Protestant Bibles

[TertiumQuid]

Maccabees:

Regarding John Calvin’s quote here we have Mr Webster forerunner in spinning. He explains away the obvious actual words of Augustine into some elaborate theory besides the obvious…

not worthy of a response.
no substance from you = no response from me.

Ok Mr Calvin if the church give you the 26 New Testament books (remember he differs from Luther in his criteria of the new testament he accepts the 26 books) then who gave you the Bible and how do you know it is true and Inspired what is Calvins answer to this very important question. He just explained away the obvious answer I am sure Calvin’s response is elaborate and meaningless.

Many of Calvin’s writings are availabe on-line for your own research. I think i’ve done enough work for you already, and besides, whatever I post you subjectively declare “spin.”

James Swan

 

[Maccabees]

TQ

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.

Your claim in only thus because they disagree with canon finalized at Trent.

If you really thought their biblical exegesis was par excellance you would be Catholic.

These same men believe in the eucharist as the Body and Blood of Christ, Regenerative Baptism, Sacraments as a conduit of growing in grace, they believed in faith and works,

Believed in apostolic succession, the primacy of the bishop of Rome. These men were very Catholic Webster tries to spin this disagreement canon if as they were Protestants.

 

[Maccabees]

And your claim of dissent is laughable they did not protest aka Luther. Webster makes this claim of false assumptions. They made opinions before an official consensus was made final they had an opinion. They disagreed with one another even there was no set canon at this time especially before the time of Carthage when a more uniform and traditional canon was affirmed as being the normal canon in western Christianity. An important thing to remember is that it was a western council and while influential in the west it would have little or no impact in the east and on the greek fathers. Athanasius, Cyril of Jerusalem, Gregory of Nazianzus, Epiphanius and Origin and others were Greek fathers . According to some protestant apologist these guys weren’t even apart of the catholic church and they were responsible for the canon. “The Catholic church *did not *first determine the canon. It was the Eastern Orthodox church that came up with the list of twenty-seven books first” (Evangelical Answers, p.88). Eric Svendsen. Of course this is ridiculous as there was no Orthodox curch till 1024 but goes to prove the point the spin these guys will take to get away from the authority of the catholic church. The Eastern fathers are conveniently under western jurisdiction when the oppose the western councils but when they agree with the western catholic councils suddenly they are Eastern Orthodox? You can’t have it both ways. Here he takes a notion of truth (separate traditions of the 2 parts of the church) that objective historians will agree too. The Catholic Church has existed since its earliest times in two parts, East and West, but it’s always been one Church albeit

With separate traditions and theological outlooks the one things that kept them in communion for so long (1000 years) was the bilateral adherence to the authority of infalliable ecumenical councils above that of bishops and local councils which were not binding upon the whole church as dogma.

Athanasius and Origin died before the African Councils so how could they dissent? Your dealing with fathers who were not in the jurisdiction of the western councils and guys who were not even alive to dissent from the council teaching.

 

[Maccabees]

The lone dissenter that would be under jurisdiction of the Councils and alive during the time or after (yeah that’s an important point bud) would be Jerome. Webster builds his case with false argumentation. Look at this way Luther appealed to Jerome as the sole father of authority for the very same reasons I have mentioned he did not make false claims so easily torn apart he knew he would have to back them up. Webster hopes you don’t do your research so he doesn’t have to back up his house of cards. Augustine and the other fathers who attended the African Councils went for the larger canon and it was the standard Bible used from that time on. The only person accused of dissenting from the Councils was Jerome. And as I have shown earlier Jerome retracted his earlier stance to get in line with the rest of the western church. Read the quote directly please. Notice the spin (Geisler)) gives to the obvious words of Jerome Samuel J. (Webster) and (Schultz) don’t even deal with the words of Jerome they spin their opinions without the words of Jerome to testify for himself this is very dishonest. This is what I am trying to tell you about Webster he spins without quoting when the words won’t back him up and selective quotes out of context to support his views read on as the evidence mounts.

