M
Maccabees
Guest
- Status
T
TertiumQuid
Guest
Mr. Maccabees said:
You bring up a good point in a roundabout way: Protestants devoted to the God-breathed Scriptures should support writers like William Webster, James White, Eric Svendsen, and David King. Their work has been monumental is uncovering the fallacies of popular Catholic apologetics. The vilification put forth by Catholics (such as yourself!) against Webster is very telling of how meaningful this work is.
So far, I haven’t seen any documentation of “spin” in regards to Webster’s work from you, though I haven’t read beyond this thread to see if you attempted to put forth anything substantial. How do you expect to win me to Mother Church with such rhetoric?
“This fatal decree, in which the Council…gave a new aspect to the whole question of, the Canon, was ratified by fifty-three prelates, among whom there was not one German, not one scholar distinguished for historical learning, not one who was fitted by special study for the examination of a subject in which the truth could only be determined by the voice of antiquity. How completely the decision was opposed to the spirit and letter of the original judgments of the Greek and Latin Churches, how far in the doctrinal equalization of the disputed and acknowledged books of the Old Testament it was at variance with the traditional opinion of the West, how absolutely unprecedented was the conversion of an eccelesiatical usage into an article of belief, will be seen from the evidence which has already been adduced.”
Source:B.F. Westcott, A General Survey of the History of the Canon of the New Testament (London: Macmillan, 1889), p. 478.
Mr. Maccabees then said:
Regards, James Swan
I strongly doubt Webster is making “his living as an anti-catholic apologist,” I’m really not sure if Mr. Webster is a full-time writer and apologist. I recall hearing he was gainfully employed in another field, though I might be confusing him with someone else.
You bring up a good point in a roundabout way: Protestants devoted to the God-breathed Scriptures should support writers like William Webster, James White, Eric Svendsen, and David King. Their work has been monumental is uncovering the fallacies of popular Catholic apologetics. The vilification put forth by Catholics (such as yourself!) against Webster is very telling of how meaningful this work is.
So far, I haven’t seen any documentation of “spin” in regards to Webster’s work from you, though I haven’t read beyond this thread to see if you attempted to put forth anything substantial. How do you expect to win me to Mother Church with such rhetoric?
The “dissenters” tend to be those most educated and informed about the extent of the canon. Athanasius, Cyril of Jerusalem, Jerome, Gregory of Nazianzus, Epiphanius, Origen, and others. All these men, if alive at the end of the 16th Century would fall under the anathema of Trent. Even the crucial Glossa Ordinaria follows Jerome’s scholarship. The unfortunate fact about the Catholic canon is that the RCC neglected its best scholarship. Even those at Trent do not represent the best in RCC scholarship. As B.F. Westcott has pointed out about Trent,
“This fatal decree, in which the Council…gave a new aspect to the whole question of, the Canon, was ratified by fifty-three prelates, among whom there was not one German, not one scholar distinguished for historical learning, not one who was fitted by special study for the examination of a subject in which the truth could only be determined by the voice of antiquity. How completely the decision was opposed to the spirit and letter of the original judgments of the Greek and Latin Churches, how far in the doctrinal equalization of the disputed and acknowledged books of the Old Testament it was at variance with the traditional opinion of the West, how absolutely unprecedented was the conversion of an eccelesiatical usage into an article of belief, will be seen from the evidence which has already been adduced.”
Source:B.F. Westcott, A General Survey of the History of the Canon of the New Testament (London: Macmillan, 1889), p. 478.
Mr. Maccabees then said:
Still yet to be seen or proven in anything you’ve put forth.
Regards, James Swan
T
TertiumQuid
Guest
Mr. Maccabees said:
"And therefore it seems proper in this place to enumerate, as we have learnt from the tradition of the Fathers, the books of the New and of the Old Testament, which according to the tradition of our forefathers, are believed to have been inspired by the Holy Ghost, and have handed down to the churches of Christ. Of the Old Testament, therefore, first of all there have been handed down five books of Moses, Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy; then Jesus Nave, (Joshua the son of Nun), the Book of Judges together with Ruth; then four books of Kings (Reigns), which the Hebrews reckon two; the book of Omissions, which is entitled the Book of Days (Chronicles), and two books of Ezra (Ezra and Nehemiah), which the Hebrews reckon one, and Esther; of the Prophets, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, and Daniel; moreover of the twelve minor Prophets, one book; Job also and the Psalms of David, each one book. Solomon gave three books to the Churches, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Canticles. These comprise the books of the Old Testament. Of the New there are four Gospels, Matthew, Mark, Luke, John; the Acts of the Apostles, written by Luke; fourteen Epistles of the apostle Paul, two of the Apostle Peter, one of James, brother of the Lord and Apostle, one of Jude, three of John, the Revelation of John. These are the books which the Fathers have comprised within the Canon, and from which they would have us deduce the proofs of our faith. But it should be known that there are also other books which our fathers call not ‘Canonical’ but ‘Ecclesiastical:’ that is to say, Wisdom, called the Wisdom of Solomon, and another Wisdom, called the Wisdom of the Son of Sirach, which last-mentioned the Latins called by the general title Ecclesiasticus, designating not the author of the book, but the character of the writing. To the same class belong the Book of Tobit, and the Book of Judith, and the Books of the Maccabees. In the New Testament the little book which is called the Book of the Pastor of Hermas (and that) which is called the Two Ways, or the Judgment of Peter; all of which they would have read in the Churches, but not appealed to for the confirmation of doctrine. The other writings they have named 'Apocrypha. These they would not have read in the Churches. These are the traditions which the fathers have handed down to us, which, as I said, I have thought it opportune to set forth in this place, for the instruction of those who are being taught the first elements of the Church and of the Faith, that they may know from what fountains of the Word of God their draughts must be taken.”
