since the Bible is the Word of God it is all we need...

[zz912]

Then why does no Scripture writer, let alone Jesus Himself, use extra-biblical “traditions” to defend doctrine? Why is when Jesus corrected the Pharisees, he corrected their extra-biblical “traditions” with the Word of God (Matthew Ch 15)? Why Paul state that ALL Scripture is God-breathed, and not extra-biblical “traditions,” & why does he say that Scripture is beneficial for doctrine & reproof and not extra-biblical “traditions” also? Why is it that when extra-biblical “traditions” are mentioned in Scripture, they are viewed as being a negative thing, & never positive? I’m afraid you are arguing from silence for your position. Sola scriptura doesn’t have to prove a negative, which is what you’re asking me to do. There are a lot of things Scripture “doesn’t say,” but that doesn’t mean that God condones us “adding” beliefs & commands to His Word & call them “traditions” which is what you’re doing. Plus, you are missing the whole point of why God gave us His written Word. Even in it’s infancy, the first century Church was under attack doctrinally, which is why Paul wrote so many epistles to the churches to “correct” them. Even as late as 95-96 A.D. John had written the 7 churches of Asia Minor, & 5 out of the 7 were rebuked. God gave us the Scriptures to compare “traditions” to them, & if they either “exceeded” or added to what was written, was “taken away” from them, or contradicted them, then those “traditions” aren’t God-breathed but as Jesus stated “the doctrines the precepts of men” (Matthew 15:9).

Matthew 23:1Then Jesus spoke to the crowds and to His disciples, 2saying: “The scribes and the Pharisees have seated themselves** in the chair of Moses**; 3therefore all that they tell you, do and observe, but do not do according to their deeds; for they say things and do not do them. 4“They tie up heavy burdens and lay them on men’s shoulders, but they themselves are unwilling to move them with so much as a finger

Give me the OT Scripture passage detailing the chair of Moses and that the scribes and Pharisees hold this authority.

 

[thetazlord]

The Church as a whole now matter-of-factly affirmed Deuterocanonicals (MANY quotes available):

“o that in them was fulfilled that which is written, ‘The service of God is abominable to the sinner’ [quoting Sirach 1:22].” 7th Ecumenical Council, Nicea II, Canon 6 (A.D. 787).[/INDENT]

It still doesn’t change the fact that Jerome himself rejected the 7 Apocrypha books that are in Catholic OT’s. The reason he gives is irrelevant, since what language these books were originally written in isn’t what makes them Inspired or not. The fact that each & every one of them have historical and/or theological errors & contradictions in them that conflict with prior & later Scriptures. And, as mentioned numerous times in this thread, “The Great Synagogue” led by Ezra around 400 B.C. closed the OT canon long before these later Apocrypha books & “additons” to Daniel & Esther were written. So, it’s really a moot point.

 

[zz912]

Actually, because of the gift of the Internet, I have been able to study most of them & it’s been rather easy to find the passages in those apocrypha & pseudoepigraphical texts that conflict - and even outright contradict - the OT, the Gospels, as well as the rest of the NT, including 1 Clement. It took some time, but, yes, I “really did this.”

False. Because if you did, then you would eliminate the letter of James, since it contradicts other parts of the NT.

So you see the conundrum and falsity of this claim of yours. If something is sacred revelation, then it can’t contradict other parts of revelation, and we find that it changes our understanding of revelation. If 1 Clement was in the Bible, what you believe is a contradiction wouldn’t be so, and you would see how it meshed with the rest of scripture.

 

[thetazlord]

You really do have a problem. You allege that the Church has no teaching on issues that it actually does, It helps these discussions a lot if you really know what you are talking about, but you don’t.
Jesus had Brothers?
Who Are Jesus’ Mother and Brothers?
Does the use of this Greek word for sibling indicate that Jesus had brothers?
Why does the Bible refer to Elizabeth as Mary’s “cousin” but not use that term when referring to Jesus’ brothers?

