Protestant Bibles

[brianberean]

RBushlow:

Hi Brian,

I don't think the objection is to Roman Catholic Church or Roman Catholic. It's RC and RCC that many people find offensive. I myself prefer the term "Catholic Church". After all we don't call Protestants prots, or the Lutheran Church LC. Out of courtesy and respect, we spell it out.

May the peace of Our Lord Jesus Christ, the love of God the Father, and the fellowship of the Holy Spirit be with you.

RC and RCC are only evidence of my laziness when typing , not intentional disrespect. Funnily enough, I’ve used the nickname “prots” too. Never the less, I have decided to use Catholic Church and Catholic from now on as not to create obstacles in communication.

Brian

 

[brianberean]

BrianBerian,

What are your credentials to allow you to post so much knowledge about what books were in the Old Testament during Jesus’ lifetime?

My credentials? Well I’m not a scholar, but I did stay at a Holiday Inn Select last night

**It seems to me you are offering an “opinion” too.:tsktsk: **

Of course I offer opinions. However, I try (usually) to support the conclusions (opinions) I’ve reached by providing evidence.

Brian

 

[Maccabees]

My quote

Look I listed more than half of the books in the new testament were in dispute in church history of rarely used by the early fathers.

TertiumQuid

Two things.

1.Luther was a Christian, not a radical higher atheistic Bible critic. He did not question the majority of the NT books, simply because he saw the Gospel message in them, and the arguments against them did not convince him of non-apostolic origin.

I wasn’t suggesting the rejection of the majority of the books of the Bible were t be qualified by atheistic Bible critics. Those books were disputed by the church fathers and early catholic communities before Luther was a gleam in his Daddy’s eye.
Luther’s canon was purely subjective and not on canonical controversy as you suggest if he were to reject it on that basis well most of the books in the Bible had endured canonical controversy at one time or the other. IF Lutehr would be consistent the Bible would only consist of a small portion of the New Testament that is contains.

 

[Maccabees]

TertiumQuid

1. The books in question are popularly known as "antilegomena.“These books were **questioned **by Christians throughout church history. Luther’s contemporaries Erasmus and Cajetan questioned these four books as well, and like Luther, accepted the rest of the NT (more or less).These men followed the work of Eusebius, as did most 16th Century theologians, who classified the four books in question as antilegomena.” In other words, the bulk of material you supply to prove your argument that Luther was not consistent is irrelevant. Try to put your mind in the 16th Century. what books did Luther, Erasmus, and Cajetan rely on for their opinions?

Your kinds proving my point (you just don’t see it) here if the new testament was questioned by same at his point in history(16th century) but yet the church found the full canon tradtion was sufficient why would this same logic apply to the OT the same authority that declared the new testament canon and which had the same new testament uncertainty However Protestants as whole are inconsistent as rejecting the same very Councils OT and accepting of the New Testament. As we can see during the 16th century the same questions of the NT canon existed in the old yet the full OT catholic traditonal canon was rejected and the full NT catholic was accepted by each canon was as equally problematic in the rejectiona and acceptance by the fathers only by the ruling of the councils do we find a consensus fitting with the tradtion consistent from the African Councils to Trent. By individual opinion chaoe is ultimately guaranteed as fathers, theologians and humanist disagree on new testametn and old testament canon.

Also your assertion that only the four books Luther objected to were involved with are antilegomena and the controversy was only there is just plain wong. THe fuller understanding of the later canonized books were given the same disticntion as the later canonized OT books.
A number of the books of the New Testament, most notably Hebrews, James, 2 Peter, 2 & 3 John, and Revelation remained hotly disputed until the canon was settled. They are, in effect, “New Testament deuterocanonicals.” No in addition to Luther’s rejection of Hebrews, James, Jude and Revelation you have othersrejecting 2 Peter and 2 and 3rd John Books Luther didnot paint with the negativity as he did the others and books he deemed as canonical in his Bible although other theolgians in the 16th rejected them. So as we see when theologians have an indivudal opion it can be chaotic and different form the handed on Christians tradtion that the church kept in tact.
And yes most church historians do think their is link involving Cajetan, Luther and Erasmus. They all were familiar with Jerome’s negative attitudeds of teh duterocanicals and put his opinions and attitudes and opinions above the church tradtion that was handed down to them. We see this even to this present days as modernist still question the canon whehter is be the fuller canon or the modified one.

