Question about Deuterocanonical Books

[Dave_Noonan]

Where is the evidence that Luther had authority to do anything - anything at all?

Luther did things on his own authority and volition. He didn’t really care much about what other people thought and certainly didn’t seek others’ permission.

Your own words apply here: where’s the evidence?

You already provided it. This was your main point–that Luther and Melanchthon debated the value of James. Melanchthon thought James was fine but Luther thought it of no value in terms of “bearing Christ.” They disagreed. They debated. If you now want to say they didn’t debate the value of James; fine with me.

All nicely segregated to the back of the bus.

Yes, sort of the “dregs” of the Bible, as it were, in Luther’s view–the lowest grade of Scripture. But still Scripture nonetheless.

In all of your sturm und drang against the Catholic Church and her rascally apologists, you seem to completely forget that the Eastern Orthodox Churches flat out rejected the “reform” and they have the same (Deuterocanon) books in their bible - all without badmouthing scripture or segregating them.

I think your characterization of “rascally” is…um…interesting.

I don’t think the Eastern Churches really paid much attention to the goings on of the Reformation despite Luther’s overtures toward them, since the Eastern Churches didn’t have all of the problems of the Latinate church, or at least not the same problems. Yes, the Eastern Churches have the same books as the Catholic church–plus several more in fact–and they don’t agree even among themselves about which books are canonical, nor does this fact bother them nearly as much as it seemingly does Christians in the West. No, they certainly didn’t share Luther’s theology of the Bible or the canon, which was unique and innovative in his time.

I’m not defending Luther’s biblical theology necessarily–I just think that Catholic apologists distort history mercilessly on this particular point.

 

[Dave_Noonan]

I also would like to point out one thing also…as stated by Dave N…Luther said for the reader to make up your own mind…which protestant defenders of Luther omit to state when citing this and in citing other Catholics who had opinions on the DCs…like St. Jerome and Cajetan…that St. Jerome and Cajetan did not say for the reader to decide for himself, but to seek the guidance of the Church on the matter of the DCs.

Yes, this was a Luther-an innovation. He provided his own opinion in the introduction to each book, but ultimately he let the reader decide. His whole project was the democratization of the Bible; this aspect of biblical theology fits well into his overall project.

 

[Abu]

Dave Noonan #35
This is just plain false.

Who is David Noonan without any facts to call into question the revered Fr John A Hardon, S.J. who referred only to the rabbinical school at Jamnia?

**Answer by Rev. Mark J. Gantley, JCL on 05-14-2007 (EWTN): **
The Council of Jamnia was a Jewish council, not a council of the early Church. It did not involve canon law but Jewish law.
tinyurl.com/kxel5gu

Catholic Education Research Centre
5 Myths about 7 Books
MARK SHEA
In fact, it wasn’t until the very end of the apostolic age that the Jews, seeking a new focal point for their religious practice in the wake of the destruction of the Temple, zeroed in with white hot intensity on Scripture and fixed their canon at the rabbinical gathering, known as the “Council of Javneh” (sometimes called “Jamnia”), about A.D. 90. Prior to this point in time there had never been any formal effort among the Jews to “define the canon” of Scripture. In fact, Scripture nowhere indicates that the Jews even had a conscious idea that the canon should be closed at some point.

The canon arrived at by the rabbis at Javneh was essentially the mid-sized canon of the Palestinian Pharisees, not the shorter one used by the Sadducees, who had been practically annihilated during the Jewish war with Rome. Nor was this new canon consistent with the Greek.
catholiceducation.org/articles/apologetics/ap0120.html

 

[po18guy]

Luther did things on his own authority and volition. He didn’t really care much about what other people thought and certainly didn’t seek others’ permission.

Precisely. I see no divine warrant for any of it.

You already provided it. This was your main point–that Luther and Melanchthon debated the value of James. Melanchthon thought James was fine but Luther thought it of no value in terms of “bearing Christ.” They disagreed. They debated. If you now want to say they didn’t debate the value of James; fine with me.