Thanks for the links. I took some time to read through them, but if you’re honest with yourself, they don’t decisively state “who” these “brothers” of Jesus are - something the CC should have known if the PVM was passed down by “apostolic succession,” since they are mentioned by name. Unfortunately, all these links to is “theorize” who they were (older step-brothers from an “allegedly” previous marriage from Joseph, cousins or other relatives, etc). As a former Catholic, I knew all this already, & this isn’t what I asked you. Plus, where the links “attempt” to discern the various women at the cross & who their family units are, they incorrectly “assume” that there are THREE women at the cross, when John’s Gospel makes it obvious that there are FOUR women at the cross. Otherwise, Salome (John’s own mother) doesn’t get accounted for in his own Gospel, despite the fact that not only was John there, but also Matthew & Mark’s accounts mention her. So, from the very start, Scripturally, the family units are incorrect. Plus, it makes Jesus’ mother Mary having a sister ALSO named Mary. Which then leads to taking unnecessary liberty of making Mary of Clopas a sister(in-law) of Mary to avoid this obvious error, even though there is no Scriptural reason to make this liberal assumption, especially since the Greek word for “in-law” was readily used in both the OT in Hebrew, as well as the NT in Greek. Scripturally, these “assumptions” conflict with a simple reading of Scripture.

BTW, the article about Elizabeth’s relationship with Mary is incorrect. The Greek word to describe their relationship in Luke 1:36 isn’t “syggenes” (with an “e”), but “syggenis” (with an “i”), which unlike syggenes can be translated “cousin,” which is why even on Vatican.va their relationship is described as being “cousins.” Therefore, if these were Jesus’ cousins, & not younger half-brothers, the Gospel writings could have used this already used Greek word, instead of “adelphos.” Plus, the links take liberty with using a SINGLE definition of “adelphos” (as well as it’s Hebrew counterpart in the OT) without using the whole of the NT to discern if “adelphos” to refer to Jesus’ “brothers” are actually His half-brothers or not.

Let the Children Come to Me

 

[thetazlord]

Bad choice by you since he plainly stated that he included them because the church said he should. His only problem was that he couldn’t find them in Hebrew…but that proved moot in the 1950s when they were found in Hebrew with the Dead Sea Scrolls.

Actually, it’s an excellent choice, because it’s irrelevant to the reason “why” he didn’t want to include them. The fact remains that Jerome didn’t believe they were Inspired Scripture. The fact that the CC “insisted” on them being in there doesn’t change the fact that Jerome himself didn’t believe they were Inspired Scripture. What language they were originally written in is also irrelevant, but rather the fact that ALL of them contain historical and/or theological errors & contradictions in them that conflict with previous & later Scripture. Plus the OT canon was closed long before they were ever written. So, it’s a moot point.

Let us know when you get to an authoritative source. I could run around all day digging up n-C sources that disagree with all manner of n-C beliefs, but since they have no authority to decide these things (even as you yourself do not) it would mean precisely what your citations mean. Not very much.

I have. I can’t help that you reject these “authoritative sources,” because they conflict with your theology.

Catholics never deny that there was much discussion and debate as to the canon, but the church discerned and made its selection with their authority and the matter was settled.I haven’t ignored anything… I have examined your scriptural “evidence” and so far found it unconvincing and you simply ignore any requests for clarification with polemics against me. If your citations are so squared away then you should be able (and willing) to explain and defend them.

I’m afraid you have, because now you are turning the discussion away from me providing the early Church sources you asked for & the fact that the Scriptures I provided DO support sola scriptura you “are” ignoring, again, because they disagree with your theology.

None of us have any reason at all to accept your position just because you say so.

No, it’s not because “I say so.” You asked me for contextual Scriptural references that support sola scriptura - I gave them, but you rejected them because these verses conflict with your theology. You asked me for early Church sources that rejected the 7 Apocrypha books, as well as called them “Apocrypha” which I gave, but you reject them because they don’t “qualify” for your “conditions” for an “authoritative source.” If you are honest with yourself, this is what you’re doing.