Here is the problem with Wescott’s thesis it throws out the role given to the church in canonization and puts individual opinion and interpretation above the Holy Spirits role in giving us an infalliable canon.

Westscott and Webster have put you in a very precarious postion one which protestants loudly object to. You by denying the catholic postion of the canon being by divine revelation through the church have reduced the canon of being a tradition of a man in this case Jerome above the Holy Spirit guiding the church. I guess Mr Wescott who tosses aside the decision of 53 catholic prelates as not the best and brightest might be not too impressed by some of the writers of the New Testament who comprised of ignorant fisherman and a taxcollector. The holy spirit speeks inspired in not necessarily the smartest men I assure you the Pharissees had far more education and knowledge than the apostles but the apostles were right because they had the holy spirit. To protestants the canon is the origin of catholic man by the name of Jerome who protestants would admit is wrong on all the other issues that divide Catholics and Protestants. SO obviously you don’t believe Jerome is infalliable. So where does that leave honest Protestant theologians on the issue. Well they admit it’s a guessing game for them. Much like it was a guessing game for Luther who said he didn’t think some NT books were worthy of the canon but hey you can make that decision for yourself if James, Jude, Hebrews and Revlation is scripture or not. This line of thought continues to this very day. R.C. Sproul admits this when he says, “ the Protestant view is that the church’s decision regarding what books make up the Canon was a falliable decision. Being falliable means that it is possible that the church erred in its complilation of the books found in the present Canon of Scripture” (Sola Scriptura! The Protestant Position on the Bible, p. 66)

---

 

[Maccabees]

2 Peter 1
20knowing this first, that no prophecy of Scripture is of any private interpretation,1] 21for prophecy never came by the will of man, but holy men of God2] spoke as they were moved by the Holy Spirit.

The Bible did not come to the church by the way of only Jerome but through the church and her many members and through the church the Holy Spirit though the church through infalliable councils such as in Acts 15 the Holy Spirit guide the church to the truth. In Acts 15 the dispute was settled when Peter spoke and the apostles agreed there wasn’t dissent from the ruling without excommunication as the rest of the NT tells us the Judaizers who disagreed using their own interpretation of scripture and tradition where excommunicated no matter how strong their argument was. For the church’s authority was above the private interpretation of dissenters who had argumentation from history of their tradtion and scriputure but it was not the equal of the new testament church.

What is amazing is that the Judaizers appeal was to Moses himself (his tradition and scripture was clearly on their side) and I don’t think Jerome compares in any way to Moses.

 

[Maccabees]

TQ

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. **
**

Ok we have the protocanocical books

**

---

 

[Maccabees]

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.

**
Ok we have the dueterocanoncial books or according to Rufinus ecclesiastical books which have the distinction of being read in the church and like Trent is designated lesser than the protocanical books of the OT that doesn’t mean they are not inspired that designation is given to the apocraphal books that designation is not made here but elsewhere within the quote

---

---

**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 books are aporcrypha neither read in church nor appealed to for the confirmation of doctrine. The Ecclesiastical books are not given this negative distinction reserved for the apocrapha.

---

 

[Maccabees]

TQ

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.

“Which also the Prophet fore told when he said, ‘This is our God: no other shall be accounted of in comparison of Him. He hath found out all the way of knowledge, and hath given it unto Jacob His servant and to Israel His beloved. Afterward He shewed Himself upon the earth, and conversed with men.’[Baruch 3:36-38]”
Rufinus of Aquileia,The Apostles Creed,37-38(A.D. 404),in NPNF2,III:557-558

Rufinas believed Baruch was a prophet of the Old Testament and his writings prophetic.

“Bruce Metzger An Introduction to the Apocrapha” supports this claim.

