Protestants and the Bible?

[pablope]

I agree that many later reformers disagreed with Luther on many issues, but also did not accept the Deuterocanon as Scripture. They clearly had a mind of their own and didn’t blindly accept everything Luther taught or else Protestantism would have ended there.

I always thought that the Deuterocanonoical books weren’t in the Bible because it wasn’t believed to be inspired Scripture

 

[commenter]

Would you say that the historic orthodoxy of the Church is apparent in the early councils, generally in the words the Fathers, etc? But you are right in that both sides claim orthodoxy. I don’t have an answer as to a solution, though I think the council model of the first millennium Church has the best chance of doing that, with the guidance of the Holy Spirit

Jon

[cart before the horse smiley]

We, after the fact, have an understanding of what “orthodoxy” is, because some human agency decided - communicated God’s Will to the people - of what orthodoxy is. “Orthodoxy” is apparent (to us) in the ECFs because some human agency made one list and called it “the ECF’s” and another list, calling that list “the heretics”. So, having already followed that mysterious agency’s direction, we already avoided the one list, and sought out the other, in deciding what orthodoxy is. A lot ****depends on those 2 lists - or rather, the list maker.

Orthodoxy is in 2016 apparent (to us) in the councils of the first millennium Church, because we already were shaped by some human agency’s decision to accept Councils A, C, and E, and to reject Councils B, D, and F. People in 2016 look back in hindsight and say we have the right books in our NT canon because they line up with the doctrines in our catechisms and with that 1% of traditions that (some anonymous agency) chose to call Tradition.

You may be right in admiring the concilliar model of the first millenium, though I guess the Gnostics, etc, held lots of councils, perhaps using the same model, that some mysterious agent told us don’t rely on. The selection of councils we for some reason rely on, and call “orthodox” line up with our 2016 catechisms because the catechisms reflect the world shaped by that selection. (which was made by…?). So if some authority declared this council to be orthodox, and that other concilliar one either heterodox or unauthoritative, and that declaration formed our template of what orthodox is, it is premature to attribute too much to the concilliar model.

I set my watch by my clock on Mondays, and I know the clock is accurate because I set the clock by my watch on Thursdays. They are consistent!

In other words there must be a human template, along with Scripture and Tradition.

 

[Duane1966]

I didn’t see this error in NIV. It looks like 2 Chronicles has 22 in about half of these versions and 42 in the other half. biblehub.com/2_chronicles/22-2.htm The NIV has a note that says that the Septuagint, Syriac and Hebrew texts vary in the age. I wonder how that discrepancy occurred.

This is an interesting discrepancy. Was Jesus or Mark wrong? I am seeing an explanation that the term used “epi” is often translated to “in the time of” or “in the days of.”
“According to Danker, Arndt, and Gingrich in their Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament, the word epi can function simply as a “marker of temporal associations,” meaning simply “in the time of, at, on, for” (2000, p. 367). The phrase “in the time/days of” may be intended to modify Abiathar’s entire life, rather than just his priesthood. And, his “priesthood” could have been mentioned merely to clarify the person to whom Jesus was referring.” - apologeticspress.org/apcontent.aspx?category=6&article=1830

So, this did happen ‘during the days’ of Abiathar. The title can be carried with him to be used for his whole lifetime. For example: “When Pope Francis was a young boy…” He was not a pope as a child, but the title carries with him.

I am going to look into some of these discrepancies some more.

Susanlo, I have some questions for you:

1.) If one of the deuterocanonicals tells us a detail about Heaven, that nowhere else in the Old Testament is that detail mentioned, and that particular detail happens to be confirmed in the New Testament, how could that deuterocanonical book know that detail, if it wasn’t part of Divine Revelation?

2.) Hebrews 11 has a list of Scriptural examples of living by faith. Near the end of Hebrews 11 the examples come from a deuterocanonical. Why would the author of Hebrews throw in examples from a book he did not consider as Scripture, when all the other examples he gives are from Scripture?

3.) In Romans 9, St. Paul is responding to hypothetical objections with quotations from the Old Testament. One of the answers he gives, is from a deuterocanonical. So every answer he gives, in your eyes, except one, comes from the Old Testament. Why would St. Paul give all his responses from the Old Testament, and then throw in an answer from a book that you say is not Scripture?

4.) Sirach was accepted as Scripture by early Jews, in fact quoted as scripture by the Talmud. Sirach is also quoted as Scripture in the early Church. What is your criteria, for rejecting Sirach?

 

[susanlo]

Well…Susan…what is your opinion or thinking now…should these books be in the Bible or not?