Wrong…none of the things I cited in Jude are set out in the OT…they come from the sources that I linked to, which means that the apostle Jude was familiar with them and referred to those Jewish traditional writings to inform his teaching in his epistle. The Catholic Church has done exactly the same thing for the same purpose (including the traditional writings of the early Christians) and so that is your apostolic example.

It’s right there in that next to last book in your Bible, the short one with only 25 verses.

Feel free to quote that verse from Jude that states that the “source” was extra-scriptural “traditions” that was not supported by OT Scriptures. And even if it is, Jude would not be violating sola scriptura, because these traditions are written in Inspired Scripture - Jude’s epistle. So, it’s a moot point.

 

[thetazlord]

Where does the inspired writer of the Gospel of Mark identify himself?

That seems to be an extra-biblical assertion you’ve accepted (from…the Church, BTW).

That’s fine, of course…except that makes you dependent upon an OUTSIDE source to corroborate a very, very important detail: whether the Gospel of Mark is inspired.

How, again, is the author of Hebrews recognized as an apostle or contemporary?

And wouldn’t that make the Epistle of Barnabas theopneustos, then?

What historical errors?

You’re confusing the criteria for a writing to be Inspired, with the Scriptural doctrine of sola scriptura. Using an extra-biblical source to know that Mark was the writer of his Gospel doesn’t violate sola scriptura, because SS is about traditions, doctrines, dogmas, etc that “ADD” to Scripture/U] that are not found in Scripture. Knowing that Mark was the author of his Gospel, even though he’s not mentioned by name, doesn’t have anything to do with Church doctrine or dogma.

And where does the Bible state that historical errors means it’s not inspired

?

Um…really? Do you realize what you just asked? Inspired means “GOD-breathed.” You are saying that something GOD Authored can be in error, even historically? Think about that for a minute, because that is what you are insinuating.

Does that mean that scientific errors would also disqualify something as being inspired?
St. Mark, after all, makes a scientific error by declaring the mustard seed to be the smallest of seeds. It actually isn’t.

It is like a mustard seed that, when it is sown in the ground, is the smallest of all the seeds on the earth.–Mark 4:31

This is known as a strawman argument. I could easily answer this for you & cite a source. The problem is that it’s a Protestant source, so I don’t want to break forum rules. It’s a shame that as a Catholic, you don’t realize this isn’t a scientific error. Plus, JESUS said this. So, are you saying that the Son of God made a scientific error???

Yep. The Church in the past did an abysmal job providing nourishing catechesis for her flock.

You said that, I didn’t!

I also propose that you accept “on faith” a lot of what these “godly men” told you simply because you trust them

.

BZZZT!!! No, that’s not why. They may have been the ones who “initially” informed me of this, since I never learned any of this from the CC, but unlike when I was Catholic, I was encouraged to research it for myself, which I did, which was something I was never, nor would ever been, encouraged in my years as a Catholic.

However, just to be clear, since you acknowledge you were very poorly catechized, the CC does not propose that we accept things only on faith

.

I would strongly disagree with that statement.

That’s why we have some of the greatest theological giants in our faith–they are called Doctors of the Church.

…who can’t even make a definitive assertion where unbaptized babies who die go, or “who” the brothers of Jesus “definitively” are even though they are mentioned by name in the Gospels - even though the answer to BOTH of these issues on found in the pages of Holy Scripture.

And why we have, well, Catholic Answers. The existence of the very forum, which you are a registered member of,

is testament to the fact that we are as Catholics obligated to seek answers, to question, to wrangle and wrestle with the Truth.

And I’m still waiting for those definitive answers.

Fides quaerens intellectum

is our mantra, taz.

“Sola Scriptura,” “Sola Fide,” “Sola Christos” is Scriptures, PRMerger.

 

[thetazlord]

I see. So where does Jesus put Proverbs?

In order to understand the THREE-fold division that Jesus referred to in Luke 24:44-45 (“the Law…the Prophets…and the Psalms”), you have to understand, historically prior to the time of Christ, that the Psalms was the first book of the “Writings” in that THIRD “division.” Proverbs followed Psalms, which was followed by Job. The TaNaKh later recognized this THIRD “division” Ketuvim (“The Writings”), which is how Jesus referred to it earlier in Luke Ch.24 ("…and ALL the “Scriptures” or “Writings.”)