 

[Maccabees]

TertiumQuid

Luther, Erasmus, and Cajetan were sixteenth century Biblical theologians. Their “liberty” was simply the liberty as allowed by the sixteenth century Roman Catholic Church. If the New Catholic Encyclopedia is correct, Erasmus, Cajetan, and Luther had every right within the Catholic system to engage in Biblical criticism and debate over the extent of the Canon. All expressed “some doubt.” Theirs was not a radical higher criticism. The books they questioned were books that had been questioned by previous generations. None were so extreme as to engage in Marcion-like canon-destruction. Both Erasmus and Luther translated the entirety of Bible, and published it.

Well you have once again a misleading propostion as Erasmus when he publsihed his Bible while echoing the comments of Jerome did not unilately displace the New testament and Old Testamet books of the Bible in a sepearte section apart with the tradtional canon and leave the questioned books as unlisted under the canon as Luterh did.
Luther went father then other liberal theologains of his day (erasmus was considered so liberal that he is labeled as a humanists by midevil historians) who wrote opinion (which was open till debate until Trent) but not dare publish a Bible unilaterlly such as Luther with a unilateral canon.
Cajetan included the full NT canon in his list with the shorter Jewish canon without the dueteros. SO his list right there differs from Luther on the NT. What the consensus with the indiviudals your propose? That they all disagreed. Well that is what history tells us hardly a postion uninimity and consistency that we only see though the councils of the church.

 

[Maccabees]

TertiumQuid
What is is also interesting is that in his debates with Eck he quoted the dueterocanonicals as scripture. As to use them against the church. WHen he is the loosing side of the scripture debate such as 2 Maccabeees he turns the table and all of the suddent the dueterocanonicals are not scripture.
Please provide the references if you wish to discuss this. Which verses? What was the context? What sources on Luther are you using to document this?

My comment was based on an article
Anglcian Henry Howorth wrote for another scholarly Protestant journal called The International Journal of the Apocrypha. The following is passage in question:
"The Dominicans, the great champions of Papal claims, continued to attack Luther, and especially did they do this at Rome, where one of them,

Silvester Maccolini surnamed Prierias, the official censor made an especialassault upon him… Luther answered [Prierias] in the words of Augustine that the only authority he could accept in the matter was the CanonicalScriptures. What Luther actually meant at this time by the phrase “eislibris, qui Canonici appellantur” is not quite clear, for we now find him in the Resolutions commenting on the Thesis published in 1518 quoting Sirach

(Luther’s Works, Weimar, Ed. I. 603) while in his answer to Pierias hequotes Tobias (667) in each case apparently as authoritative" (Howorth, Sir Henry, “The Bible Canon of the Reformation,” International Journal of theApocrypha, 20, Series VI (Jan. 1910), 12).

 

[Maccabees]

ME
And no I won’t buy your spin about him joking about buring a book the holy Bible. That is not funny in the least. Much like Luther was not funny in threatening to put the Jews in labor camps. Oh that Luther what a funny man! Ok maybe to you but he has some sick tendencies burning James and his anti-semetism were not funny any kind of way no matter what context you try to spin that into.

TertiumQuid

I suggest you find the quote in context, and read the explanatory footnote provided by editiors of Luther’s Works.

That is the problem with you nearly all your references are from Lutheran and Protestant sources how about taking the quotes directly from the church fathers and councils instead of the spin Luthernans apply to the fathers and the white washing they do on Luther’s inconsisten doctrines and hatred of any sect besides himself which included Jews.

Luther not only wrote ‘On the Jews and their lies,’ but also dubious and intolerant works such as ‘Against the Sabbatarians’, ‘Against the Antinoman,’ and ‘Against the Robbing and Murdering Hordes of Peasants.’ In the latter, Luther called for the stabbing and slaying of peasant rebels which triggered the death of an estimated 100,000 human beings. These rebels were not only Christians but were mostly slaughtered after their surrender to the German princes. Nor did Luther apologize for his treatise even after world criticism. In his response to his critics in “An Open Letter on the Harsh Book,” Luther reiterated his venom: “Therefore, as I wrote then so I write now; Let no one have mercy on the obstinate, hardened, blinded peasants who refuse to listen to reason; but let everyone, as he is able, strike, hew, stab, and slay, as though among mad dogs, put to flight, and led astray by these peasants, so that peace and safety may be maintained.” In all these harsh treatises, Luther provided an abundance of Biblical passages to justify his attack on his enemies. And, or course (sarcastically speaking), his actions were always through Christian “love” of his enemies, as he audaciously wrote: "The merciless punishment of the wicked is not being carried out just to punish the wicked and make them atone for the evil desires that are in their blood, but to protect the righteous and to maintain peace and safety. And beyond all doubt, these are precious works of mercy, love, and kindness