NPNF2, Vol. 3, Rufinus, Commentary on the Apostles Creed 36.
Regards, James Swan
I don’t recall mentioning Rufinas, so perhaps this tidbit of info was directed toward someone else. Perhaps we should let Rufinas speak for himself, rather than simply following your personal subjective interpretation. He is quite clear as to what he believes:
"And therefore it seems proper in this place to enumerate, as we have learnt from the tradition of the Fathers, the books of the New and of the Old Testament, which according to the tradition of our forefathers, are believed to have been inspired by the Holy Ghost, and have handed down to the churches of Christ. Of the Old Testament, therefore, first of all there have been handed down five books of Moses, Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy; then Jesus Nave, (Joshua the son of Nun), the Book of Judges together with Ruth; then four books of Kings (Reigns), which the Hebrews reckon two; the book of Omissions, which is entitled the Book of Days (Chronicles), and two books of Ezra (Ezra and Nehemiah), which the Hebrews reckon one, and Esther; of the Prophets, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, and Daniel; moreover of the twelve minor Prophets, one book; Job also and the Psalms of David, each one book. Solomon gave three books to the Churches, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Canticles. These comprise the books of the Old Testament. Of the New there are four Gospels, Matthew, Mark, Luke, John; the Acts of the Apostles, written by Luke; fourteen Epistles of the apostle Paul, two of the Apostle Peter, one of James, brother of the Lord and Apostle, one of Jude, three of John, the Revelation of John. These are the books which the Fathers have comprised within the Canon, and from which they would have us deduce the proofs of our faith. But it should be known that there are also other books which our fathers call not ‘Canonical’ but ‘Ecclesiastical:’ that is to say, Wisdom, called the Wisdom of Solomon, and another Wisdom, called the Wisdom of the Son of Sirach, which last-mentioned the Latins called by the general title Ecclesiasticus, designating not the author of the book, but the character of the writing. To the same class belong the Book of Tobit, and the Book of Judith, and the Books of the Maccabees. In the New Testament the little book which is called the Book of the Pastor of Hermas (and that) which is called the Two Ways, or the Judgment of Peter; all of which they would have read in the Churches, but not appealed to for the confirmation of doctrine. The other writings they have named 'Apocrypha. These they would not have read in the Churches. These are the traditions which the fathers have handed down to us, which, as I said, I have thought it opportune to set forth in this place, for the instruction of those who are being taught the first elements of the Church and of the Faith, that they may know from what fountains of the Word of God their draughts must be taken.”
NPNF2, Vol. 3, Rufinus, Commentary on the Apostles Creed 36.
Please provide a few examples. It is well known that many of the Fathers quote from the apocrypha, since the tradition of these books considered them worthy to be quoted from, yet not quoted as canonical God-breathed Scripture.
Regards, James Swan
P
Philthy
Guest
Hi Brian
Actually, what this seems to show is that Luther was in no position to be commenting on Cannonicity yet endeavered to do so anyhow. The fact that he recanted his original does not validate his rewrite in any way and seems to support the view that he was an unstable individual. God only knows - and I mean that literally.
You can put together all the “facts” of history for as long as you wish concerning canonicity, but you will come to no firm conclusions - just most logical deductions based on your incomplete knowledge. Like it or not, trying to “figure out” the canon 1500 years after the fact is too late. Scrapping together as much evidence as you would like to today is even less impressive.
And, BTW, we’re off the thread…
T
TertiumQuid
Guest
Mr. Maccabees said:
“The suggestion that Jerome really favored the apocryphal books but was only arguing that the Jews rejected them is groundless. First, he said clearly… that they “exhibit no authority as Holy Scripture.” Second, he never retracted his rejection of the Apocrypha. Third, he stated in his work Against Rufinus, that he had “followed the judgment of the churches” on this matter. And his statement “I was not following my own personal views” appears to refer to “the remarks that they [the enemies of Christianity] are wont to make against us.” In any event, he nowhere retracted his statements against the Apocrypha. Finally, the fact that Jerome cited apocryphal books is no proof that he accepted them. This was a common practice by many church fathers. He had stated that the church reads them “for example and instruction of manners” but does not “apply them to establish any doctrine.”