First you ask for evidence that PM influenced ML, now you ask for the opposite? My point is that we will never know what ML would have done without the moderating influence/counterpoint of PM.

Yes, sort of the “dregs” of the Bible, as it were, in Luther’s view–the lowest grade of Scripture. But still Scripture nonetheless.

God talking smack, in other words? A very strange view for a man who was terrified - paralyzed with abject fear - of that same God.

I think your characterization of “rascally” is…um…interesting.

Wascally wabbits we are. However, the more I read into Luther’s life and mental state, the worse it looks. No one need make up anything about him, as the truth is stranger than fiction. I feel much empathy for his terrified and tormented soul. I pray that he is, at this moment, thanking God for the purgation process. Love or hate Revelation, no snow-covered dung heap will ever enter the Kingdom of God.

I don’t think the Eastern Churches really paid much attention to the goings on of the Reformation despite Luther’s overtures toward them, since the Eastern Churches didn’t have all of the problems of the Latinate church, or at least not the same problems. Yes, the Eastern Churches have the same books as the Catholic church–plus several more in fact–and they don’t agree even among themselves about which books are canonical, nor does this fact bother them nearly as much as it seemingly does Christians in the West. No, they certainly didn’t share Luther’s theology of the Bible or the canon, which was unique and innovative in his time.

What was innovative still is. I will stick with what was revealed long before he came about.

I’m not defending Luther’s biblical theology necessarily–I just think that Catholic apologists distort history mercilessly on this particular point.

Different latitudes, different attitudes. In many cases, the reformation truth is worse than the fiction. No, he did not “remove” any books. What he did was far worse, IMO. In any event, he knows the truth now.

 

[Dave_Noonan]

Who is David Noonan without any facts to call into question the revered Fr John A Hardon, S.J. who referred only to the rabbinical school at Jamnia?

**Answer by Rev. Mark J. Gantley, JCL on 05-14-2007 (EWTN): **
The Council of Jamnia was a Jewish council, not a council of the early Church. It did not involve canon law but Jewish law.
tinyurl.com/kxel5gu

Catholic Education Research Centre
5 Myths about 7 Books
MARK SHEA
In fact, it wasn’t until the very end of the apostolic age that the Jews, seeking a new focal point for their religious practice in the wake of the destruction of the Temple, zeroed in with white hot intensity on Scripture and fixed their canon at the rabbinical gathering, known as the “Council of Javneh” (sometimes called “Jamnia”), about A.D. 90. Prior to this point in time there had never been any formal effort among the Jews to “define the canon” of Scripture. In fact, Scripture nowhere indicates that the Jews even had a conscious idea that the canon should be closed at some point.

The canon arrived at by the rabbis at Javneh was essentially the mid-sized canon of the Palestinian Pharisees, not the shorter one used by the Sadducees, who had been practically annihilated during the Jewish war with Rome. Nor was this new canon consistent with the Greek.
catholiceducation.org/articles/apologetics/ap0120.html

Clearly both Mark Shea (already discussed) and the Rev. Mark Gantley (whoever he is) are promoting falsehoods.

Have you been following the thread? Start at the Wikipedia article “Council of Jamnia”. If you want, read the relevant Talmud reference yourself–it’s available on-line. There are many threads here at CAF on this topic. No council, no setting of the Jewish canon at Yavneh. It’s a fiction. They are making things up.

 

[pablope]

I don’t think these sources would be very convincing to all the Catholic apologists and posters that love to cite the Council of Jamnia, but Albert Sundberg and Jack P. Lewis, whose comments are reproduced in the Wikipedia article, are both Evangelicals.

Also, Lee Martin McDonald, a professor at BIOLA (thus, also an Evangelical) writes in The Biblical Canon: Its Origin, Transmission and Authority:

“It was once commonplace in the scholarly literature to note that the Jewish canon was established at the so-called Council of Jamnia around 100 C.E., but this has proved to be a scholarly fiction. There is no firm evidence for the fixing of the Jewish canon. Despite the convincing demonstration that no such decision took place…one still encounters it occasionally in the scholarly literature.”