 

[Maccabees]

Quotes from Martin Luther’s “On the Jews and their lies,” 1543

No Lutheran spin that you seek just the direct words of Luther. aka the truth about luther

Luther’s Introduction:

I had made up my mind to write no more either about the Jews or against them. But since I learned that these miserable and accursed people do not cease to lure to themselves even us, that is, the Christians, I have published this little book, so that I might be found among those who opposed such poisonous activities of the Jews who warned the Christians to be on their guard against them. I would not have believed that a Christian could be duped by the Jews into taking their exile and wretchedness upon himself. However, the devil is the god of the world, and wherever God’s word is absent he has an easy task, not only with the weak but also with the strong. May God help us. Amen.

-Martin Luther (On the Jews and Their Lies)

He did not call them Abraham’s children, but a “brood of vipers” [Matt. 3:7]. Oh, that was too insulting for the noble blood and race of Israel, and they declared, "He has a demon’ [Matt 11:18]. Our Lord also calls them a “brood of vipers”; furthermore in John 8 :39,44] he states: "If you were Abraham’s children ye would do what Abraham did… You are of your father the devil. It was intolerable to them to hear that they were not Abraham’s but the devil’s children, nor can they bear to hear this today.

-Martin Luther (On the Jews and Their Lies)

Therefore the blind Jews are truly stupid fools…

-Martin Luther (On the Jews and Their Lies)

Now just behold these miserable, blind, and senseless people.

-Martin Luther (On the Jews and Their Lies)

…their blindness and arrogance are as solid as an iron mountain.

-Martin Luther (On the Jews and Their Lies)

Learn from this, dear Christian, what you are doing if you permit the blind Jews to mislead you. Then the saying will truly apply, “When a blind man leads a blind man, both will fall into the pit” [cf. Luke 6:39]. You cannot learn anything from them except how to misunderstand the divine commandments…

-Martin Luther (On the Jews and Their Lies)

Therefore be on your guard against the Jews, knowing that wherever they have their synagogues, nothing is found but a den of devils in which sheer self-glory, conceit, lies, blasphemy, and defaming of God and men are practiced most maliciously and veheming his eyes on them.

-Martin Luther (On the Jews and Their Lies)

Moreover, they are nothing but thieves and robbers who daily eat no morsel and wear no thread of clothing which they have not stolen and pilfered from us by means of their accursed usury. Thus they live from day to day, together with wife and child, by theft and robbery, as arch-thieves and robbers, in the most impenitent security.

-Martin Luther (On the Jews and Their Lies)

However, they have not acquired a perfect mastery of the art of lying; they lie so clumsily and ineptly that anyone who is just a little observant can easily detect it.

But for us Christians they stand as a terrifying example of God’s wrath.

-Martin Luther (On the Jews and Their Lies)

If I had to refute all the other articles of the Jewish faith, I should be obliged to write against them as much and for as long a time as they have used for inventing their lies-- that is, longer than two thousand years.

-Martin Luther (On the Jews and Their Lies)

…Christ and his word can hardly be recognized because of the great vermin of human ordinances. However, let this suffice for the time being on their lies against doctrine or faith.

-Martin Luther (On the Jews and Their Lies)

 

[Maccabees]

Did I not tell you earlier that a Jew is such a noble, precious jewel that God and all the angels dance when he farts?

-Martin Luther (On the Jews and Their Lies)

Alas, it cannot be anything but the terrible wrath of God which permits anyone to sink into such abysmal, devilish, hellish, insane baseness, envy, and arrogance. If I were to avenge myself on the devil himself I should be unable to wish him such evil and misfortune as God’s wrath inflicts on the Jews, compelling them to lie and to blaspheme so monstrously, in violation of their own conscience. Anyway, they have their reward for constantly giving God the lie.

-Martin Luther (On the Jews and Their Lies)

No, one should toss out these lazy rogues by the seat of their pants.

-Martin Luther (On the Jews and Their Lies)

…but then eject them forever from this country. For, as we have heard, God’s anger with them is so intense that gentle mercy will only tend to make them worse and worse, while sharp mercy will reform them but little. Therefore, in any case, away with them!

