as other traditions are retained in eastern Catholicism when they have been reconciled in the past.
Eastern Catholics don’t use filioque.
That is only binding on Latin Rite Christian’s.

Umm… no?
Catholics are united on doctrine (although some practices are distinct to particular Churches sui juris).
Are you thinking of Orthodox here?

Perhaps an Eastern Rite Catholic might be willing to enter the conversation and provide some clarity?

No need to proceed any longer as you have admitted that your submission does not support your claim.

I rest my case.

I pointed to a secondary source, which refers to the teachings of the Church. Sorry that this doesn’t work for you. (It also doesn’t prove that I haven’t “supported my claim.”) . But, if it makes you happy to declare victory on that invalid claim, have at it, brother!

Catholic Answers is not the Catholic Church, they are merely a group of people who happen to share your opinion on this matter. So, no, not evidence of any sort.

Except that it quotes the documents of the Church. So, yeah… evidence.

The Catholic Church has not denied that these ancient texts, which are still considered Scripture by the Orthodox Church, are “teaching from a divine source”.

Go back to the other thread in which we were (also) discussing these matters. Prodigal quoted as source which confirms that the Catholic Church sees these as ‘apocrypha’ rather than ‘canonical Scripture’. You can say “that’s just your opinion” all day long… but that doesn’t make it so.

 

[Prodigal1984]

They are apocryphal i.e. hidden, though I never really understood why they call it that, these were never hidden. You could find them in the Septuagint and some in the Vulgate.
As for the Cardinal calling them apocryphal, he doesn’t speak for the Church. Saint Jerome called all of the books in the Greek that weren’t in the Hebrew apocryphal. The term has levels of degree of meaning depending on who and the era which it is being discussed as such.
Here is the thing though, the Church has on occasion condemned lists of books. Such as the Galatian Degree etc.
The books we’re are discussing were never condemned, in fact the Council of Trullo named three books of Maccabees as canonical. The Church doesn’t accept this Council, the reasons being are kind of strange.

 

[Prodigal1984]

http://www.bible-researcher.com/canon2.html

The Protestant Apocrypha includes all of the books normally included in manuscripts of the Latin Vulgate. But three of these (1(3) and 2(4) Esdras and the Prayer of Manasseh) were omitted from the list published by the Council of Trent when it fixed the Roman Catholic canon. (Apparently these omissions were unintentional. The “Decree Concerning the Canonical Scriptures” specified that the books were to be recieved “as they are contained in the old Latin Vulgate.”)*

 

[De_Maria]

I pointed to a secondary source,

I provided a quote from the primary source.

Council of Trent IV
If anyone does not accept as sacred and canonical the aforesaid books in their entirety and with all their parts, as they have been accustomed to be read in the Catholic Church and as they are contained in the old Latin Vulgate Edition, and knowingly and deliberately rejects the aforesaid traditions, let him be anathema.

This is an infallible pronouncement. No mention is made of another other canon.

 

[Prodigal1984]

Was listening to this …
Confer to 44:40

 

[wllmjoseph]

I would like to thank everyone who has contributed to this thread. I live in the Bible Belt. I perform Catholic Ministry at Alexander Correctional Facility in Taylorsville, NC. In my ministry it is very important that I stress the importance of the approved Canon of Scripture for Latin-Rite Catholics and that there will be no new revelation. When inmates ask questions regarding the Bible or Theology I always will provide an answer from the approved Canon of Scripture, Catechism or from the early Church Fathers. What is special is that many of the inmates have grown in their knowledge of Catholicism and interact with the Evangelical Christian inmates on what the Church teaches and believes. I respect the Orthodox Christian Canon. That being said I only want to provide inmates with answers from the approved Canon for Latin-Rite Catholics, the Magisterium and the writings of the early Church Fathers.

 

[hvizsgyak]

I thought this post was about the origin of the Nephilim not the origin of the correct Bible books. For a more in depth explanation of the Nephilim do a search on the word “Nephilim” (here in CAF) and choose the thread Nephilim from Jan 2013. Scroll down to the lengthy post presented by patrick457 and read the next 10 to 12 posts between patrick457 and brb3. This will give you some insight into the Nephilim and it will give heed to reading books that aren’t considered canonical by the Church. God bless.

You can carry on now, Gorgias and De_Maria, with your debate on the origins of the Bible.

 

[Prodigal1984]

It started because I was saying how the ancient books of Jubilees and especially 1 Enoch go much more into this subject than is in the canonical books.

 

[hvizsgyak]

I have not read any of the Book of Jubilees but if its as interesting as parts of the Book of Enoch, I will give it a read. As I’ve said on similar threads about Genesis and the Creation narrative, there really isn’t much substance about the Fall of Man. Jesus was born unto us because of this very reason, our first parents Adam and Eve disobeying Gd the Father’s command to not eat the fruit from the Tree of Good and Evil. From there, the rise of evil starts on this planet and Gd’s plan to destroy it through the Deluge. The Book of Enoch gives the reader a little more background on those events.