Many church fathers quoted the book as scripture. … It was evidently assumed that because Baruch was the amanuensis of the prophet, a book attributed to Baruch would contain the words of the prophet himself.

Here is the dialogue of the words of Rufinas defending the dueteros as scripture here the septugient’s larger canon and its stories such as Bel and the Dragon are defended as from the Old Testment of the apostles as apposed to the shorter Jewish canon which the Jews are saying as the only true Old Testament. Rufinas defends this and then asks why Jerome is siding with them. Jerome defends the larger canon and says his past statements have been misunderstood. I see definite evidence of retraction here but read for yourself.

 

[Maccabees]

Apology Against Jerome, Book 2:33, 34, 35

1. “There has been from the first in the churches of God, and especially in that of Jerusalem, a plentiful supply of men who being born Jews have become Christians; and their perfect acquaintance with both languages and their sufficient knowledge of the law is shewn by their administration of the pontifical office. In all this abundance of learned men, has there been one who has dared to make havoc of the divine record handed down to the Churches by the Apostles and the deposit of the Holy Spirit? For what can we call it but havoc, when some parts of it are transformed, and this is called the correction of an error? For instance, the whole of the history of Susanna, which gave a lesson of chastity to the churches of God, has by him been cut out, thrown aside and dismissed. The hymn of the three children, which is regularly sung on festivals in the Church of God, he has wholly erased from the place where it stood. But why should I enumerate these cases one by one, when their number cannot be estimated?”

34, “…These men who bid us not attend to Jewish fables and genealogies, which minister questioning rather than edification; and who, again, bid us beware of, and specially watch, those of the circumcision; is it conceivable that they could not foresee through the Spirit that a time would come, after nearly four hundred years**, when the church would find out that the Apostles had not delivered to them the truth of the old Testament**, and would send an embassy to those whom the apostles spoke of as the circumcision, begging and beseeching them to dole out to them some small portion of the truth which was in their possession: and that the Church would through this embassy confess that she had been for all those four hundred years in error; that she had indeed been called the Apostles from among the Gentiles to be the bride of Christ, but that they had not decked her with a necklace of genuine jewels; that she had fondly thought that they were precious stones, but now had found out that those were not true gems which the Apostles had put upon her, so that she felt ashamed to go forth in public decked in false instead of true jewels, and that she therefore begged that they would send her Barabbas, even him whom she had once rejected to be married to Christ, so that in conjunction with one man chosen from among her own people, he might restore to her the true ornaments with which the Apostles had failed to furnish her.”

 

[Maccabees]

35 . What wonder is there then that he should tear me to pieces, being as I am of no account; or that he should wound Ambrose, or find fault with Hilary, Lactantius and Didymus? I must not greatly grieve over any injury of my own in the fact that he has attempted to do my work of translating over again, when he is only treating me with the same contempt with which he has treated the Seventy translators. But this emendation of the Seventy, what are we to think of it? Is it not evident, how greatly the grounds for the heathens’ unbelief have been increased by this proceeding? For they take notice of what is going on amongst us. They know that our law has been amended, or at least changed; and do you suppose they do not say among themselves, “These people are wandering at random, they have no fixed truth among them, for you see how they make amendments and corrections in their laws whenever they please,” and indeed it is evident that there must have been previous error where amendment has supervened, and that things which undergo change at the hand of man cannot possibly be divine. This has been the present which you have made us with your excess of wisdom, that we are all judged even by the heathen as lacking in wisdom. I reject the wisdom which Peter and Paul did not teach. I will have nothing to do with a truth which the Apostles have not approved. These are your own words: “The ears of simple men among the Latins ought not after four hundred years to be molested by the sound of new doctrines.” Now you are yourself saying: "Every one has been under a mistake who thought that Susanna had afforded an example of chastity to both the married and the unmarried. It is not true. And every one who thought that the boy Daniel was filled with the Holy Spirit and convicted the adulterous old men, was under a mistake. That also was not true. And every congregation throughout the universe, whether of those who are in the body or of those who have departed to be with the Lord, even though they were holy martyrs or confessors, all who have sung the Hymn of the three children have been in error, and have sung what is false. Now therefore after four hundred years the truth of the law comes forth for us, it has been bought with money from the Synagogue. When the world has grown old and all things are hastening to their end, let us change the inscriptions upon the tombs of the ancients, so that it may be known by those who had read the story otherwise, that it was not a gourd but an ivy plant under whose shade Jonah rested; and that, when our legislator pleases, it will no longer be the shade of ivy but of some other plant.