-Martin Luther (On the Jews and Their Lies)

Over and above that we let them get rich on our sweat and blood, while we remain poor and they such the marrow from our bones.

-Martin Luther (On the Jews and Their Lies)

In brief, dear princes and lords, those of you who have Jews under your rule-- if my counsel does not please your, find better advice, so that you and we all can be rid of the unbearable, devilish burden of the Jews, lest we become guilty sharers before God in the lies, blasphemy, the defamation, and the curses which the mad Jews indulge in so freely and wantonly against the person of our Lord Jesus Christ, this dear mother, all Christians, all authority, and ourselves. Do not grant them protection, safe-conduct, or communion with us. . . . With this faithful counsel and warning I wish to cleanse and exonerate my conscience.

-Martin Luther (On the Jews and Their Lies)

Let the government deal with them in this respect, as I have suggested. But whether the government acts or not, let everyone at least be guided by his own conscience and form for himself a definition or image of a Jew.

-Martin Luther (On the Jews and Their Lies)

However, we must avoid confirming them in their wanton lying, slandering, cursing, and defaming. Nor dare we make ourselves partners in their devilish ranting and raving by shielding and protecting them, by giving them food, drink, and shelter, or by other neighborly acts…

-Martin Luther (On the Jews and Their Lies)

 

[Maccabees]

Therefore we Christians, in turn, are obliged not to tolerate their wanton and conscious blasphemy.

-Martin Luther (On the Jews and Their Lies)

Accordingly, it must and dare not be considered a trifling matter but a most serious one to seek counsel against this and to save our souls from the Jews, that is, from the devil and from eternal death. My advice, as I said earlier, is:

First, that their synagogues be burned down, and that all who are able toss sulphur and pitch; it would be good if someone could also throw in some hellfire…

Second, that all their books-- their prayer books, their Talmudic writings, also the entire Bible-- be taken from them, not leaving them one leaf, and that these be preserved for those who may be converted…

Third, that they be forbidden on pain of death to praise God, to give thanks, to pray, and to teach publicly among us and in our country…

Fourth, that they be forbidden to utter the name of God within our hearing. For we cannot with a good conscience listen to this or tolerate it…

-Martin Luther (On the Jews and Their Lies)

He who hears this name [God] from a Jew must inform the authorities, or else throw sow dung at him when he sees him and chase him away.

-Martin Luther (On the Jews and Their Lies)

But what will happen even if we do burn down the Jews’ synagogues and forbid them publicly to praise God, to pray, to teach, to utter God’s name? They will still keep doing it in secret. If we know that they are doing this in secret, it is the same as if they were doing it publicly. For our knowledge of their secret doings and our toleration of them implies that they are not secret after all and thus our conscience is encumbered with it before God.

-Martin Luther (On the Jews and Their Lies)

If we wish to wash our hands of the Jews’ blasphemy and not share in their guilt, we have to part company with them. They must be driven from our country.

-Martin Luther (On the Jews and Their Lies)

…they remain our daily murderers and bloodthirsty foes in their hearts. Their prayers and curses furnish evidence of that, as do the many stories which relate their torturing of children and all sorts of crimes for which they have often been burned at the stake or banished.

-Martin Luther (On the Jews and Their Lies)

…that everyone would gladly be rid of them.

-Martin Luther (On the Jews and Their Lies)

Undoubtedly they do more and viler things than those which we know and discover.

-Martin Luther (On the Jews and Their Lies)

If I had power over the Jews, as our princes and cities have, I would deal severely with their lying mouth.

-Martin Luther (On the Jews and Their Lies)

They [rulers] must act like a good physician who, when gangrene has set in proceeds without mercy to cut, saw, and burn flesh, veins, bone, and marrow. Such a procedure must also be followed in this instance. Burn down their synagogues, forbid all that I enumerated earlier, force them to work, and deal harshly with them, as Moses did…

If this does not help we must drive them out like mad dogs.

-Martin Luther (On the Jews and Their Lies)

My essay, I hope, will furnish a Christian (who in any case has no desire to become a Jew) with enough material not only to defend himself against the blind, venomous Jews, but also to become the foe of the Jews’ malice, lying, and cursing, and to understand not only that their belief is false but that they are surely possessed by all devils. May Christ, our dear Lord, convert them mercifully and preserve us steadfastly and immovably in the knowledge of him, which is eternal life. Amen.