 

[Gorgias]

They are apocryphal i.e. hidden, though I never really understood why they call it that, these were never hidden.

“Apocryphal” doesn’t mean hidden, it means of doubtful authenticity. Perhaps that’s the reason you’re confused.

As for the Cardinal calling them apocryphal, he doesn’t speak for the Church.

I think this conversation has just jumped the shark. If you’re gonna sit there and claim that a bishop of the Church – that is, a member of the body that has magisterial authority – “doesn’t speak for the Church”, then I think we’re done here.

Here is the thing though, the Church has on occasion condemned lists of books. Such as the Galatian Degree etc. The books we’re are discussing were never condemned

“Galatian decree”? Umm… whatever. Anyway, this is a non sequitur: we’re not talking about condemned writings; we’re talking about writings which were (or were not!) declared canonical. Apples and oranges, brother!

The Church doesn’t accept this Council, the reasons being are kind of strange.

Not strange: it wasn’t an ecumenical council – it was attended only by eastern bishops, with no western bishops in attendance. Moreover, according to the Catholic Encyclopedia, “most of the new canons exhibit an inimical attitude towards Churches not in disciplinary accord with Constantinople, especially the Western Churches”.

So, the fact that an ‘eastern’ council would assert canons that the east believes but that the west does not, isn’t “strange”. It kinda makes sense.

The Old Testament Canon and Apocrypha

So, wait a minute – you disbelieve what a Cardinal of the Church writes (because he “doesn’t speak for the Church”), but you hold up as evidence what a Protestant scholar writes?

You can carry on now, Gorgias and De_Maria, with your debate on the origins of the Bible.

LOL!

 

[Prodigal1984]

You do realize the Cardinal was talking about all of the books not in the Hebrew Bible right? He is talking about even the books Saint Jerome questioned that are in Catholic Bibles today.

 

[De_Maria]

“Apocryphal” doesn’t mean hidden , it means of doubtful authenticity . Perhaps that’s the reason you’re confused.

That’s what it means today and that is from Protestant influence. Originally, it just mean, author unknown.

apocrypha (n.)
late 14c., Apocrifa, in reference to the apocryphal books of the Bible, from Late Latin apocrypha (scripta), from neuter plural of apocryphus “secret, not approved for public reading,” from Greek apokryphos “hidden; obscure, hard to understand,” thus “(books) of unknown authorship” (especially those included in the Septuagint and Vulgate but not originally written in Hebrew and not counted as genuine by the Jews), from apo “off, away” (see apo-) + kryptein “to hide” (see crypt).

 

[Dan_Defender]

Psalm 151.

Psalm 151 - Wikipedia

 

[Prodigal1984]

I believe most of the deuterocanonical books were found with the Dead Sea Scrolls. It appears 1 Enoch, Jubilees, and what is called The Temple Scroll were also used by the Essenes.
It is worth noting though that although the Dead Sea Scrolls were a landmark find in so many ways, proving scripture has not been corrupted etc and giving us early translations to compare, a lot of people make an assumption that the Dead Sea Scrolls must be what every Jew considered scripture and this is just not true.
The broader Jewish community had different views on it. The Saducees only used the Torah or the Penteteuch(i.e. the first five books of the Bible), Pharisees more than likely used the Hebrew Bible used today though different books have more or less authority.
The Essenes whom some believe John the Baptist was a part of seem to have had a much less formal canon and allowed a broader range of writings.
1 Enoch was extremely popular in Judaism and in early Christianity. In fact I forgot which Church Father, maybe it was Ireneaus who said “The Jews have rejected Enoch because it foretells the coming of Christ.”

As for the deuterocanonical books accepted by Catholics and Orthodox? They were in the Septuagint and the Greek translation was what early Christians used.
Noone ever said we were bound to only using what the European Jews used. In fact some middle eastern and Jews in Ethiopia have always used a more broad canon.
Protestants use the canon of European Jews in the 16th century. Not all Jews only use 22 books( 39 if split into the Christian books) the 12 minor prophets for example are considered one book in the Hebrew Bible, and I believe Samuel, Kings etc are not split into two either but are just the book of Samuel and Kings.

 

[Gorgias]

That’s what it means today and that is from Protestant influence. Originally, it just mean, author unknown.

In other words, “doubtful authenticity.”

 

[Prodigal1984]

So you deny the deuterocanonical books accepted by Catholics ??
Jerome called them apocrypha as well.
Also Eusebius called 2 Peter, Revelation, and 2 and 3 John disputed. Thus many books in the Bible at one time were considered apocryphal or doubting of authenticity. Most scholars today overwhelmingly say 2 Peter was not written by Peter. So it isn’t like the authorship is always necessarily confirmed.
As for 3 or 4 Maccabees , the author never even reveals himself, just like in 1 or 2 Maccabees; so I don’t know who the author is who is wrongly attributed too.
It is like that in quite a few books of the Bible actually.