Geisler, N. L. Baker encyclopedia of Christian apologetics. p.34
“That confusion or disunity existed in the church on the extent of the canon is reflected in Jerome as well as Rufinus. They were crystal clear on the matter but their reaction to the pressure exerted on them indicates that many leaders thought the additional books ought to be recognized as inspired. Reuss suggests that Jerome could not withdraw himself altogether from the customs of the church. His attachment to tradition was more powerful than his scruples as a scholar, his devotion greater than his logic. In his preface to the book of Tobit, Jerome writes, “The Jews have excluded it from the list of Holy Scriptures and have reduced it to the rank of the hagiographa. Now they reprove me for having translated it against their principles in a Latin Bible. But I have preferred to displease the Pharisees and yield to the invitations of the bishops” who evidently asked that the books should not be left out. Thus we note that Jerome yielded to the popular request in furnishing a translation to the church at large but never permitted his scholarly convictions to yield to the point of recognizing these books as canonical.”
Samuel J. Schultz, Augustine and the Old Testament Canon Bibliotheca Sacra 112:231
“Some have suggested that Jerome later changed his opinion and included the Apocrypha in the canon of the Vulgate. However, there is no evidence to support this. Jerome continued to write commentaries on the Old Testament books until his death. There is no record that he ever retracted his original statements about the apocrypha. In his work, Against Rufinus…he reiterated and defended his earlier position on the Apocrypha.”
William Webster, Holy Scripture Vol. 2, 343-344
Regards,
James Swan
Nope. Jerome did not change his mind.
“The suggestion that Jerome really favored the apocryphal books but was only arguing that the Jews rejected them is groundless. First, he said clearly… that they “exhibit no authority as Holy Scripture.” Second, he never retracted his rejection of the Apocrypha. Third, he stated in his work Against Rufinus, that he had “followed the judgment of the churches” on this matter. And his statement “I was not following my own personal views” appears to refer to “the remarks that they [the enemies of Christianity] are wont to make against us.” In any event, he nowhere retracted his statements against the Apocrypha. Finally, the fact that Jerome cited apocryphal books is no proof that he accepted them. This was a common practice by many church fathers. He had stated that the church reads them “for example and instruction of manners” but does not “apply them to establish any doctrine.”
Geisler, N. L. Baker encyclopedia of Christian apologetics. p.34
“That confusion or disunity existed in the church on the extent of the canon is reflected in Jerome as well as Rufinus. They were crystal clear on the matter but their reaction to the pressure exerted on them indicates that many leaders thought the additional books ought to be recognized as inspired. Reuss suggests that Jerome could not withdraw himself altogether from the customs of the church. His attachment to tradition was more powerful than his scruples as a scholar, his devotion greater than his logic. In his preface to the book of Tobit, Jerome writes, “The Jews have excluded it from the list of Holy Scriptures and have reduced it to the rank of the hagiographa. Now they reprove me for having translated it against their principles in a Latin Bible. But I have preferred to displease the Pharisees and yield to the invitations of the bishops” who evidently asked that the books should not be left out. Thus we note that Jerome yielded to the popular request in furnishing a translation to the church at large but never permitted his scholarly convictions to yield to the point of recognizing these books as canonical.”
Samuel J. Schultz, Augustine and the Old Testament Canon Bibliotheca Sacra 112:231
“Some have suggested that Jerome later changed his opinion and included the Apocrypha in the canon of the Vulgate. However, there is no evidence to support this. Jerome continued to write commentaries on the Old Testament books until his death. There is no record that he ever retracted his original statements about the apocrypha. In his work, Against Rufinus…he reiterated and defended his earlier position on the Apocrypha.”
William Webster, Holy Scripture Vol. 2, 343-344
Regards,
James Swan
P
p90
Guest
Why anyone would continue discussion with someone who makes such comments is beyond me.
~Matt
T
TertiumQuid
Guest
Mr. Maccabees offered:
Let’s try the quote in context. It doesn’t say what you think it does.
Regards, James Swan
T
TertiumQuid
Guest
Mr. Maccabes Said:
Regards,
James Swan
There was no retraction.
This quote is not pertinent to our discussion.
How ironic. This entire discussion is filled with your subjective opinion. Where is the infallible pronouncement from a Pope or council on Jerome’s change of opinion on the apocrypha? Now would be a good time to produce this.