I am interested in studying more about the Deuterocanonical Books. I have been planning to start reading them. I am a little concerned about considering them Scripture when they contain some ideas that seem contrary to what we learn elsewhere in Scripture.

Sirach 3:3 Those who honor their father atone for sins,

Isn’t a substitutionary sacrifice the only way to atone sin?

Tobit 6:7 Then the young man questioned the angel and said to him, “Brother Azariah, what medicinal value is there in the fish’s heart and liver, and in the gall?” 8 He replied, “As for the fish’s heart and liver, you must burn them to make a smoke in the presence of a man or woman afflicted by a demon or evil spirit, and every affliction will flee away and never remain with that person any longer. 9 And as for the gall, anoint a person’s eyes where white films have appeared on them; blow upon them, upon the white films, and the eyes will be healed.”

Is this angel teaching witchcraft? Or is this something else? This seems unusual to me.

Judith 9:12 Please, please, God of my father, God of the heritage of Israel, Lord of heaven and earth, Creator of the waters, King of all your creation, hear my prayer! 13 Make my deceitful words bring wound and bruise on those who have planned cruel things against your covenant, and against your sacred house, and against Mount Zion, and against the house your children possess.

Is this an example of praying to God for assistance in disobeying one of the 10 commandments?

Maybe I am misunderstanding what is being taught with these passages.

Should it not be the only reason is because the Church ruled these to be in the canon of Scripture?

Well, that brings up another topic as to whether the church teaches infallibly. I think Scripture is Scripture because it meets certain criteria such as authorship and inerrancy. These criteria can be determined still today.
I am understanding a difference in Catholicism in how we know what Scripture is. In Catholicism, the Bible is the Bible because a church council declared it so. I can understand why some Catholics would say that for Protestants, the Bible is the Bible because Martin Luther said so. However, it is really much more than that in Protestantism. Martin Luther may have started it, but it is many who have came after him who have agreed and disagreed with him that has shaped future churches. My Bible may not have the Deuterocanon, but it isn’t solely because Martin Luther said so.

I understand that some disagreements about purgatory have caused some to accuse both sides for keeping or rejecting some of the books. There seems to be evidence for and against purgatory even within the books.

*2 Maccabees 12:44 For if he were not expecting that those who had fallen would rise again, it would have been superfluous and foolish to pray for the dead.

Sirach 38:23 When the dead is at rest, let his remembrance rest too,
and be comforted for him when his spirit has departed.*

I think that the decisions for and against the Deuterocanon are more complex than wanting to support or reject a certain agenda.

 

[susanlo]

This is what Jerome said, often cited here in to defend those with varying opinions…shamelesspopery.com/st-jerome-on-the-deuterocanon/

Jerome gets to his explanation of Daniel, and makes it clear that while he doesn’t like that the Catholic version is based on a heretic’s translation, he’s willing to submit to the “judgment of the churches”:
I also told the reader that the version read in the Christian churches was not that of the Septuagint translators but that of Theodotion. It is true, I said that the Septuagint version was in this book very different from the original, and that it was condemned by the right judgment of the churches of Christ; but the fault was not mine who only stated the fact, but that of those who read the version. We have four versions to choose from: those of Aquila, Symmachus, the Seventy, and Theodotion. The churches choose to read Daniel in the version of Theodotion. What sin have I committed in following the judgment of the churches? 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.” …] Still, I wonder that a man should read the version of Theodotion the heretic and judaizer, and should scorn that of a Christian, simple and sinful though he may be.

I understand there were various opinions shared about these books.
Athanasius (296-373):

1. There are, then, of the Old Testament, twenty-two books in number; for, as I have heard, it is handed down that this is the number of the letters among the Hebrews; their respective order and names being as follows. The first is Genesis, then Exodus, next Leviticus, after that Numbers, and then Deuteronomy. Following these there is Joshua, the son of Nun, then Judges, then Ruth. And again, after these four books of Kings, the first and second being reckoned as one book, and so likewise the third and fourth as one book. And again, the first and second of the Chronicles are reckoned as one book. Again Ezra, the first and second are similarly one book. After these there is the book of Psalms, then the Proverbs, next Ecclesiastes, and the Song of Songs. Job follows, then the Prophets, the twelve being reckoned as one book. Then Isaiah, one book, then Jeremiah with Baruch, Lamentations, and the epistle, one book; afterwards, Ezekiel and Daniel, each one book. Thus far constitutes the Old Testament.