If one goes back to the sources in the Talmud used to purported support the notion (Yadaim 3.5), it’s a simple matter to see that there’s nothing of the sort there. Even if there had been some sort of “council” at Jamnia, the opinions of the rabbis reached there wouldn’t be binding on anyone anyway. The Talmud rarely reaches conclusions; rather it records debates. This is difficult for the Western mind to grasp–that Judaism has historically been a community of debate rather than so much one of hard-and-fast conclusions.

Thanks, Dave. My intent also was to provide it to protestants who like to cite Jamnia.

 

[pablope]

?

I’m curious why Catholics like Mark Shea and the late John Hardon continue/d to perpetuate this falsehood. From my perspective, it certainly doesn’t do anything to bolster the credibility of the Catholic Faith.

My take is that they wrote these prior to more information coming about recently that disproves the Jamnia council ever took place.

 

[pablope]

Who is David Noonan without any facts to call into question the revered Fr John A Hardon, S.J. who referred only to the rabbinical school at Jamnia?

[consistent with the Greek.
http://catholiceducation.org/articles/apologetics/ap0120.html

Hi, Abu, let me chime in a bit.

There is recent belief (am not sure how recent) that the council of Jamnia never took place or that it was a school, not a council. There are also Catholic apologists who believe this.

I tend to agree with Dave on this one.

Now, I am not sure when Mark Shea or when Fr. Hardon wrote their articles, could be that these were written prior to the growing opinion that Jamnia never took place.

 

[Dave_Noonan]

Hi, Abu, let me chime in a bit.

There is recent belief (am not sure how recent) that the council of Jamnia never took place or that it was a school, not a council. There are also Catholic apologists who believe this.

I tend to agree with Dave on this one.

Now, I am not sure when Mark Shea or when Fr. Hardon wrote their articles, could be that these were written prior to the growing opinion that Jamnia never took place.

You’re welcome as to the Protestant (Evangelical) sources. Whether Catholic or Protestant, whenever someone starts citing the “Council of Jamnia/Yavneh” it’s a huge red flag that the author has no idea what he or she is talking about concerning the canon, and further that they are cribbing spurious material–usually without citation.

As I recall, skepticism about the “Council of Jamnia” was noted already by Catholic biblical scholars in the New Jerome Biblical Commentary article on the biblical canon, published in 1989, so this shouldn’t exactly be new news with anyone who has bothered to do some responsible rudimentary research.

Sorry I just get irritated when people publish something as “scholarship” when they haven’t even bothered to do their homework, and end up preying upon people like Abu who believe what they write.

 

[Abu]

Fr John A Hadon S.J., wrote that “the rabbinical school at Jamnia circa A.D. 100 redefined the canon of the Old testament for the Jews”, all attempts to call that “false” are reprehensible.

Catholic Encyclopedia
The so-called Council of Jamnia (c. A.D. 90) has reasonably been taken as having terminated the disputes between rival rabbinic schools concerning the canonicity of Canticles. So while the intuitive sense and increasingly reverent consciousness of the faithful element of Israel could, and presumably did, give a general impulse and direction to authority, we must conclude that it was the word of official authority which actually fixed the limits of the Hebrew Canon, and here, broadly speaking, the advanced and conservative exegetes meet on common ground.
catholic.org/encyclopedia/view.php?id=8700

Jewish Studies for Christians
Council of Jamnia and Old Testament Canon (by Peter Shirokov and Dr. Eli Lizorkin-Eyzenberg)
Whether the sages held a special council or if their discussions about the holy books were ongoing, the enduring significance of Jamnia lies not in the closing of the Jewish canon, but in ensuring the cultural and religious survival of the Jewish people. Prior to 70 AD, Judaism was fragmented into various sects. The Jamnia sages intentionally promoted an inclusive, pluralistic and non-sectarian Judaism. In light of new circumstances, they created a more flexible system of Torah interpretation that accounted for diversity and charted a new way to relate to God and his covenant with Israel (Shaye Cohen). They shaped the possibility of new Jewish faith and life without sacrifices, priesthood and the centrality of the Jerusalem Temple.
jewishstudies.eteacherbiblical.com/jamnia/

 

[Dave_Noonan]

Fr John A Hadon S.J., wrote that “the rabbinical school at Jamnia circa A.D. 100 redefined the canon of the Old testament for the Jews”, all attempts to call that “false” are reprehensible.