-Martin Luther (On the Jews and Their Lies)

 

[Maccabees]

Luther’s hate speech is so obvious in its true context (except to Luteher admirers like You)
that his own denomination is rightly admitting to the bigotry founded abundantly in Luther’s writings.

WRITINGS:
ITS USE BY ANTI-SEMITES AND REJECTION BY LUTHERAN’S EXPLORED IN ADL PUBLICATION

New York, NY, April 20, 1995…The impact of Martin Luther’s anti-Jewish writings, the persistence of anti-Jewish ideas in Christian theology and the efforts of the Lutheran Church to fight the scourge of anti-Semitism and racism are explored in the new issue of Interfaith Focus, a magazine published by the Anti-Defamation League.

“We have devoted the issue to “Luther, Lutheranism and the Jews” to commemorate the first anniversary of the repudiation by the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America (ELCA) of the use of Luther’s anti-Jewish diatribes by present-day anti-Semites,” said Rabbi Leon Klenicki, ADL Director of Interfaith Affairs.

The publication includes a dialogue between Rabbi Klenicki and Dr. Franklin Sherman, Director of the Institute for Jewish - Christian Understanding at Muhlenberg College in Allentown, PA, in which Rabbi Klenicki points out that Christian texts can be used to incite anti-Semitism and the hatred of Jewish people. Dr. Sherman says he has learned that reprints of Luther’s hateful words are being exported to Germany from the United States where they are used by neo-Nazi groups. He says the ELCA declaration speaks of “our urgent desire to live out our faith in Jesus Christ with love and respect for the Jewish people.” The magazine includes the complete text of “The Declaration of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America to the Jewish Community,” which recognizes anti-Semitism as “a contradiction and an affront to the Gospel, a violation of our hope and calling.” The document pledges “this church to oppose the deadly working of such bigotry, both within our own circles and in the society around us.”

 

[ahimsaman72]

Wow, Mac, I’m impressed - :nope: by your lack of humility. Moderators must be asleep - or maybe just approving of your zeal. Can’t tell which.

 

[Shibboleth]

Maccabees:

Luther’s hate speech is so obvious in its true context (except to Luteher admirers like You)
that his own denomination is rightly admitting to the bigotry founded abundantly in Luther’s writings.

WRITINGS:
ITS USE BY ANTI-SEMITES AND REJECTION BY LUTHERAN’S EXPLORED IN ADL PUBLICATION

New York, NY, April 20, 1995…The impact of Martin Luther’s anti-Jewish writings, the persistence of anti-Jewish ideas in Christian theology and the efforts of the Lutheran Church to fight the scourge of anti-Semitism and racism are explored in the new issue of Interfaith Focus, a magazine published by the Anti-Defamation League.

“We have devoted the issue to “Luther, Lutheranism and the Jews” to commemorate the first anniversary of the repudiation by the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America (ELCA) of the use of Luther’s anti-Jewish diatribes by present-day anti-Semites,” said Rabbi Leon Klenicki, ADL Director of Interfaith Affairs.

The publication includes a dialogue between Rabbi Klenicki and Dr. Franklin Sherman, Director of the Institute for Jewish - Christian Understanding at Muhlenberg College in Allentown, PA, in which Rabbi Klenicki points out that Christian texts can be used to incite anti-Semitism and the hatred of Jewish people. Dr. Sherman says he has learned that reprints of Luther’s hateful words are being exported to Germany from the United States where they are used by neo-Nazi groups. He says the ELCA declaration speaks of “our urgent desire to live out our faith in Jesus Christ with love and respect for the Jewish people.” The magazine includes the complete text of “The Declaration of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America to the Jewish Community,” which recognizes anti-Semitism as “a contradiction and an affront to the Gospel, a violation of our hope and calling.” The document pledges “this church to oppose the deadly working of such bigotry, both within our own circles and in the society around us.”

Yes Luther said and did some things that as Lutherans we wish that he had not. In those instances we condemn him. He is not a Pope nor is he the foundation of the Lutheran Church.

Some water is polluted and some water is not. We are by nature sinners, Luther was not different.

Some of what Luther said was correct and good - some things were not.