1. Again it is not tedious to speak of the [books] of the New Testament. These are, the four Gospels, according to Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. Afterwards, the Acts of the Apostles and Epistles (called Catholic), seven, viz. of James, one; of Peter, two; of John, three; after these, one of Jude. In addition, there are fourteen Epistles of Paul, written in this order. The first, to the Romans; then two to the Corinthians; after these, to the Galatians; next, to the Ephesians; then to the Philippians; then to the Colossians; after these, two to the Thessalonians, and that to the Hebrews; and again, two to Timothy; one to Titus; and lastly, that to Philemon. And besides, the Revelation of John.

1. These are fountains of salvation, that they who thirst may be satisfied with the living words they contain. In these alone is proclaimed the doctrine of godliness. Let no man add to these, neither let him take ought from these. For concerning these the Lord put to shame the Sadducees, and said, ‘You err, not knowing the Scriptures.’ And He reproved the Jews, saying, ‘Search the Scriptures, for these are they that testify of Me Matthew 22:29; John 5:39.’

1. But for greater exactness I add this also, writing of necessity; that there are other books besides these not indeed included in the Canon, but appointed by the Fathers to be read by those who newly join us, and who wish for instruction in the word of godliness. The Wisdom of Solomon, and the Wisdom of Sirach, and Esther, and Judith, and Tobit, and that which is called the Teaching of the Apostles, and the Shepherd. But the former, my brethren, are included in the Canon,** the latter being [merely] read**; nor is there in any place a mention of apocryphal writings. But they are an invention of heretics, who write them when they choose, bestowing upon them their approbation, and assigning to them a date, that so, using them as ancient writings, they may find occasion to lead astray the simple.

Athanasius states a list of books that isn’t exactly the way any church has it today. It is helpful to understand what they accepted at that time, however I think the best criteria for knowing what is Scripture and what isn’t is by judging the qualities of the passages.

 

[MaryT777]

I understand there were various opinions shared about these books.
Athanasius (296-373):

Athanasius states a list of books that isn’t exactly the way any church has it today. It is helpful to understand what they accepted at that time, however I think the best criteria for knowing what is Scripture and what isn’t is by judging the qualities of the passages.

Does the Bible itself give you the specific way to judge the quality of the passages?

 

[susanlo]

Susanlo, I have some questions for you:

1.) If one of the deuterocanonicals tells us a detail about Heaven, that nowhere else in the Old Testament is that detail mentioned, and that particular detail happens to be confirmed in the New Testament, how could that deuterocanonical book know that detail, if it wasn’t part of Divine Revelation?

How detailed is the description? The deuterocanonical book being part of Divine Revelation wouldn’t be the only reason why the 2 accounts may match. I am interested in what the references are.

2.) Hebrews 11 has a list of Scriptural examples of living by faith. Near the end of Hebrews 11 the examples come from a deuterocanonical. Why would the author of Hebrews throw in examples from a book he did not consider as Scripture, when all the other examples he gives are from Scripture?

Were these not historical facts? Is that what you are speaking of? If the deuterocanonical books are not inerrant and inspired, that doesn’t mean that they are all wrong. They may contain true historical events too. I can’t see any references to the books in the footnotes.

3.) In Romans 9, St. Paul is responding to hypothetical objections with quotations from the Old Testament. One of the answers he gives, is from a deuterocanonical. So every answer he gives, in your eyes, except one, comes from the Old Testament. Why would St. Paul give all his responses from the Old Testament, and then throw in an answer from a book that you say is not Scripture?

What is the quote?

4.) Sirach was accepted as Scripture by early Jews, in fact quoted as scripture by the Talmud. Sirach is also quoted as Scripture in the early Church. What is your criteria, for rejecting Sirach?

Why is it rejected by Judaism today?
I would say it has been rejected because it does not meet criteria for Scripture. I have not studied it in-depth. I plan on doing so.

 

[Duane1966]

Tobit 6:7 Then the young man questioned the angel and said to him, “Brother Azariah, what medicinal value is there in the fish’s heart and liver, and in the gall?” 8 He replied, “As for the fish’s heart and liver, you must burn them to make a smoke in the presence of a man or woman afflicted by a demon or evil spirit, and every affliction will flee away and never remain with that person any longer. 9 And as for the gall, anoint a person’s eyes where white films have appeared on them; blow upon them, upon the white films, and the eyes will be healed.”

Is this angel teaching witchcraft? Or is this something else? This seems unusual to me.

What about Jesus spitting to cure blindness? Now that is unusual.

Judith 9:12 Please, please, God of my father, God of the heritage of Israel, Lord of heaven and earth, Creator of the waters, King of all your creation, hear my prayer! 13 Make my deceitful words bring wound and bruise on those who have planned cruel things against your covenant, and against your sacred house, and against Mount Zion, and against the house your children possess.