Catholic Encyclopedia
The so-called Council of Jamnia (c. A.D. 90) has reasonably been taken as having terminated the disputes between rival rabbinic schools concerning the canonicity of Canticles. So while the intuitive sense and increasingly reverent consciousness of the faithful element of Israel could, and presumably did, give a general impulse and direction to authority, we must conclude that it was the word of official authority which actually fixed the limits of the Hebrew Canon, and here, broadly speaking, the advanced and conservative exegetes meet on common ground.
catholic.org/encyclopedia/view.php?id=8700

Jewish Studies for Christians
Council of Jamnia and Old Testament Canon (by Peter Shirokov and Dr. Eli Lizorkin-Eyzenberg)
Whether the sages held a special council or if their discussions about the holy books were ongoing, the enduring significance of Jamnia lies not in the closing of the Jewish canon, but in ensuring the cultural and religious survival of the Jewish people. Prior to 70 AD, Judaism was fragmented into various sects. The Jamnia sages intentionally promoted an inclusive, pluralistic and non-sectarian Judaism. In light of new circumstances, they created a more flexible system of Torah interpretation that accounted for diversity and charted a new way to relate to God and his covenant with Israel (Shaye Cohen). They shaped the possibility of new Jewish faith and life without sacrifices, priesthood and the centrality of the Jerusalem Temple.
jewishstudies.eteacherbiblical.com/jamnia/

You don’t have to rely on what I’m saying–I’ve given you a number of sources where you can verify the information for yourself if you’re willing and brave enough to do a little research. Fr. John Hardon’s (I think you mean) information is false. The Catholic Encyclopedia, published over 100 years ago, is seriously outdated on a number of historical topics and in this particular case is also false. I can’t tell whether your last source is arguing that the rabbis did close the canon or that they didn’t.

 

[po18guy]

Jamnia, schmamnia. What is important is that the Church - the only earthly authority to be so charged - has ruled officially, for all time, on the disputed books. The fact that they were disputed means nothing - zero, zip, nada. Our Lord Jesus was disputed, but that does not call Him into question amongst Christians. The Apostles were disputed as being drunk on Pentecost and that in no way affects the charisms of the Holy Spirit. Circumcision was disputed and nothing in all of the scriptures that existed, released any of the faithful men from circumcision. Those who argued in contra were simply wrong. Only the Church, as clearly demonstrated in Acts 15, had that full and final authority. The Church has spoken. The matter is settled.

 

[pablope]

Fr John A Hadon S.J., wrote that “the rabbinical school at Jamnia circa A.D. 100 redefined the canon of the Old testament for the Jews”, all attempts to call that “false” are reprehensible.

Hi, Abu, with all due respect, we are not trying to disparage Fr. Hardon, we are just saying there is new information out there that disputes the so called council of Jamnia.

Jewish Studies for Christians
Council of Jamnia and Old Testament Canon (by Peter Shirokov and Dr. Eli Lizorkin-Eyzenberg)

 

[Subrosa]

? My original point was that you were citing as evidence an article by Mark Shea in an earlier post that has blatantly false information. But maybe I don’t understand your remark.

I’m curious why Catholics like Mark Shea and the late John Hardon continue/d to perpetuate this falsehood. From my perspective, it certainly doesn’t do anything to bolster the credibility of the Catholic Faith.

Your position raises a question for me: If there was no Council of Jamnia, where and when was the Hebrew canon decided?

Subrosa

 

[po18guy]

Your position raises a question for me: If there was no Council of Jamnia, where and when was the Hebrew canon decided?

Subrosa

The editors of the protestant Revised Standard Version of the bible explain in the introduction to that edition that the 39 book OT canon was decided upon by the Pharisee party. Since the Pharisees rejected Jesus, were involved in his crucifixion, and were condemned seven-fold by Christ in Matthew 23, why on earth would any Christian accept their canon of scripture? This is nonsensical.