 

[thetazlord]

This just seems so Catholic, at least in practice, at least thru much of her history.

Perhaps the only difference is that the CC developed an implementation it, even an interpretation of it all, that became “Tradition”, the “right” way, forming a One ,Holy, Apostolic, Catholic Church. It worked great for a while (standing against Gnosticism, Arianism). Unfortunately, insisting on your way, even as infallible, will eventually separate you from brethren, and often on trivial matters (unlike previously listed heresies).

So it isn’t about the beauty and superlative authority of scripture we debate, but only our interpretation of it, our faction, paradigm over somebody else.

Some say 30000 denominations is a bad fruit of SS, maybe. But the CC’s bad fruit is forcing the issue, birthing Orthodoxy and Protestantism.

Should have left things the way they were. Maybe at the patriarchal development stage.

Here’s a kicker. If the CC would have stuck to sola scriptura & not “added” their “traditions” that aren’t found in Scripture, the Reformation would not have happened. Now there’s a bone to chew on for awhile.

 

[Church_Militant]

It still doesn’t change the fact that Jerome himself rejected the 7 Apocrypha books that are in Catholic OT’s. The reason he gives is irrelevant, since what language these books were originally written in isn’t what makes them Inspired or not.

That’s untrue, since that was indeed his stated reason for not wanting to include them and not a question as to their canonicity since he knew that the church had already canonized them which was the deciding factor in his inclusion. He obviously knew where the authority resided. It always seem odd to me that n-Cs ascribe such authority to scripture which does not even tell us what writings should be included. It gives us no clue as to its table of contents and its verse numbering and chapters are much later additions by men. How can a collection that doesn’t tell us what belongs in it carry the authority that you ascribe to it? That had to come from an authority outside itself and the only qualified one is the church of that time…the Catholic Church .

The fact that each & every one of them have historical and/or theological errors & contradictions in them that conflict with prior & later Scriptures. And, as mentioned numerous times in this thread, “The Great Synagogue” led by Ezra around 400 B.C. closed the OT canon long before these later

Apocrypha books & “additons” to Daniel & Esther were written. So, it’s really a moot point.And what supposed authority did Ezra have to do that? Oh wait…he had none since the Jews even today have not canonized their scriptures and discussion and debate about them persists even to this day.

As for these alleged errors and contradictions, what are they?

Keep in mind that the Bible was never intended to be a history book, a math book, or a science book, so expecting it to be accurate in these areas is setting an unreasonable standard for it and has led to a great many errors prevalent today.

It is intended to deal with matters of faith and morals, but nowhere does it lay claim to being the final and ultimate authority for all we belive and practice and nowhere does it assert that it is self interpreting…again…it does not even tell us what writings are inspired and belong within its pages.

Anyone interested can check out the following article by ex-Protestant Tim Staples.

The Old Testament Canon
During the Reformation, primarily for doctrinal reasons, Protestants removed seven books from the Old Testament: 1 and 2 Maccabees, Sirach, Wisdom, Baruch, Tobit, and Judith, and parts of two others, Daniel and Esther. They did so even though these books had been regarded as canonical since the beginning of Church history.

As Protestant church historian J. N. D. Kelly writes, “It should be observed that the Old Testament thus admitted as authoritative in the Church was somewhat bulkier and more comprehensive [than the Protestant Bible]. . . . It always included, though with varying degrees of recognition, the so-called apocrypha or deuterocanonical books” (Early Christian Doctrines, 53), which are rejected by Protestants.
Below we give patristic quotations from each of the deuterocanonical books. Notice how the Fathers quoted these books along with the protocanonicals. The deuterocanonicals are those books of the Old Testament that were included in the Bible even though there had been some discussion about whether they should be.