Is this an example of praying to God for assistance in disobeying one of the 10 commandments?

Which commandment? I fail to see where this is bearing false witness. Would it be okay to lie to the nazis if you were hiding a Jew?

Well, that brings up another topic as to whether the church teaches infallibly. I think Scripture is Scripture because it meets certain criteria such as authorship and inerrancy. These criteria can be determined still today.

But we have already shown that the New Testament and Old Testament clash in certain parts. Which one is inerrant? Many of the details in Exodus are coming into question. You seem to hold the Deuterocanonicals to a higher standard. If the Church had never put the book of Revelation in the New Testament, would you have ever read it? We know there were arguments as to whether to include it in the canon.

I am understanding a difference in Catholicism in how we know what Scripture is. In Catholicism, the Bible is the Bible because a church council declared it so. I can understand why some Catholics would say that for Protestants, the Bible is the Bible because Martin Luther said so. However, it is really much more than that in Protestantism. Martin Luther may have started it, but it is many who have came after him who have agreed and disagreed with him that has shaped future churches. My Bible may not have the Deuterocanon, but it isn’t solely because Martin Luther said so.

Just realize this: if one of those early councils had rejected any of the books that you believe are Scripture, you living over 1500 years after the fact, would have probably have never heard of those books.

I understand that some disagreements about purgatory have caused some to accuse both sides for keeping or rejecting some of the books. There seems to be evidence for and against purgatory even within the books.

*2 Maccabees 12:44 For if he were not expecting that those who had fallen would rise again, it would have been superfluous and foolish to pray for the dead.

Sirach 38:23 When the dead is at rest, let his remembrance rest too,
and be comforted for him when his spirit has departed.*

I think that the decisions for and against the Deuterocanon are more complex than wanting to support or reject a certain agenda.

Except Calvin admitted that if you include Maccabees, then the Catholic doctrine of Purgatory is proven.

Jesus points to Purgatory several times.

 

[Duane1966]

How detailed is the description? The deuterocanonical book being part of Divine Revelation wouldn’t be the only reason why the 2 accounts may match. I am interested in what the references are.

From this website for this post and the next post: shamelesspopery.com/defending-the-deuterocanon-book-by-book-part-i/

In the Book of Tobit, the Archangel Raphael appears to Tobit disguised as a man. When he reveals his true identity, he identifies himself in this way (Tobit 12:15):

• I am Raphael, one of the seven angels who enter and serve before the Glory of the Lord.

In this capacity, he explains (Tobit 12:12),

I can now tell you that when you, Tobit, and Sarah prayed, it was I who presented and read the record of your prayer before the Glory of the Lord; and I did the same thing when you used to bury the dead.

So the Book of Tobit is presenting a bold claim: that there are seven angels who stand in the presence of God, and who participate in the offering up of the prayers of the saints. No other Book in the Old Testament canon of the Catholics, Protestants, or Jews includes this detail. Yet here’s the fascinating thing: according to the New Testament, this claim is true. **There are seven angels who stand in the Presence of God, and who are responsible for presenting the prayers of the saints before Almighty God. Specifically, look to Revelation 8:2-4, which says:
**
Then I saw the seven angels who stand before God, and seven trumpets were given to them. And another angel came and stood at the altar with a golden censer; and he was given much incense to mingle with the prayers of all the saints upon the golden altar before the throne; and the smoke of the incense rose with the prayers of the saints from the hand of the angel before God.

How could the author of Tobit possibly know such intimate details of the Inner Sanctum of Heaven if this were not part of Divine Revelation?

Were these not historical facts? Is that what you are speaking of? If the deuterocanonical books are not inerrant and inspired, that doesn’t mean that they are all wrong. They may contain true historical events too. I can’t see any references to the books in the footnotes.

Again, every answer Hebrews 11:35-37 gives is from Scripture. Wouldn’t it be odd to randomly pull one example from a book not considered Scripture, when all the other examples are from Scripture? Isn’t it far more likely that all the examples are from Scripture, and that the author of Hebrews considers the deuterocanonical that he is referencing Scripture?

Why is it rejected by Judaism today?
I would say it has been rejected because it does not meet criteria for Scripture. I have not studied it in-depth. I plan on doing so.