 

[Dave_Noonan]

Your position raises a question for me: If there was no Council of Jamnia, where and when was the Hebrew canon decided?

Subrosa

The false equivalency is thinking that Judaism has/had some central authority structure or hierarchy like Roman Catholicism to “decide” such matters, which it does not. One could make a valid argument that from a Christian understanding the Jewish canon is open in a way, but as a practical matter, that’s not really how it works. One could also argue that for Jews outside of the Karaite tradition, the Talmud (i.e., oral tradition, believed to be divinely transmitted) carries a great deal of the textual significance in Jewish understanding and life, so even the understanding of canonicity itself differs between Judaism and Western Christianity.

That having been said, one really doesn’t have to “decide” on a canon until after the invention of the codex (bound book with pages), which is around the fourth century. And what one person decides isn’t necessarily binding on anyone else in Judaism. Some Jews at the time would have been reading the Bible in Greek, not Hebrew, and (probably more) were reading the Bible in Aramaic, complicating the picture even further.

Prior to the invention of the codex, Jews would have used scroll collections of varying compositions and, of course, still use Torah scrolls today. We don’t have any Jewish bibles dating before the 10th century AD, so it’s really difficult to say for sure when a canon became normative, beyond the fact that the Pentateuch was certainly authoritative already by the time of Jesus. Josephus, who was an approximate contemporary of Jesus, but whose death predates the Rabbinical school at Jamnia (if such as school even existed—an issue that Talmud scholars debate), states that “we,” whoever “we” represents, have “22 books,” but sadly, he doesn’t list the 22 books and descriptions at the time vary as to what constitutes a single book. The Hebrew Bible as accepted contains 24 books.

Certainly much has been written on this topic but there is no scholarly consensus.

 

[pablope]

The

Prior to the invention of the codex, Jews would have used scroll collections of varying compositions and, of course, still use Torah scrolls today. We don’t have any Jewish bibles dating before the 10th century AD, so it’s really difficult to say for sure when a canon became normative, beyond the fact that the Pentateuch was certainly authoritative already by the time of Jesus. Josephus, who was an approximate contemporary of Jesus, but whose death predates the Rabbinical school at Jamnia (if such as school even existed—an issue that Talmud scholars debate), states that “we,” whoever “we” represents, have “22 books,” but sadly, he doesn’t list the 22 books and descriptions at the time vary as to what constitutes a single book. The Hebrew Bible as accepted contains 24 books.

Certainly much has been written on this topic but there is no scholarly consensus.

Thanks, Dave, for your informative response. I too was wondering on the same question.

So…what are these “The Hebrew Bible as accepted contains 24 books.”…if you have them.

Thanks, again.

 

[Dave_Noonan]

Thanks, Dave, for your informative response. I too was wondering on the same question.

So…what are these “The Hebrew Bible as accepted contains 24 books.”…if you have them.

Thanks, again.

YW.

Torah:
Genesis
Exodus
Numbers
Deuteronomy

The Prophets:
Joshua
Judges
Samuel (an example of what I mean might count for 1 book or 2)
Kings
Isaiah
Jeremiah
Ezekiel
Book of the 12 (“Minor” prophets)

The Writings:
Psalms
Proverbs
Job
Song of Songs
Ruth
Lamentations
Ecclesiastes
Esther
Daniel
Ezra (includes Ezra and Nehemiah)
Chronicles

That totals 24.

 

[po18guy]

YW.

Torah:
Genesis
Exodus
Numbers
Deuteronomy

The Prophets:
Joshua
Judges
Samuel (an example of what I mean might count for 1 book or 2)
Kings
Isaiah
Jeremiah
Ezekiel
Book of the 12 (“Minor” prophets)

The Writings:
Psalms
Proverbs
Job
Song of Songs
Ruth
Lamentations
Ecclesiastes
Esther
Daniel
Ezra (includes Ezra and Nehemiah)
Chronicles

That totals 24.

Leviticus

 

[Dave_Noonan]

Leviticus

THX!!