Also included are the earliest official lists of the canon. For the sake of brevity these are not given in full. When the lists of the canon cited here are given in full, they include all the books and only the books found in the modern Catholic Bible.

 

[thetazlord]

PRMerger does a good job addressing what you’ve written here, but allow me to add my words to hers:

If I said to you “I’ve eaten an orange in the past, and it was sour and mealy, and I’m eating an apple now, and it’s sweet and crunchy: therefore, all oranges are bad and all apples are good”… would you credit me with great facility in logic? (I hope not, since this would be the height of illogical reasoning: unwarranted extrapolation is a subtle error in reasoning.)

So, your personal experience with Catholicism – that is, your assertion that you didn’t learn certain facts – leads you to believe that the Catholic Church is wrong? Hmm…

No offense, but that’s a really bad analogy, because it is completely unrelated to what’s being discussed here. My point was that I left the CC, because the explanations they gave me weren’t able to answer my theological questions about Scripture, & their response was “you just have to have faith.” When I left Catholicism & started attending Protestant churches, that wasn’t something I was ever told. Any doctrinal question I had was immediately answered by strictly going to Scripture, which I was encouraged “NOT to just take their word for it, but to look into it for myself,” which I didn’t.

BTW, PRMerger’s responses didn’t adequately address my comments, but rather he confused why sola scriptura is Scripturally-based with why relying on extra-biblical sources for who wrote Mark’s Gospel doesn’t violate SS. By him doing that, he only demonstrated that he still doesn’t understand what SS actually is & what it applies to.

Does the Church ask for Catholics “just to base… on faith” – that is, “merely trust what they tell us”? Of course not. Pope John Paul II wrote, “Faith and reason are like two wings on which the human spirit rises to the contemplation of truth … It is an illusion to think that faith, tied to weak reasoning, might be more penetrating; on the contrary, faith then runs the grave risk of withering into myth or superstition. By the same token, reason which is unrelated to an adult faith is not prompted to turn its gaze to the newness and radicality of being.”

Well, based on some of the replies here, maybe people should listen to him.

 

[thetazlord]

Matthew 23:1Then Jesus spoke to the crowds and to His disciples, 2saying: “The scribes and the Pharisees have seated themselves** in the chair of Moses**; 3therefore all that they tell you, do and observe, but do not do according to their deeds; for they say things and do not do them. 4“They tie up heavy burdens and lay them on men’s shoulders, but they themselves are unwilling to move them with so much as a finger

Give me the OT Scripture passage detailing the chair of Moses and that the scribes and Pharisees hold this authority.

The “chair of Moses” refers to the authority to teach the OT Scriptures, which includes the Law of Moses. It was this “authority” that the Jewish leaders were placed in the authority by God “in charge” of teaching “the oracles of God” (the OT Scriptures). Unfortunately, they failed miserably.

 

[thetazlord]

That’s untrue, since that was indeed his stated reason for not wanting to include them and not a question as to their canonicity since he knew that the church had already canonized them which was the deciding factor in his inclusion. He obviously knew where the authority resided.

It still doesn’t change the fact that Jerome, as well as other early Catholic sources, as well as Josephus, rejected the Apocrypha & referred to them as such which is what you asked for! And now you are dismissing what you asked for!

It always seem odd to me that n-Cs ascribe such authority to scripture which does not even tell us what writings should be included. It gives us no clue as to its table of contents and its verse numbering and chapters are much later additions by men. How can a collection that doesn’t tell us what belongs in it carry the authority that you ascribe to it? That had to come from an authority outside itself and the only qualified one is the church of that time…the Catholic Church .

Being an ex-Protestant turned Catholic doesn’t give him any more “insight” or objectivity than you or me, because like our writings, his isn’t God-breathed either. No offense intended to Mr. Staples. Plus, “patristic quotations from each of the deuterocanonical books” doesn’t automatically make them Inspired. They also quoted writings not found in the NT canon, such as 1 Clement, the Shepherd of Hermas, etc. So, does that make them Inspired Scripture?

 

[patrick457]

Just my two cents. I don’t want to get embroiled in debates so I’ll just post my thoughts and leave.