The Book was Accepted by the Early Jews: Michael Barber has described,** one of the most fascinating discoveries in regards to this Book is that despite being rejected by modern Jews, Sirach is quoted as Scripture by the Jewish Talmud. ** As you may know, the Jewish canon of Scripture is divided in three parts: the Law (Torah), the Prophets (Nevi’im) and the Writings (Ketubim or Hagiographa). According to Folio 92b of Tractate Baba Kamma, the Book of Sirach belongs in this third category of Scripture, along with Books like Psalms, Proverbs, and Ezra. Here’s the relevant passage:

This matter was written in the Pentateuch, repeated in the Prophets, mentioned a third time in the Hagiographa, and also learnt in a Mishnah and taught in a Baraitha: It is stated in the Pentateuch as written, So Esau went unto Ishmael [Genesis 28:9]; repeated in the prophets, as written, And there gathered themselves to Jephthah idle men and they went out with him [Judges 11:3]; mentioned a third time in the Hagiographa, as written: Every fowl dwells near its kind and man near his equal… [Sirach 13:5]

Without a doubt, this is the Talmud quoting Sirach 13:5 (or Ecclesiasticus) as Scripture. Rabbi Dr. Ezekiel Isidore Epstein, responsible for the English translation of the Talmud, concedes as much in a footnote.

 

[Duane1966]

What is the quote?

But nevertheless, there’s another example, one which I don’t think I’ve ever mentioned before. And it comes right in the heart of the most popular passages amongst Protestants: namely, Romans 9:19-21. Let’s look at it in the broader context of vv. 14-21,

*What shall we say then? Is there injustice on God’s part? By no means! For he says to Moses, “I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion.” So it depends not upon man’s will or exertion, but upon God’s mercy. For the scripture says to Pharaoh, “I have raised you up for the very purpose of showing my power in you, so that my name may be proclaimed in all the earth.” So then he has mercy upon whomever he wills, and he hardens the heart of whomever he wills.

You will say to me then, “Why does he still find fault? For who can resist his will?” But who are you, a man, to answer back to God? Will what is molded say to its molder, “Why have you made me thus?” Has the potter no right over the clay, to make out of the same lump one vessel for beauty and another for menial use?*

This passage gets quoted a lot, but I don’t think the people quoting it tend to realize that Paul is responding to these hypothetical objections with Old Testament quotations. So, for example, he answers the first set of questions by quoting Exodus 33:19 and Ex. 9:16. Then he gets to the second objection, and he says two things in response. First, that the pot has no basis upon which to complain to the potter at how it was made. This, he’s clearly getting from Isaiah 29:16 and Isaiah 45:9, and Protestant Bibles tend to footnote this accordingly. But then he asks, “Has the potter no right over the clay, to make out of the same lump one vessel for beauty and another for menial use?” But there’s nothing in Isaiah about making vessels for noble or ignoble use. That’s not the sense of the passage in either Isaiah 29 or Isaiah 45, or anywhere else in Isaiah… or, for that matter, the rest of the Protestant Old Testament. Instead, Paul is getting this straight from Wisdom 15:7,

• For when a potter kneads the soft earth and laboriously molds each vessel for our service, he fashions out of the same clay both the vessels that serve clean uses and those for contrary uses, making all in like manner; but which shall be the use of each of these the worker in clay decides.*

This is the exact sense that Paul preserves in Romans: the potter has total sovereignty to determine whether to use the clay for a dignified or an undignified purpose. Nor is this reference in isolation. Wisdom 12:12-24 seems to echo throughout the ninth chapter of Romans:

*For who will say, “What hast thou done?” Or will resist thy judgment? Who will accuse thee for the destruction of nations which thou didst make? Or who will come before thee to plead as an advocate for unrighteous men? For neither is there any god besides thee, whose care is for all men, to whom thou shouldst prove that thou hast not judged unjustly; 14 nor can any king or monarch confront thee about those whom thou hast punished.
*

There are several other points of comparison, as with the descriptions of idolatry found in Romans 1:24-32 and Wisdom 11:15, etc. So we can’t write this off to mere coincidence.

 

[steve_b]

Rather than ask a rhetorical question with a preconceived answer, why not ask that question in earnest?

Seems to me that to answer the question, we would need to know 1)In what way did Luther regard them as unequal to the Holy Scriptures, and 2)In what way are they profitable and good to read?

It would seem either that Luther was a product of moronic educators, or you misrepresent or misunderstand Luther’s views on ‘Scripture’ and 'Apocrypha.’

Luther made the following statements

1. "Apocrypha–that is, books which are not regarded as equal to the holy Scriptures, and yet are profitable and good to read."

*2. “****We concede–as we must--that so much of what they [the Catholic Church] is true: that the papacy has God’s wordand the office of the apostles, and that we have received Holy Scriptures,Baptism, the Sacrament, and the pulpit from them. What would we know of these if it were not for them?” (Sermon on the Gospel of John, chaps. 14-16 (1537), in vol. 24 of Luther’s Works, [St. Louis, Mo.: Concordia, 1961], p. 304).”
*
So.