Do I admire Luther? Yes, but I know and admit to his shortcomings

 

[TertiumQuid]

Mr. Maccabees wrote:

Luther’s canon was purely subjective and not on canonical controversy as you suggest if he were to reject it on that basis well most of the books in the Bible had endured canonical controversy at one time or the other. IF Lutehr would be consistent the Bible would only consist of a small portion of the New Testament that is contains.

Reread my posts in this thread. As stated already, the criterion you mention was not the only one Luther used, nor have I said it was. Understanding Luther on this issue demands approaching him from two perspectives: 1. Luther’s perspective on the canon as a sixteenth century Biblical theologian. 2. Luther’s personal criterion of canonicity expressed in his theology. My primary focus was on the first point since Roman Catholics tend to completely disregard it. Any attempt though to understand Luther’s view of the canon that neglects either of these is prone to distortion and caricature.

If Luther’s view was “purely subjective”- then everyone previous to the council of Trent was “purely subjective.” Certainly, Erasmus and the Great Cardinal Cajetan would be “purely subjective.” Ironically, your treatment of Luther on the Canon is “purely subjective.” As far as I know, the RCC did not officially chastise Luther for his treatment of the Canon. If you can produce an infallible (allegedly) non-subjective Papal decree evaluating Luther’s means of understanding the canon, I’d like to see it. I’m supposed to believe your subjective opinion on Luther and the canon? As I’ve demonstrated throughout this thread, you do not appear to be familiar enough with the information required to give your allegedly non-subjective opinion.

Regards,
James Swan

 

[TertiumQuid]

Mr. Maccabees said:

Your kinds proving my point (you just don’t see it) here if the new testament was questioned by same at his point in history(16th century) but yet the church found the full canon tradtion was sufficient why would this same logic apply to the OT the same authority that declared the new testament canon and which had the same new testament uncertainty However Protestants as whole are inconsistent as rejecting the same very Councils OT and accepting of the New Testament. As we can see during the 16th century the same questions of the NT canon existed in the old yet the full OT catholic traditonal canon was rejected and the full NT catholic was accepted by each canon was as equally problematic in the rejectiona and acceptance by the fathers only by the ruling of the councils do we find a consensus fitting with the tradtion consistent from the African Councils to Trent. By individual opinion chaoe is ultimately guaranteed as fathers, theologians and humanist disagree on new testametn and old testament canon.

Perhaps you were typing quickly, I only have a vague idea of what you’re trying to say. If possible, rewrite this paragraph. I find the use of “periods” quite helpful in expressing myself when writing.

Regards,
James Swan

 

[TertiumQuid]

Mr. Maccabees wrote:

Also your assertion that only the four books Luther objected to were involved with are antilegomena and the controversy was only there is just plain wong. THe fuller understanding of the later canonized books were given the same disticntion as the later canonized OT books. A number of the books of the New Testament, most notably Hebrews, James, 2 Peter, 2 & 3 John, and Revelation remained hotly disputed until the canon was settled. They are, in effect, “New Testament deuterocanonicals.” No in addition to Luther’s rejection of Hebrews, James, Jude and Revelation you have othersrejecting 2 Peter and 2 and 3rd John Books Luther didnot paint with the negativity as he did the others and books he deemed as canonical in his Bible although other theolgians in the 16th rejected them. So as we see when theologians have an indivudal opion it can be chaotic and different form the handed on Christians tradtion that the church kept in tact.

I’m not sure how exactly (according to your subjective opinion) I’m “just plain wrong.” I’m not wrong with the use of the term “antilegomena.” As the Catholic Encyclopedia says,

The second category is composed of the Antilegomena, or contested writings; these in turn are of the superior and inferior sort. The better ones are the Epistles of St. James and St. Jude, II Peter, II and III John; these, like Origen, Eusebius wished to be admitted to the Canon, but was forced to record their uncertain status; the Antilegomena of the inferior sort were Barnabas, the Didache, Gospel of the Hebrews, the Acts of Paul, the Shepherd, the Apocalypse of Peter.

Am I “just plain wrong” because I did not list the entire set of historically defined antilegomena? You will not find me anywhere saying, “Only these four books are antilegomena.” Mr. Maccabees then said,

And yes most church historians do think their is link involving Cajetan, Luther and Erasmus. They all were familiar with Jerome’s negative attitudeds of teh duterocanicals and put his opinions and attitudes and opinions above the church tradtion that was handed down to them. We see this even to this present days as modernist still question the canon whehter is be the fuller canon or the modified one.