(1) You really have to trace Jerome’s changes in thought as time progressed.

It’s true that when he was starting his pet project of translating OT books from Hebrew, he didn’t have much of a high regard for the seven books, Hebrew lover that he was. Compare his prologues to Samuel-Kings (the very first he wrote, completed 392) and the books of Solomon (398) to the prologues of Tobit and Judith (ca. 405-407), written about a decade after he began. In the preface to the Solomonic books, Jerome says:

“Therefore, just as the Church also reads the books of Judith, Tobias, and the Maccabees, but does not receive them among the the canonical Scriptures, so also one may read these two scrolls for the strengthening of the people, (but) not for confirming the authority of ecclesiastical dogmas.”

This is similar to the position of St. Athanasius of Alexandria, as well, that these books are useful, particularly for new Christians, but are not used for establishing doctrine. But when you get to Tobit and Judith, you have Jerome saying:

“I do not cease to wonder at the constancy of your demanding. For you demand that I bring a book written in Chaldean words into Latin writing, indeed the book of Tobias, which the Hebrews exclude from the catalogue of Divine Scriptures, being mindful of those things which they have titled Hagiographa. I have done enough for your desire, yet not by my study. For the studies of the Hebrews rebuke us and find fault with us, to translate this for the ears of Latins contrary to their canon. But it is better to be judging the opinion of the Pharisees to displease and to be subject to the commands of bishops.”

“Among the Hebrews the Book of Judith is found among the Hagiographa, the authority of which toward confirming those which have come into contention is judged less appropriate. Yet having been written in Chaldean words, it is counted among the histories. But because this book is found by the Nicene Council to have been counted among the number of the Sacred Scriptures, I have acquiesced to your request, indeed a demand, and works having been set aside from which I was forcibly curtailed, I have given to this (book) one short night’s work translating more sense from sense than word from word.” "

Jerome shows a turnaround in his opinion of the value of the deutero’s here. So you have to distinguish between three phases of Jerome’s opinion: something close to scorn and summary dismissal early in the project (because they’re not in Hebrew ), valuable non-Scriptural reading in the middle of the project (“so … one may read these two scrolls for the strengthening of the people, (but) not for confirming the authority of ecclesiastical dogmas”), and bowing to the opinion of the Church at the end of his task (“But because [Judith] is found by the Nicene Council to have been counted among the number of the Sacred Scriptures, I have acquiesced to your request, indeed a demand…”)

What we do know is, he only translated Tobit, Judith, the additions to Esther and Daniel. He never got around to the other books. (To be fair, it’s likely that most of the Latin NT are not his work either.)

 

[patrick457]

(2) I think the problem here is that many of you are assuming a closed canon. That’s not exactly what you had with Second Temple period Jews: it was instead, a half-open canon.

The Jews divide the Tanakh into three sections: the Law (Torah), the Prophets (Nevi’im), and the Writings (Ketuvim). The Torah and the Nevi’im sections were likely fixed at an early date, hence the expression “the Law and the Prophets.” It was the Writings section which remained fluid and was fixed last. (In fact, the Writings section was considered to have one level less authority than that of prophecy.)

It’s not coincidental that many of the books in the Writings section were the ones that were written last or had reached their ‘final editions’ last. (Many modern scholars especially would consider Esther and Daniel to have been written in or after the 2nd century BC (with editions appearing up to the 1st century AD), just roughly contemporary with the Deuterocanonical books.) When the later Rabbis discussed and debated as to which books ‘defile the hands’ (i.e. are sacred), what they were talking about are two books from this section: Ecclesiastes and Song of Songs.