Rufinius equates the LXX with the Septugeint larger canon

 

[Maccabees]

Jerome’s response:

Book 2, 33 “But when I repeat what the Jews say against the Story of Susanna and the Hymn of the Three Children, and the fables of Bel and the Dragon, which are not contained in the Hebrew Bible, the man who makes this a charge against me proves himself to be a fool and a slanderer; for I explained not what I thought but what they commonly say against us. I did not reply to their opinion in the Preface, because I was studying brevity, and feared that I should seem to he writing not a Preface but a book. I said therefore, “As to which this is not the time to enter into discussion.”

34… Your Origen, or, that I may not seem to be wounding you with fictitious praises, our Origen,(for I may call him ours for his genius and learning, though not for the truth of his doctrines) in all his books explains and expounds not only the Septuagint but the Jewish versions. Eusebius and Didymus do the same. I do not mention Apollinarius, who, with a laudable zeal though not according to knowledge, attempted to patch up into one garment the rags of all the translations, and to weave a consistent text of Scripture at his own discretion, not according to any sound rule of criticism. The Hebrew Scriptures are used by apostolic men; they are used, as is evident, by the apostles and evangelists. Our Lord and Saviour himself whenever he refers to the Scriptures, takes his quotations from the Hebrew; as in the instance of the words65 “He that believeth on me, as the Scripture hath said, out of his belly shall flow rivers of living water,” and in the words used on the cross itself, “Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani,” which is by interpretation “My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?” not, as it is given by the Septuagint, “My God, my God, look upon me, why hast thou forsaken me?” and many similar cases. I do not say this in order to aim a blow at the seventy translators; but I assert that the Apostles of Christ bare an authority superior to theirs. Wherever the Seventy agree with the Hebrew, the apostles took their quotations from that translation; but, where they disagree, they set down in Greek what they had found in the Hebrew. And further, I give a challenge to my accuser. I have shown that many things are set down in the New Testament as coming from the older books, which are not to be found in the Septuagint; and I have pointed out that these exist in the Hebrew. Now let him show that there is anything in the New Testament which comes from tile Septuagint but which is not found in the Hebrew, and our controversy is at an end.

 

[Maccabees]

1. By all this it is made clear, first that the version of the Seventy translators which has gained an established position by having been so long in use, was profitable to the churches, because that by its means the Gentiles heard of the coming of Christ before he came; secondly, that the other translators are not to be reproved, since it was not their own works that they published but the divine books which they translated; and, thirdly, that my own familiar friend should frankly accept from a Christian and a friend what he has taken great pains to obtain from the Jews and has written down for him at great cost. I have exceeded the bounds of a letter; and, though I had taken pen in hand to contend against a wicked heresy, I have been compelled to make answer on my own behalf, while waiting for my friend’s three books, and in a state of constant mental suspense about the charges he had heaped up against me. It is easier to guard against one who professes hostility than to make head against an enemy who lurks under the guise of a friend.

THis is the full text that WEbster won’t provide you with he only spins his own opinions. Beleive him or the actual words of Rufinas and Jerome.