Regards,
James Swan
T
TertiumQuid
Guest
Mark L Chance wrote,
“** What we here see is a gradually developing use of the books of the Apocrypha by Christian readers, in which some of them are at first read very little, if at all (even 2 Maccabees, which had apparently been known to the author of the Epistle to the Hebrews), but three of them become more widely known from the end of the first century onwards—Tobit and Ecclesiasticus in the East, and Wisdom in the West as well. Until the final years of the second century, there is only one isolated example of any of the books being treated as Scripture, which is Polycarp’s use of Tobit (a striking departure to be made by a man who had been born no later than about AD 69, and who according to early tradition had met the apostle John); but at the end of the second century. Clement of Alexandria treats Tobit, Ecclesiasticus and Wisdom in this way, and, in the case of Wisdom, Tertullian and the Muratorian Fragment do the same.**”
The Old Testament Canon of the New Testament Church, 389.
department.monm.edu/classics/Speel_Festschrift/sundbergJr.htm.
Take Care, James Swan
The evidence points to a gradual developing use of the apocryphal books among Christians. As Roger Beckwith has explained,
“** What we here see is a gradually developing use of the books of the Apocrypha by Christian readers, in which some of them are at first read very little, if at all (even 2 Maccabees, which had apparently been known to the author of the Epistle to the Hebrews), but three of them become more widely known from the end of the first century onwards—Tobit and Ecclesiasticus in the East, and Wisdom in the West as well. Until the final years of the second century, there is only one isolated example of any of the books being treated as Scripture, which is Polycarp’s use of Tobit (a striking departure to be made by a man who had been born no later than about AD 69, and who according to early tradition had met the apostle John); but at the end of the second century. Clement of Alexandria treats Tobit, Ecclesiasticus and Wisdom in this way, and, in the case of Wisdom, Tertullian and the Muratorian Fragment do the same.**”
The Old Testament Canon of the New Testament Church, 389.
A.C. Sundberg work disproved the idea of an Alexandrian canon in Egypt. His work showed the early church would have accepted the Palestinian canon. See:
department.monm.edu/classics/Speel_Festschrift/sundbergJr.htm.
As stated already in this thread (somewhere!), the previous councils disagree with Trent in certain details on the canon, thus I strongly question the infallible authority of Trent, or the earlier councils.
As I stated earlier, there where two definite traditions within the church- those who followed Augustine, and those who followed Jerome. The delegates at Trent were not qualified to choose the former rather than the latter.
Mark, I’d like to thank you, for presenting your disagreements with me in a courteous respectful way.
Take Care, James Swan
T
TertiumQuid
Guest
[Mr Maccabees Said:
G
Greg_McPherran
Guest
I think in matters of faith, debate only goes so far. We need to see Jesus in the Catholic Church. Only He can grant us true understanding. I can tell you that as a Catholic I am very happy because I believe by faith that I have found Jesus. The people in the Church are not perfect (myself included). However, Jesus is here. He calls you. He welcomes you. He loves you. He has been present with His Church and will be until the end of time.
Let us drink of the heart of Scripture and cease battling about Scripture. After all, it is the real message and purpose of Scripture that is important. This is a matter of faith. Drink and you shall not be thirsty.
Greg
Let us drink of the heart of Scripture and cease battling about Scripture. After all, it is the real message and purpose of Scripture that is important. This is a matter of faith. Drink and you shall not be thirsty.
Greg
P
Philthy
Guest
TertiumQuid and Maccabees:
The amount of information you two have thrown around is impressive - too bad you still can’t agree on much! Typical historical debate - its no better than politics. As someone who has a more logical and empirical mind I loathe digging into history for “truth”. The type of information that is gathered is always so inferior to other fields (scientific) that I have very little patience for it. Not to be rude, thank you for all your efforts. Speaking of rudeness, though, you owe each other, as christians, an apology for the times the charity level plunged.
So what can we say after all regarding Luther and the Canon? He was a rare bird - that much is certain. The contention that " …Roman Catholics, if they are going to be true to their Church’s history, have absolutey NO right to critisize Luther." by Mr Swan is what you would commonly call an “overstatement”. I think you meant to say that we have no right to criticize him for questioning the canonicity of Scripture. And while that’s a debateable issue, Catholics have a right and obligation to criticize him for, among others, leaving the Church.
And though off - thread, I find it impossible not to comment on this statement by Mr Swan:
“… on the essential: “salvation by grace alone, through faith alone because of Christ alone” the large majority of Protestants agree. We have more unity than you think.”
Even if you could agree on those 3 things, which is debateable due to ambiguous terms, there is so much more to Christianity/Living a Christian life that this leaves you agreeing on very little.
Mr.Swan
“As to the heart of your question: Protestants have the canon they do, not because your Popes and councils declared them the word of God, but because God gave us His Word.”
What the heck does that mean?