What was Jerome’s problem? Was his a modernist subjective opinion? Even you mentioned a bunch of ECF’s rejecting particular books…was theirs a modernist subjective opinion? Please be consistent. Conversely, The Shepherd of Hermas was quoted as inspired Scripture by Irenaeus and Origin.

Regards,
James Swan

 

[TertiumQuid]

Mr. Maccabees said,

Well you have once again a misleading propostion as Erasmus when he publsihed his Bible while echoing the comments of Jerome did not unilately displace the New testament and Old Testamet books of the Bible in a sepearte section apart with the tradtional canon and leave the questioned books as unlisted under the canon as Luterh did.

First, Define “unilately.” Is this some special Catholic word? Second, produce any (allegedly) infallible papal decree previous to Trent that defines the exact order by which the books of the Bible are infallibly to be ordered. Next, compare all the versions of published Bibles previous to Luther and prove they were all following this (yet stated) infallible decree. Then, explain this: Erasmus went as far as removing verses from the first edition of his Greek New Testament. He omitted 1 John 5:7-8 because he could find it in no manuscript. Roland Bainton notes,

“There was such an outcry that he agreed to restore it in case it could be discovered in any manuscript. One was found…and Erasmus, having sworn, was true to his oath…Unhappily the spurious verse passed from this second edition into the textus receptus and then into the King James translation. In the late nineteenth century, Pope Leo XIII declared it to be genuine, but forty years later a commission of the church reversed his verdict. Today no Catholic would defend its authenticity.”

Interestingly, Luther followed the first edition of Erasmus, and kept 1 John 5:7 out of the Luther Bible. Seems like Pope Leo XIII was having a bad ‘infallible’ day when he made the above statement. Mr. Maccabees then said,

Luther went father then other liberal theologains of his day (erasmus was considered so liberal that he is labeled as a humanists by midevil historians) who wrote opinion (which was open till debate until Trent) but not dare publish a Bible unilaterlly such as Luther with a unilateral canon.

According to who? Your subjective opinion? Have you been canonized by the Vatican to declare who went the furthest with their opinions in the sixteenth century on the canon? See the example above of Erasmus. Certainly Cajetan, considering the entire apocrypha non-canonical should rate above Luther by Catholic standards, don’t you think? Luther, was indeed “liberal” in a sense when he said he cannot include James among his “chief books though I would not thereby prevent anyone from including or extolling him as he pleases, for there are otherwise many good sayings in him.”

Mr. Maccabees then said,

Cajetan included the full NT canon in his list with the shorter Jewish canon without the dueteros. SO his list right there differs from Luther on the NT. What the consensus with the indiviudals your propose? That they all disagreed. Well that is what history tells us hardly a postion uninimity and consistency that we only see though the councils of the church.

Then explain this:

Hippo and Carthage were provincial councils which did not have ecumenical authority. In addition, those councils actually contradict the Council of Trent on an important point. Firstly, Hippo and Carthage state that 1 Esdras and 2 Esdras are canonical. They are referring here to the Septuagint version of 1 and 2 Esdras. In this version 1 Esdras is the Apocryphal additions to Ezra while 2 Esdras is the Jewish verion of Ezra-Nehemiah from the Jewish canon. The Council of Trent however states that 1 Esdras is actually Ezra from the Jewish canon and 2 Esdras is Nehemiah from the Jewish canon. Trent omits the Septuagint version of 1 Esdras. Secondly, Hippo and Carthage state that Solomon wrote 5 books of the Old Testament when in actuality he wrote only 3.
Source: christiantruth.com/canon.html

Regards, James Swan

 

[TertiumQuid]

Mr. Maccabees wrote:

My comment was based on an article Anglcian Henry Howorth wrote for another scholarly Protestant journal called The International Journal of the Apocrypha. The following is passage in question: “The Dominicans, the great champions of Papal claims, continued to attack Luther, and especially did they do this at Rome, where one of them, Silvester Maccolini surnamed Prierias, the official censor made an especialassault upon him… Luther answered [Prierias] in the words of Augustine that the only authority he could accept in the matter was the CanonicalScriptures. What Luther actually meant at this time by the phrase “eislibris, qui Canonici appellantur” is not quite clear, for we now find him in the Resolutions commenting on the Thesis published in 1518 quoting Sirach. (Luther’s Works, Weimar, Ed. I. 603) while in his answer to Pierias hequotes Tobias (667) in each case apparently as authoritative” (Howorth, Sir Henry, “The Bible Canon of the Reformation,” International Journal of the Apocrypha, 20, Series VI (Jan. 1910), 12).