 

[Maccabees]

Quote:

And I have said that Hippo and Carthage and the Synod of Rome were local councils that were witnesses to the normal rule of faith and accepted canon of the time
nowhere did I say otherwise not until the Council of Florence is their attempt to make an official ecumenical canon. That canon of course has only the 2 books of Maccabees. Oh but wait a minute so did the Synod of Rome, Hippo and Carthage all had the same 2 books of Maccabees. Please read the primary sources and not the spin of Webster

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.”

You continue to buy the spin of Webster and ignore the explicit evidence I give you.

Read very carefully how the councils of Rome, Hippo, Cartage and the witness of Augustine differ in the witness of the consistent western latin catholic canon.

A point I have gone over and over something Webster and you conveniently ignore.

It was not a ecumenical canon binding on the Greeks and their different tradition which included 3 Maccabees. Nowhere does a western or Ecunemical Council include 3 Maccabees.

 

[Maccabees]

**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]).

Pretty cut and dry decrees of western councils right?

 

[Maccabees]

Here is where Webster starts his spin

“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.”

Ok first question we must ask just what is his source referring to?

The catholic encyclopedia defines the Apostolic Canons

as "A collection of ancient ecclesiastical decrees (eighty-five in the Eastern, fifty in the Western Church) concerning the government and discipline of the Christian Church, incorporated with the Apostolic Constitutions (VIII, 47). "

So when The Apostolical Canons, Canon LXXXV includes 3 Maccabees as part of the canon it does not conflict with the latin tradition which only includes 1 and 2 Maccabees because this is quoting the tradition of the greek canon. Canon 85 is referring to the Eastern Greek tradition. Canon 50 The Latin or Western tradition.

From the times of the African councils till today only 1 and 2 Maccabees has been declared in the Latin Church. So much so that this (3 Maccabees) book never found its way into a Latin Codex. The Greek Church had them in their Bible during the canon 85 decree and the Greek Orthodox has them in their Bibles at this time. Pretty consistent for each perspective tradition. After the African councils it is mostly mentioned among the greek fathers as it little known in the west.

Concerning the difference of canon among the catholic and greek church the catholic encyclopedia states “The Greek Church

The result of this tendency among the Greeks was that about the beginning of the twelfth century they possessed a canon identical with that of the Latins, except that it took in the apocryphal III Machabees. That all the deuteros were liturgically recognized in the Greek Church at the era of the schism in the ninth century, is indicated by the “Syntagma Canonum” of Photius.

You are relying too much on the spin of protestants and their out of context quotes instead of reading the primary material even then you see it through the eyes of their interpretation. Forget what they say and interpret without agenda as they do.

Lets see the spin 3 Maccabees is never decreed canonical in the West. (True I agree!) Here’s the spin
he quotes an Eastern canon non binding on the west that says its canonical in the East! Well duh!

 

[Maccabees]

TertiumQuid:

This quote is not pertinent to our discussion.

I could see How Jerome’s adherence to papal primacy would be bothersome to you. This doesn’t sound like a man with the mind of dissent against a man you declared what the canon of scripture was to be.

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.

There is no need to denounce Jerome if he retracted his previous opinion before the councils. People who were Arians were allowed to stay in the church (some Bishops and priests) after Nicea if they went with the church’s teaching about Christ divinity instead of their own personal opinion. Those that didn’t were declared anathema. The mere silence of the pope on this issue witnesses to the fact that no known dissent from Jerome was known to him. Jerome died a church man in good standing and loyal to the office bishop of rome unlike luther.

 

[Maccabees]

Noticed you wimped out on Calvin there. Truth is he has little to say in an intelligent manner about his acceptance of the 27 NT books and why he accepts them. Luther at least gave reasons. Calvin accepted Catholic tradition of the NT without thinking about how the NT Catholic Tradtion was acceptable him without error whereas the OT Catholic tradition was denied defacto even though the same western councils that gave us the NT also gave us the dueteros. WHy is the catholic scripure infalliable without much debate for Calvin?
Answer Calvin doesn’t get to deep on this for he knows the answer leads to Catholic tradition.