How could you let that statement escape your keyboard? Scripture does not define its components, it DOES tell us that the church is the "pillar and foundation of Truth, and that we are subject to statements whether oral or written, and that the “younger presbyters be subject to the elders”. This all seems to fit pretty well with the Catholic notion of the Church/Tradition being the determinant of the truth of the canon. You may choose to disagree, but for you, with all your historical knowledge, to say “Protestants have the canon they do…because God gave us His Word” is the weakest possible argument I can imagine. I think even Luther would reject that one.
“The canon is determined by God, while canonicity is recognized by the people of God.” Keep dreaming! Is that from scripture!? Why would Webster need to write a 3 volume history if this is the case? I happen to have read the entire Catholic bible before I knew what the word canon even meant, and I can tell you that the latter half of this statement is simply absurd.
The amount of information you two have thrown around is impressive - too bad you still can’t agree on much! Typical historical debate - its no better than politics. As someone who has a more logical and empirical mind I loathe digging into history for “truth”. The type of information that is gathered is always so inferior to other fields (scientific) that I have very little patience for it. Not to be rude, thank you for all your efforts. Speaking of rudeness, though, you owe each other, as christians, an apology for the times the charity level plunged.
So what can we say after all regarding Luther and the Canon? He was a rare bird - that much is certain. The contention that " …Roman Catholics, if they are going to be true to their Church’s history, have absolutey NO right to critisize Luther." by Mr Swan is what you would commonly call an “overstatement”. I think you meant to say that we have no right to criticize him for questioning the canonicity of Scripture. And while that’s a debateable issue, Catholics have a right and obligation to criticize him for, among others, leaving the Church.
And though off - thread, I find it impossible not to comment on this statement by Mr Swan:
“… on the essential: “salvation by grace alone, through faith alone because of Christ alone” the large majority of Protestants agree. We have more unity than you think.”
Even if you could agree on those 3 things, which is debateable due to ambiguous terms, there is so much more to Christianity/Living a Christian life that this leaves you agreeing on very little.
Mr.Swan
“As to the heart of your question: Protestants have the canon they do, not because your Popes and councils declared them the word of God, but because God gave us His Word.”
What the heck does that mean?
How could you let that statement escape your keyboard? Scripture does not define its components, it DOES tell us that the church is the "pillar and foundation of Truth, and that we are subject to statements whether oral or written, and that the “younger presbyters be subject to the elders”. This all seems to fit pretty well with the Catholic notion of the Church/Tradition being the determinant of the truth of the canon. You may choose to disagree, but for you, with all your historical knowledge, to say “Protestants have the canon they do…because God gave us His Word” is the weakest possible argument I can imagine. I think even Luther would reject that one.“The canon is determined by God, while canonicity is recognized by the people of God.” Keep dreaming! Is that from scripture!? Why would Webster need to write a 3 volume history if this is the case? I happen to have read the entire Catholic bible before I knew what the word canon even meant, and I can tell you that the latter half of this statement is simply absurd.
T
TertiumQuid
Guest
Kelly’s work was dependent on Ryle, scholarship has advanced beyond both. I suggest you track down a copy of Beckwith’s book if you really care about this subject. Based on your comments throughout this discussion, I doubt you have studied this issue.I have yet to see any rebuttal of Webster’s work from you.
My desire was not to engage in a full discussion on the canon with you, but only to correct your vilification of Luther. That I have ventured down all the rabbit trails you keep throwing out is simply yet another proof that i’m willing to hear both sides of an issue. I will not go down the Newman trail, as i peeked ahead and noticed some Luther tidbits you threw out for discussion.
Regards, James Swan
P
Philthy
Guest
Sorry - I got a little lengthy…
J.I. Packer has rightly said, “The Church no more gave us the New Testament canon than Sir Isaac Newton gave us the force of gravity. God gave us gravity, by His work of creation, and similarly He gave us the New Testament canon, by inspiring the individual books that make it up.” No, this is not rightly said. Rather, t****his is to miss the point entirely. We still need to separate the written Word of God from all the other literary sources - how exactly does this happen? That is the point.
If the RCC includes books like the apocrypha in their canon, and it can be demonstrated that these books are not canonical, one is forced to conclude the RCC cannot recognize God’s word from his non-word. You must realize however, that it is impossible now to “demonstrate that…books are not canonical” You may come up with good, logical, historical reasons for believing it, but anything short of God coming down and making a statement on canonicity will not be an actual “proof”, but just an informed opinion.
“If this is the case, all Christians previous to Trent had no certainty which books were supposed to be in the Bible.” Possibly, but that would only be a problem if you base your entire religion on the Bible. If you have the Church and Tradition also, you’ve got no problem. What percentage of Christians do you think were reading the bible in the first 4 centuries anyhow? They didn’t read, they were read to by their priests/elders. One thing is for certain - they couldn’t possibly have entertained the notion of Sola Scriptura.