I ask, what part(s) of Luther’s quotes ( who made sola scriptura a dogma and rallying cry of the Protestant revolt) are NOT clear to him or to anyone who reads these quotes from him, who also knows what “sola” scriptura means?

To answer your point,

• Luther had the Catholic Church AND the Vulgate to refer to. biblegateway.com/version…GATE/#booklist , As an aside, ** When you see an OT book name above that reads differently from what is expected, see the translation of that name here drbo.org/, For example “Osee” = Hosea
• now look at his quote #2 above for perspective

Where is the question?
,

 

[commenter]

Why is it rejected by Judaism today?
I would say it has been rejected because it does not meet criteria for Scripture. I have not studied it in-depth. I plan on doing so.

Many books are rejected by the Jews as not meeting the criteria for Scripture. Among these are Mathew, Mark, Luke, John.
Remember the Jews do not have a term for “Old Testament”. That is a Catholic term.
I am not sure why they did not accept 2 Maccabees or Romans as scriptural. My point is that their (name removed by moderator)ut is interesting but not the controlling factor for Christians. We would not omit 1 Corinthians because they do.

 

[JustaSinner]

Does the Bible itself give you the specific way to judge the quality of the passages?

The position of Luther toward the deuterocanonical books was simply that of Jerome and the majority of the Church Fathers (Augustine being the most notable exception). Luther’s position was even shared by his main Roman Catholic opponent–Cardinal Cajetan.

While there was some differences in the list of deuterocanonical vs. fully canonical books of the Old Testament provided by Church Fathers (eg Athanasius’ list vs Jerome’s list), Jerome’s represents the final word on the matter for the many fathers and theologians after the patristic era (including Luther and Cardinal Cajetan) who held that the deuterocaninical books lacked canonicity and/or full canonicity. Some people are thrown off in reading the Church Fathers because of their frequent broad use of the word “Scripture” and similar terms in reference both to Canonical and Deuterocanonical writings (Jerome himself does this).

In contrast with Luther’s very “Catholic” position on the Deuterocanon, he was completely off-base in denying the full authority of James and some of the other Epistles and Revelations. Interestingly enough his serious error was shared by a number of the Roman Catholic intelligentsia of the day, including (once again) Cardinal Cajetan. This does not excuse, however, Luther’s sinful words regarding these texts.

 

[Don_Ruggero]

I am interested in what the references are.

Why is it rejected by Judaism today?
I would say it has been rejected because it does not meet criteria for Scripture. I have not studied it in-depth. I plan on doing so.

First, it is so important that we look upon Paul and his understanding from the perspective he had…not the perspective of later centuries…especially with regard to what is a sacred text.

As we look at the nascent Church, we see communities that are drawing from a breadth of available literature for the the gatherings – epistles that we accept today as inspired as well as things that we don’t…the letters of Clement, the Shepherd of Hermas and so forth. One of the areas I had worked in as an academic, in teaching and writing, was Later Second Temple Period Pseudepigrapha and its influence on the early Christians and their communities.

It is a fascinating era and we are fortunate to live in a time when we have the freedom to pursue our academic research unencumbered, unlike in days past.

I am delighted to read that you plan to study this in-depth. As you look at it with scholars of your own confession, I would recommend, above all, for the Catholic point of view, the scholars of the Ecole Biblique in Jerusalem. It would give you a richer sense of Catholic biblical scholarship, happily informed by the aftermath of Divino Afflante Spiritu as well as the Dogmatic Constitution on Divine Revelation of Vatican II, Dei Verbum.

Of course, the work of the Pontifical Biblical Institute, led by the Jesuits, is also good but I was never as close to them I have had less contact with them over these past years. Above all, you will want to read contemporary biblical scholarship.

As an aside, Father Birgil Pixner from the Abbey of the Dormition in Jerusalem was a colleague of the academy that I always held in very high regard.

 

[MaryT777]

The position of Luther toward the deuterocanonical books was simply that of Jerome and the majority of the Church Fathers (Augustine being the most notable exception). Luther’s position was even shared by his main Roman Catholic opponent–Cardinal Cajetan.

While there was some differences in the list of deuterocanonical vs. fully canonical books of the Old Testament provided by Church Fathers (eg Athanasius’ list vs Jerome’s list), Jerome’s represents the final word on the matter for the many fathers and theologians after the patristic era (including Luther and Cardinal Cajetan) who held that the deuterocaninical books lacked canonicity and/or full canonicity. Some people are thrown off in reading the Church Fathers because of their frequent broad use of the word “Scripture” and similar terms in reference both to Canonical and Deuterocanonical writings (Jerome himself does this).