 

[Maccabees]

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?

WEll yeah I have explained this numerous times. Read real slowly here.
WEll yeah when your dealing with councils remeber this the western church spoke Latin and the eastern church spoke greek it made it far easier to decide local matters with people who spoke your own language. Only if a matter was in controversy and debate must be finalized or result in schism was an Ecunemcial Council usually called. Since at the time the only difference was 3 Maccabees and neither tradtion was sola scriptura this was not a hot topic of debate as it is apprantely with your frantic line of thinking or Websters. THis tiny books wasn’t about to split the church bud.

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?

Well for one thing Luterh was a Latin Catholic and not a Greek Orthodox it is the Catholic church he is rebelling aginst which has a constant tradition that was not to be unilaterlly dogmatized.
I did not critisize Luther proposing theological question rather unilaterally declaring dogma and unilaterally printing a bible in a way the church never did before. The church never put the dueteros in a seperate apocrapha section neither it did leave the James Jude Hebrews and Revelation as not in the New Testament Canon Contents.

 

[Maccabees]

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?

Yeah I know the book and its status in unique in discussing the Catholic Canon its contents were not deemed non-canonical nor canonical. It was more accurately described as passed over. The reason being that almost all the passages can be found elsewhere in the catholic canon it has a tendancy or repeating itself from other books however it still in the official catholic Bible it is located in the vulgate as in an appendix and can be found in older editions of the Douay Rheims in the appendix also. So officially the book is no longer under the canon list but is in the canon contents.

 

[Maccabees]

TQ I notice your insistence that I Use Roger Beckwith as a resource. Considering that James WHite and William Webster use him as their primary source color me skepticle that his findings are objective in fact he has some unique proposals on the canon that other scholars don’t agree with at all and that he can’t back up with history.

The short snippets you have pasted contradict what other protestant scholars have been saying about the catholic considering there really isn’t anything new about the canon in recent years as you claim he seems to have an agenda.

From Catholic Apologist Dr. Sippo:
There have been recent attempts by Protestant fundamentalists such as Roger Beckwith to claim that the Jewish canon was closed definitively in the 2nd Century BC. Unfortunately, there are several problems with this scenario. First of all, Beckwith relies heavily on the existence of a mythical Great Sanhedrin (or some other official body), which would have had the authority to close the Canon. There is no evidence that this Sanhedrin ever existed. Beckwith claims that the prophetic voice was stilled in Israel after the Babylonian Exile so that any books written subsequently could not be inspired. He also assumes that Jews of all differing parties would have accepted this closure of the Canon. This puts him at odds with what the Talmud explicitly says about the Sadducees, and with the evidence from Qumran, the Cairo Genizah, and Jewish tradition. Finally, he cannot answer for certain who closed the canon, where it was closed, when, why, or by what authority. He proposes answers to these questions, but his answers are merely speculative. It all ends up looking overly simplistic and is not terribly convincing.

Besides if Beckwith is correct and the prophetic voice was silenced in Israel, then Jesus and St. John the Baptizer could not have been considered real Prophets by their contemporaries. That would have undermined their missions to say the least. There is also evidence form Josephus that there was genuine prophecy going on in Israel up to the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD. (See Prophetic Figures in Late Second Temple Jewish Palestine by Rebecca Gray)

And if the Canon of Scripture had been closed before the coming of Christ, then there could have been no NT. The very existence of the NT proves that the Canon of Scripture was not yet completed before the time of Jesus. In the 1960’s, A. C. Sundberg did his doctoral dissertation at Harvard on the origin of the Canon of the OT in the Early Church. His conclusion was that the long OT Canon - including the Deuterocanonicals - was a product of the Christian Church in the 2nd Century. He debunked the idea of a longer ‘Alexandrian’ biblical canon among Greek speaking Jews. His work is very important because it shows that the long OT canon is distinctively Christian and was not dependent upon Jewish opinion.