J.I. Packer has rightly said, “The Church no more gave us the New Testament canon than Sir Isaac Newton gave us the force of gravity. God gave us gravity, by His work of creation, and similarly He gave us the New Testament canon, by inspiring the individual books that make it up.” No, this is not rightly said. Rather, t****his is to miss the point entirely. We still need to separate the written Word of God from all the other literary sources - how exactly does this happen? That is the point.
If the RCC includes books like the apocrypha in their canon, and it can be demonstrated that these books are not canonical, one is forced to conclude the RCC cannot recognize God’s word from his non-word. You must realize however, that it is impossible now to “demonstrate that…books are not canonical” You may come up with good, logical, historical reasons for believing it, but anything short of God coming down and making a statement on canonicity will not be an actual “proof”, but just an informed opinion.
“If this is the case, all Christians previous to Trent had no certainty which books were supposed to be in the Bible.” Possibly, but that would only be a problem if you base your entire religion on the Bible. If you have the Church and Tradition also, you’ve got no problem. What percentage of Christians do you think were reading the bible in the first 4 centuries anyhow? They didn’t read, they were read to by their priests/elders. One thing is for certain - they couldn’t possibly have entertained the notion of Sola Scriptura.
T
TertiumQuid
Guest
Maccabees said:
“** Roman Catholics are quick to point out that the canons of Hippo and Carthage were given ecumenical authority and therefore the force of law for the whole Church by this Council. Thus, its decrees on the canon have been officially sanctioned. However, the Council also sanctioned the canons of Athanasius and Amphilochius that had to do with the canon and both of these fathers rejected the major books of the Apocrypha. In addition, the Council sanctioned the Apostolical canons which, in canon eighty-five, gave a list of canonical books which included 3 Maccabees, a book never accepted as canonical in the West.**”
(NPNF2,Vol. 14, The Seven Ecumenical Councils, The Apostolical Canons, Canon LXXXV) says:
“Let the following books be counted venerable and sacred by all of you, both clergy and Laity Of the Old Testament, five books of Moses, Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy; of Joshua the Son of Nun, one; of the Judges, one; of Ruth, one; of the Kings, four; of the Chronicles of the book of the days, two; of Ezra, two; of Esther, one; [some texts read of Judith, one]; of the Maccabees, three; of Job, one; of the Psalter, one; of Solomon, three, viz.: Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, and the Song of Songs; of the Prophets, twelve; of Isaiah, one; of Jeremiah, one; of Ezekiel, one; of Daniel, one. But besides these you are recommended to teach your young persons the Wisdom of the very learned Sirach. Our own books, that is, those of the New Testament, are: the four Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John; fourteen Epistles of Paul; two Epistles of Peter; three of John; one of James, and one of jude. Two Epistles of Clemens, and the Constitutions of me Clemens, addressed to you Bishops, in eight books, which are not to be published to all on account of the mystical things in them. And the Acts of us the Apostles.”
Regards, James Swan
The evidence you provided did not substantiate your claim.
Webster said,
“** Roman Catholics are quick to point out that the canons of Hippo and Carthage were given ecumenical authority and therefore the force of law for the whole Church by this Council. Thus, its decrees on the canon have been officially sanctioned. However, the Council also sanctioned the canons of Athanasius and Amphilochius that had to do with the canon and both of these fathers rejected the major books of the Apocrypha. In addition, the Council sanctioned the Apostolical canons which, in canon eighty-five, gave a list of canonical books which included 3 Maccabees, a book never accepted as canonical in the West.**”
(NPNF2,Vol. 14, The Seven Ecumenical Councils, The Apostolical Canons, Canon LXXXV) says:
“Let the following books be counted venerable and sacred by all of you, both clergy and Laity Of the Old Testament, five books of Moses, Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy; of Joshua the Son of Nun, one; of the Judges, one; of Ruth, one; of the Kings, four; of the Chronicles of the book of the days, two; of Ezra, two; of Esther, one; [some texts read of Judith, one]; of the Maccabees, three; of Job, one; of the Psalter, one; of Solomon, three, viz.: Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, and the Song of Songs; of the Prophets, twelve; of Isaiah, one; of Jeremiah, one; of Ezekiel, one; of Daniel, one. But besides these you are recommended to teach your young persons the Wisdom of the very learned Sirach. Our own books, that is, those of the New Testament, are: the four Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John; fourteen Epistles of Paul; two Epistles of Peter; three of John; one of James, and one of jude. Two Epistles of Clemens, and the Constitutions of me Clemens, addressed to you Bishops, in eight books, which are not to be published to all on account of the mystical things in them. And the Acts of us the Apostles.”