In contrast with Luther’s very “Catholic” position on the Deuterocanon, he was completely off-base in denying the full authority of James and some of the other Epistles and Revelations. Interestingly enough his serious error was shared by a number of the Roman Catholic intelligentsia of the day, including (once again) Cardinal Cajetan. This does not excuse, however, Luther’s sinful words regarding these texts.

Thank you for sharing your thoughts. At the end of the day it’s an authority issue. Who has the final authority to decide such an issue. Catholics would say it’s the Church Jesus founded. I spent some time in the LCMS (Lutheran Church Missouri Synod) as a visitor for two years and what they taught Sola Scriptura and that scripture interprets scripture.

 

[rcwitness]

I am interested in studying more about the Deuterocanonical Books. I have been planning to start reading them. I am a little concerned about considering them Scripture when they contain some ideas that seem contrary to what we learn elsewhere in Scripture.

Sirach 3:3 Those who honor their father atone for sins,

Isn’t a substitutionary sacrifice the only way to atone sin?

This is O.T. covenant. It is one of the Ten Commandments. But all pardon of sin comes from God’s grace, revealed through the Sacrifice of His Son.

Tobit 6:7 Then the young man questioned the angel and said to him, “Brother Azariah, what medicinal value is there in the fish’s heart and liver, and in the gall?” 8 He replied, “As for the fish’s heart and liver, you must burn them to make a smoke in the presence of a man or woman afflicted by a demon or evil spirit, and every affliction will flee away and never remain with that person any longer. 9 And as for the gall, anoint a person’s eyes where white films have appeared on them; blow upon them, upon the white films, and the eyes will be healed.”

Is this angel teaching witchcraft? Or is this something else? This seems unusual to me.

Haydock commentary:

Its heart, &c. The liver, (ver. 19.) God was pleased to give to these things a virtue against those proud spirits, to make them, who affected to be like the Most High, subject to such mean corporeal creatures, as instruments of his power. (Challoner) — God sometimes makes use of things as remedies which have, naturally, a different effect; as when Christ put clay on the eyes of the blind man, John ix. The things which the angel ordered were salutary, by God’s appointment. (Worthington) — They could not act directly upon a spirit: but they might upon the person troubled by one, as Saul was relieved by music. (Calmet, Diss.) — The smoke was a sign of the devil’s expulsion, and of the efficacy of prayer; or rather, God subjected the proud spirits to such weak elements. (Serarius, q. 3.) (Menochius) — Greek, "and he said to him, respecting the heart and liver, if any demon or wicked spirit be troublesome, make these smoke before a man or a woman, and the person shall be troubled no longer.This is not a sacrament the angel was instituting. It was a specific instruction at a certain point in time. The Church did not retain this practice as part of demonic exorcism ritual.

I am understanding a difference in Catholicism in how we know what Scripture is. In Catholicism, the Bible is the Bible because a church council declared it so. I can understand why some Catholics would say that for Protestants, the Bible is the Bible because Martin Luther said so. However, it is really much more than that in Protestantism. Martin Luther may have started it, but it is many who have came after him who have agreed and disagreed with him that has shaped future churches. My Bible may not have the Deuterocanon, but it isn’t solely because Martin Luther said so.

Ultimately, yes, Scripture is deemed as Scripture when the Church confirms it as Scripture. But this is only the declaration. It is not the way a writing is discerned.

I think that the decisions for and against the Deuterocanon are more complex than wanting to support or reject a certain agenda.

I understand. But it is also simple… trust that there exists one Church, with the ability to bind Christ’s rule.

 

[steve_b]

The position of Luther toward the deuterocanonical books ***was simply that of ***Jerome and the majority of the Church Fathers (Augustine being the most notable exception). Luther’s position was even shared by his main Roman Catholic opponent–Cardinal Cajetan.

Jerome’s translation included the deutero canon (link follows). Jerome was wrong in the beginning for doubting them, but he included them in the canon of the Vulgate just the same. Jerome ultimately came around to accepting the Deutero canon.** THAT** is an important point to make.

Re: Cajetan, he was also wrong for doubting them.

What’s important to take away from this is, neither Jerome or Cajetan changed the canon. Do you understand that point? Neither one had the power to change the canon. Do you understand THAT as well?