In the Writings section are Psalms, Proverbs, Job, Song of Songs, Ruth, Lamentations, Ecclesiastes, Esther, Daniel, Ezra-Nehemiah, and 1-2 Chronicles. Not only are the exact order of the books in a fluid state (it’s true that Psalms is often placed first in many Jewish manuscripts, but the Babylonian Talmud (Baba Bathra 14b) lists them in the order Ruth-Psalms-Job-Proverbs-Ecclesiastes-Song of Songs-Lamentations-Daniel-Esther-Ezra (+ Nehemiah)-Chronicles," and the medieval Tiberian Masoretic manuscripts tended to place Chronicles first), these books themselves were in a fluid state. You already know the longer Greek versions of Daniel and Esther, right? There’s also the issue of Ezra-Nehemiah: there was also a Greek work which combined these two along with some original material and a little bit of Chronicles to form a single document. This is what is known as the Greek 1 Esdras. (The Greek 2 Esdras meanwhile is a straightforward mechanical translation of Ezra-Nehemiah.)

As for the Psalms, well, there were not always 150 of them. The Greek Septuagint contains an extra psalm (Psalm 151, acknowledged to be “outside the number”), the Syriac has four more (Psalms 152-155), and the Psalms scroll from Qumran (11QPsa, aka 11Q5) not only contains Psalms 151 (here divided into two psalms), 154 and 155, but also seven hitherto unknown psalms. In fact, a scribal comment on the scroll credits David with composing 3,600 psalms (!), plus more hymns for other purposes, adding up to 4,050 compositions.

(3) You have to take the Jewish tradition of ascribing the fixing of the canon to Ezra and “the men of the Great Assembly” with a grain of salt. AFAIK the first person to propose this was a 16th century German-Italian Jewish writer named Elia Levita, who in turn was building on the work of the 12th-13th century French rabbi David Kimhi. All the Talmud (the ultimate source for this idea) says is that the men of the Great Assembly are credited with the writing of Ezekiel, the Twelve Minor Prophets, Daniel and Esther (Baba Bathra 14-15a). (The Mishnaic concept of “the men of the Great Sanhedrin” acting as a main authority for Judaism is itself problematic historically - especially when checked with contemporary sources like Josephus, who seem to present a different picture - which is why many people no longer take the references to them in rabbinic literature at face value.)

 

[thetazlord]

Just my two cents. I don’t want to get embroiled in debates so I’ll just post my thoughts and leave.

(1) You really have to trace Jerome’s changes in thought as time progressed.

It’s true that when he was starting his pet project of translating OT books from Hebrew, he didn’t have much of a high regard for the seven books, Hebrew lover that he was. Compare his prologues to Samuel-Kings (the very first he wrote, completed 392) and the books of Solomon (398) to the prologues of Tobit and Judith (ca. 405-407), written about a decade after he began. In the preface to the Solomonic books, Jerome says:

“Therefore, just as the Church also reads the books of Judith, Tobias, and the Maccabees, but does not receive them among the the canonical Scriptures, so also one may read these two scrolls for the strengthening of the people, (but) not for confirming the authority of ecclesiastical dogmas.”

This is similar to the position of St. Athanasius of Alexandria, as well, that these books are useful, particularly for new Christians, but are not used for establishing doctrine. But when you get to Tobit and Judith, you have Jerome saying:

“I do not cease to wonder at the constancy of your demanding. For you demand that I bring a book written in Chaldean words into Latin writing, indeed the book of Tobias, which the Hebrews exclude from the catalogue of Divine Scriptures, being mindful of those things which they have titled Hagiographa. I have done enough for your desire, yet not by my study. For the studies of the Hebrews rebuke us and find fault with us, to translate this for the ears of Latins contrary to their canon. But it is better to be judging the opinion of the Pharisees to displease and to be subject to the commands of bishops.”