Regards, James Swan
P
Philthy
Guest
From James Swan
Philthy
Webster said,
“Roman Catholics are quick to point out that the canons of Hippo and Carthage were given ecumenical authority and therefore the force of law for the whole Church by this Council. This is a little confusing - why is “council” in the singular? Did he mean by these councils…? Or is he talking about the Council of Florence (which would be the only relevant one to respond to Maccabbes:“not until the Council of Florence is their attempt to make an official ecumenical canon.”?Thus, its decrees on the canon have been officially sanctioned. What does this mean? However, the Council also sanctioned the canons of Athanasius and Amphilochius that had to do with the canon and both of these fathers rejected the major books of the Apocrypha. In addition, the Council sanctioned the Apostolical canons Im confused - did this councel come up with a canon or not - what does it mean to say that it sanctioned the canons of several groups? Is it a statement that although each may not have the entire canon, everything they do contain is to be regarded as canonical? which, in canon eighty-five, gave a list of canonical books which included 3 Maccabees, a book never accepted as canonical in the West.”
(NPNF2,Vol. 14, The Seven Ecumenical Councils, The Apostolical Canons, Canon LXXXV) says:
“Let the following books be counted venerable and sacred by all of you, both clergy and Laity Of the Old Testament, …of the Maccabees, three; .”
Regards, James Swan
Philthy
Webster said,
“Roman Catholics are quick to point out that the canons of Hippo and Carthage were given ecumenical authority and therefore the force of law for the whole Church by this Council. This is a little confusing - why is “council” in the singular? Did he mean by these councils…? Or is he talking about the Council of Florence (which would be the only relevant one to respond to Maccabbes:“not until the Council of Florence is their attempt to make an official ecumenical canon.”?Thus, its decrees on the canon have been officially sanctioned. What does this mean? However, the Council also sanctioned the canons of Athanasius and Amphilochius that had to do with the canon and both of these fathers rejected the major books of the Apocrypha. In addition, the Council sanctioned the Apostolical canons Im confused - did this councel come up with a canon or not - what does it mean to say that it sanctioned the canons of several groups? Is it a statement that although each may not have the entire canon, everything they do contain is to be regarded as canonical? which, in canon eighty-five, gave a list of canonical books which included 3 Maccabees, a book never accepted as canonical in the West.”
(NPNF2,Vol. 14, The Seven Ecumenical Councils, The Apostolical Canons, Canon LXXXV) says:
“Let the following books be counted venerable and sacred by all of you, both clergy and Laity Of the Old Testament, …of the Maccabees, three; .”
Regards, James Swan
P
Philthy
Guest
James Swan
I cut and pasted this from the Sripture and Tradition portion of Catholic Answers. I dont include it because I think you don’t know about it (I know you know more about this than I do, as I told you my limited skill is in analytical methods) but because it is very clear what their intent is:
They are explicitly stating the canon of the church. Not the relatively vague statement of your source “Let the following books be counted venerable and sacred by all of you, both clergy and Laity”. That statement doesn’t seem as forceful, but I could be wrong. In any event it (the entire point regarding Mac 3) seems like a pretty minor thing…Much more important is all the old testament stuff that IS in there each and every time…
**Council of Rome
**
"Now indeed we must treat of the divine scriptures, what the universal Catholic Church accepts and what she ought to shun. The order of the Old Testament begins here:Ecclesiastes, one book, [and] Canticle of Canticles [Song of Songs], one book; likewise Wisdom, one book; Ecclesiasticus [Sirach], one book . . . . Likewise the order of the historical [books]: Job, one book; Tobit, one book; Esdras, two books [Ezra and Nehemiah]; Esther, one book; Judith, one book; Maccabees, two books" (Decree of Pope Damasus [A.D. 382]).
**Council of Hippo
**
“[It has been decided] that besides the canonical scriptures nothing be read in church under the name of divine Scripture. But **the canonical scriptures are
**as follows:… the five books of Solomon [Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Song of Songs, Wisdom, and a portion of the Psalms], the twelve books of the prophets, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Daniel, Ezekiel, Tobit, Judith, Esther, Ezra, two books, Maccabees, two books . . .” (Canon 36 [A.D. 393]).
**Council of Carthage III
**
“[It has been decided] that nothing except the canonical scriptures should be read in the Church under the name of the divine scriptures. But the canonical scriptures are: … five books of Solomon, twelve books of the prophets, , Tobit, Judith, Esther, two books of Esdras, two books of the Maccabees . . .” (Canon 47 [A.D. 397]).
Augustine
"The whole canon of the scriptures, however, in which we say that consideration is to be applied, is contained in these books: the five of Moses . . . and one book of Joshua [Son of] Nave, one of Judges; one little book which is called Ruth . . . then the four of Kingdoms, and the two of Paralipomenon . . . . [T]here are also others too, of a different order . . . such as Job and Tobit and Esther and Judith and the two books of Maccabees, … (Christian Instruction 2:8:13 [A.D. 397]).