Jerome could not go over the head of a papal decree, [From Jurgens “Faith of the Fathers”, scroll to pg 406 for the list of books] books.google.com/books?id=l62q-d4Wi20C&pg=PA405&lpg=PA405&dq=The+Decree +of+Pope+St.+Damasus+I,+Council+of+Rome. +382+A.D&source=bl&ots=ZeUc7S4cIZ&sig=cU TkVsWkzas9JkjusNcC0I1H6Sc&hl=en&sa=X&ei= V2wUVMH3Fo2MyASvuILABQ&ved=0CEoQ6AEwBw#v =onepage&q=The%20Decree%20of%20Pope%20St .%20Damasus%20I%2C%20Council%20of%20Rome .%20382%20A.D&f=false

and Cajetan could not go over the head of Florence, Session 11 (1442) an ecumenical council, 100 years before Trent. Books are listed beginning in paragraph 6 of session 11

Do you understand those points being made?
J:

While there was some differences in the list of deuterocanonical vs. fully canonical books of the Old Testament

Are you thinking of this explanation perhaps?

• What is the apocrypha? (BTW, as you can see, A Protestant source NOT a Catholic source)

The deutero canonical books are canonical books
J:

provided by Church Fathers (eg Athanasius’ list vs Jerome’s list), Jerome’s represents the final word on the matter for the many fathers and theologians after the patristic era (including ***Luther and Cardinal Cajetan) who held that the deuterocaninical books lacked canonicity and/or full canonicity. ***

This is the ancient Vulgate list of books (completed in the year 405 by Jerome) decided (not by Jerome) but by the Catholic Church
biblegateway.com/version…GATE/#booklist , as an aside, the following note explains. ** When you see an OT book name that reads differently from what is expected, see the translation of that name here drbo.org/, For example “Osee” = Hosea

this (canon) was the first Vulgate completed by Jerome in yr 405. Multiple local councils (Rome, Carthage, Hippo, and 2 ecumenical councils Florence and Trent) validated this canon of 73 books.

 

[JonNC]

Well…there are varying level of importance…important to him in what way? Important that he segregate them in a different section altogether?

I’d encourage one to ponder carefully what was involved for Luther and his “Sanhedrin” in the translation of the OT. It would have been every easy to do what the English publishers did later, and not include them. But Luther insisted on their inclusion, not because he had to because Rome said so, but because they belong there. Now, I’m not aware if the order in which they are placed is canonical or not. The fact is he translated and included all seven, and then one more for good measure.

As for “segregating them” (you make it sound like they were hidden in the Hogwarts library’s restricted section ), many people viewed them as inter-testament as it was. Either way, he/they took the time to translate and include them, just like Jerome did.

Jon

 

[JonNC]

=commenter;14029140][cart before the horse smiley]

We, after the fact, have an understanding of what “orthodoxy” is, because some human agency decided - communicated God’s Will to the people - of what orthodoxy is. “Orthodoxy” is apparent (to us) in the ECFs because some human agency made one list and called it “the ECF’s” and another list, calling that list “the heretics”. So, having already followed that mysterious agency’s direction, we already avoided the one list, and sought out the other, in deciding what orthodoxy is. A lot ****depends on those 2 lists - or rather, the list maker.

Agreed. We also sometimes, regardless of our particular point of view and when it serves our purpose, will point out that the ECF’s were not the councils themselves, and were of course fallible.

Orthodoxy is in 2016 apparent (to us) in the councils of the first millennium Church, because we already were shaped by some human agency’s decision to accept Councils A, C, and E, and to reject Councils B, D, and F. People in 2016 look back in hindsight and say we have the right books in our NT canon because they line up with the doctrines in our catechisms and with that 1% of traditions that (some anonymous agency) chose to call Tradition.

Well, sure. Hopefully those agencies continue to hold the same opinion now as before. But we also recognize something unique in the 7 councils accepted both east and west as ecumenical.

You may be right in admiring the concilliar model of the first millenium, though I guess the Gnostics, etc, held lots of councils, perhaps using the same model, that some mysterious agent told us don’t rely on. The selection of councils we for some reason rely on, and call “orthodox” line up with our 2016 catechisms because the catechisms reflect the world shaped by that selection. (which was made by…?). So if some authority declared this council to be orthodox, and that other concilliar one either heterodox or unauthoritative, and that declaration formed our template of what orthodox is, it is premature to attribute too much to the concilliar model.

I actually think our catechisms line up with those early councils, but more concerning are the divisions that came later, leaving us with differing views of later councils.

I set my watch by my clock on Mondays, and I know the clock is accurate because I set the clock by my watch on Thursdays. They are consistent!

In other words there must be a human template, along with Scripture and Tradition.

The teaching role of the Church.

Jon

 

[rcwitness]

It should be no trouble for anyone to give their sources.

Hey steve, did you read post 310?