I’m not familiar with the author, nor the journal.If it’s online, provide the link. Indeed, Luther does quote Sirach twice in the Explanations of the 95 Theses (see LW:31). If you’re interested I can provide the quotes. Luther quoted the apocrypha approvingly throughout his career, so all I see is Henry Howorth being confused by this (if in fact you’ve cited him correctly).Simply because Luther cites a non-canonical book without criticism does not mean he held it to be canonical. He cites apocryphal works throughout his writings.

Luther says of Sirach in 1533,

This is a useful book for the ordinary man. The author concentrates all his effort on helping a citizen or housefather to be Godfearing, devout, and wise; and on showing what the relationship of such a man should be to God, the Word of God, priests, parents, wife, children, his own body, his servants, possessions, neighbors, friends, enemies, government, and anyone else. So one might well call this a book on home discipline or on the virtues of a pious householder. This indeed is the proper “spiritual discipline,” and should be recognized as such.”(LW 35:348)

What I find interesting is that this quote below from you is not substantiated by your above quote:

What is is also interesting is that in his debates with Eck he quoted the dueterocanonicals as scripture. As to use them against the church. WHen he is the loosing side of the scripture debate such as 2 Maccabeees he turns the table and all of the suddent the dueterocanonicals are not scripture.

Where did Luther quote the apocrypha to Eck as Scripture, and then reverse his usage? Please provide the reference.

Thanks,
James Swan

 

[TertiumQuid]

Maccabees:

Quotes from Martin Luther’s “On the Jews and their lies,” 1543

I’m not going to comment tonight on this, except to say- The title of this thread is “Protestant Bibles.” Why are you bringing up this totally non-related digression of Luther’s attitude towards the Jews?

I guess if I were losing ground by my every post in a discussion, I would try to change the subject as well.

Regards,
James Swan

 

[Maccabees]

TertiumQuidInstead of dialogue and critical thinking You cut and paste articles from protestant authors inclined to support your postion.
Look I could do the same with Catholic Authors but I am trying to invlvove some critical thinking here. Something you refuse to do our dilaogue is fruitless at this point and your dismissal of Luther as just making a nother mistake in his articles on the Jews instead of pointing the the obvious rantings of a madman is completely dishonest and an insult to Jews everywhere.

You completely misinterpret the catholic concept of tradtion looking for decrees. WEll the obvious answer is the answers were found at Trent. Usually Only after controversy is tradition infaliably defined.
The earliest councils affirmed the tradition of the trinity and nature of Jesus. But according to your line of thinking these teachings did not exist till the pope decreed it.
That’s stupid and a misrepresentation of catholcism. THe Popes declared what was always the majority opinion of the church as Jesus as trinity and later having a fully human and divine nature.

The constant rule of faith remains the same Luther in many instances in retrospect broke with tradition unilaterally. And yes not listing the books of the Bible in the table of contents broke with tradition.
Jerome’s opinion’s were written before the African councils remember so he had leahway in his commentary that others took to be more valuable than the councils and tradtion of the church herself. Cajetan adn Erasmus were wrong and in the minority in their opinion. You quote Erasmus as having some authority within the church he is popular within protestant apologist circles becuase of his constant contact with Luther and other reformers. Might I mind you he decided to stay within the catholic church. HE thought the Curch was more right than Luther was right. But he set himslef as more right than both. Erasmus was a humanist with a limited amount of manuscripts. He has many parts of the Bible missing in his manuscripts his collection while valuable was incomplete. Anyways the point is you are making to much of him he was not pope nor bishop but popular with the reformers becuase he agreed in dissenting from church doctrine like them. But alas he decided not to join the reformation because according to him none of the reforemrs were as right as ERasmus the self proclaimed genius.

And your smug comment at the end tells the real objective to win an argument instead of critical thinking. WE should be looking for the truth not winning debates by cutting and pasting slanted quotes from protestant authors. Like I said I could play that game and nothing would be settled but since you want to win instead of wanting to think logically about the formation of the Bible I choose to end this fruitless discusssion.
Without the catholic church we have no Bible but your desperation in choosing individuals instead of the church as your guide results in the usual protestnat weakness. Disagreement.
Dissenters had their own opinions of what made up the Old Testament and New Testament.