I cut and pasted this from the Sripture and Tradition portion of Catholic Answers. I dont include it because I think you don’t know about it (I know you know more about this than I do, as I told you my limited skill is in analytical methods) but because it is very clear what their intent is:
They are explicitly stating the canon of the church. Not the relatively vague statement of your source “Let the following books be counted venerable and sacred by all of you, both clergy and Laity”. That statement doesn’t seem as forceful, but I could be wrong. In any event it (the entire point regarding Mac 3) seems like a pretty minor thing…Much more important is all the old testament stuff that IS in there each and every time…
**Council of Rome
**
"Now indeed we must treat of the divine scriptures, what the universal Catholic Church accepts and what she ought to shun. The order of the Old Testament begins here:Ecclesiastes, one book, [and] Canticle of Canticles [Song of Songs], one book; likewise Wisdom, one book; Ecclesiasticus [Sirach], one book . . . . Likewise the order of the historical [books]: Job, one book; Tobit, one book; Esdras, two books [Ezra and Nehemiah]; Esther, one book; Judith, one book; Maccabees, two books" (Decree of Pope Damasus [A.D. 382]).
**Council of Hippo
**
“[It has been decided] that besides the canonical scriptures nothing be read in church under the name of divine Scripture. But **the canonical scriptures are
**as follows:… the five books of Solomon [Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Song of Songs, Wisdom, and a portion of the Psalms], the twelve books of the prophets, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Daniel, Ezekiel, Tobit, Judith, Esther, Ezra, two books, Maccabees, two books . . .” (Canon 36 [A.D. 393]).
**Council of Carthage III
**
“[It has been decided] that nothing except the canonical scriptures should be read in the Church under the name of the divine scriptures. But the canonical scriptures are: … five books of Solomon, twelve books of the prophets, , Tobit, Judith, Esther, two books of Esdras, two books of the Maccabees . . .” (Canon 47 [A.D. 397]).
Augustine
"The whole canon of the scriptures, however, in which we say that consideration is to be applied, is contained in these books: the five of Moses . . . and one book of Joshua [Son of] Nave, one of Judges; one little book which is called Ruth . . . then the four of Kingdoms, and the two of Paralipomenon . . . . [T]here are also others too, of a different order . . . such as Job and Tobit and Esther and Judith and the two books of Maccabees, … (Christian Instruction 2:8:13 [A.D. 397]).
T
TertiumQuid
Guest
Mr. Maccabees posted:
Regards, James Swan
Are you aware that the councils you keep giving me long lists from confirmed the book 3 Esdras canonical (it was actually 1 Esdras of the Septugint), and later Trent deemed it non-canonical?
So a provision is made to allow the east to have a non-canonical book as canonical? The council is binding on the west and not the east? What happened to ‘… local councils that were witnesses to the normal rule of faith and accepted canon of the time…” as you mentioned previously? The “normal rule of faith” includes deeming non-canonical books canonical for part of the Christian world? Your infallible church decided to allow an entire part of the world to treat a book as canonical that wasn’t. How can you possibly criticize Luther for anything on the canon, with such a deceptive stance taken by your infallible church?
Regards, James Swan
P
Philthy
Guest
The Council of Trullo (which proposed Macabees 3) was a general council. It was in 692. Wasn’t it only a general council though (held in Constantinople) and not ecumenical? Seems to me like canon developed over time. I don’t see why that contradicts infallibility.
How can you possibly criticize Luther for anything on the canon, with such a deceptive stance taken by your infallible church?
Lets not go overboard. You have been critical of the RCC for having very minimal alterations in the canon - and there are many potentially valid reasons for that. Luther, however, took long accepted books of the canon and removed them from their rightful place in the Bible. Thats worthy of criticism. In addition, he altered the wording of Scripture to reflect his “faith alone” theology. All of these things were done, the facts would seem to support, to justify his theology. That was his motive. I don’t see how you can construe the facts that you have presented regarding the RCC to justify your statement that the Church was “deceptive” - there is no apparent motive.
T
TertiumQuid
Guest
Mr. Maccabees said:
ntrmin.org/Luther%20and%20the%20canon%202.htm
It’s been an interesting discussion with you. I may not able to spend as much time with this discussion, as the summer has ended, and my busy schedule kicks in.
James Swan
I have been responding to your posts (or any posts in this thread) in order, time allowing. However, I did peak ahead a saw you cited Dave Armstrong on Luther. I actually have dealt with many of DA’s comments you cited, primarily in the endnotes of this webpage:
ntrmin.org/Luther%20and%20the%20canon%202.htm
It’s been an interesting discussion with you. I may not able to spend as much time with this discussion, as the summer has ended, and my busy schedule kicks in.
James Swan
- Status