“Among the Hebrews the Book of Judith is found among the Hagiographa, the authority of which toward confirming those which have come into contention is judged less appropriate. Yet having been written in Chaldean words, it is counted among the histories. But because this book is found by the Nicene Council to have been counted among the number of the Sacred Scriptures, I have acquiesced to your request, indeed a demand, and works having been set aside from which I was forcibly curtailed, I have given to this (book) one short night’s work translating more sense from sense than word from word.” "

Jerome shows a turnaround in his opinion of the value of the deutero’s here. So you have to distinguish between three phases of Jerome’s opinion: something close to scorn and summary dismissal early in the project (because they’re not in Hebrew ), valuable non-Scriptural reading in the middle of the project (“so … one may read these two scrolls for the strengthening of the people, (but) not for confirming the authority of ecclesiastical dogmas”), and bowing to the opinion of the Church at the end of his task (“But because [Judith] is found by the Nicene Council to have been counted among the number of the Sacred Scriptures, I have acquiesced to your request, indeed a demand…”)

What we do know is, he only translated Tobit, Judith, the additions to Esther and Daniel. He never got around to the other books. (To be fair, it’s likely that most of the Latin NT are not his work either.)

The issue about Jerome was that ChurchMilitant asked for ANYONE from early Church history that referred to the 7 books in the Catholic OT as “Apocrypha” or didn’t consider them as being Inspired Scripture. The quote from Jerome demonstrated this, as well as quotes from other Catholic sources, including other “canonized saints.”

But this is really irrelevant, since this thread is about “since the Bible is the Word of God it is all we need…” not the canon of Scripture, which is why the mod “split” this topic, which can be found here:

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=12716641&postcount=12

So, from this point on, in order to adhere to forum rules, if we want to discuss the canon of Scripture, we need to only post on the above thread. And if we want to discuss this thread, we need to stick to the subject. Agreed?

 

[thetazlord]

The Jews divide the Tanakh into three sections: the Law (Torah), the Prophets (Nevi’im), and the Writings (Ketuvim). The Torah and the Nevi’im sections were likely fixed at an early date, hence the expression “the Law and the Prophets.” It was the Writings section which remained fluid and was fixed last. (In fact, the Writings section was considered to have one level less authority than that of prophecy.)

This isn’t completely true, since the Psalms (nearly half of them were written by King David, which were around 1000 years before the time of Christ, as well as Proverbs that were written by King Solomon, again, around 900+ years before Jesus, were part of the Ketuvim (or “Writings”).

It’s not coincidental that many of the books in the Writings section were the ones that were written last or had reached their ‘final editions’ last. (Many modern scholars especially would consider Esther and Daniel to have been written in or after the 2nd century BC (with editions appearing up to the 1st century AD), just roughly contemporary with the Deuterocanonical books.) When the later Rabbis discussed and debated as to which books ‘defile the hands’ (i.e. are sacred), what they were talking about are two books from this section: Ecclesiastes and Song of Songs.

Daniel was written by Daniel, which was written after the reign of King Nebuchanezzar, not the 2nd Century B.C. Same with Esther, which was most likely written by Mordecai, again, not 2nd Century B.C. I think you are thinking about the “additions” of Daniel that were written around the 1st Century B.C., which obviously couldn’t have been written by Daniel. Same with the “additions” of Esther.

In the Writings section are Psalms, Proverbs, Job, Song of Songs, Ruth, Lamentations, Ecclesiastes, Esther, Daniel, Ezra-Nehemiah, and 1-2 Chronicles. Not only are the exact order of the books in a fluid state (it’s true that Psalms is often placed first in many Jewish manuscripts, but the Babylonian Talmud (Baba Bathra 14b) lists them in the order Ruth-Psalms-Job-Proverbs-Ecclesiastes-Song of Songs-Lamentations-Daniel-Esther-Ezra (+ Nehemiah)-Chronicles," and the medieval

It still doesn’t change the fact that nearly half of the Psalms were written by King David, & Proverbs & Ecclesiastes were written by King Solomon, not during the 2nd Century B.C. It also doesn’t change the fact that Jesus Himself referred to the OT canon as “the Law…and the Prophets…and the Psalms” referring to ALL of them as “Scripture” (Luke 24:44-45). So, I’ll take Jesus’ “order” & THREE-fold division over the Babylonian Talmud.

You already know the longer Greek versions of Daniel and Esther, right?

Yeah, the longer ones included the “additions” of Daniel & Esther that weren’t written at the time Daniel wrote Daniel & the author of Esther wrote Esther. The “additions” were written centuries later.

There’s also the issue of Ezra-Nehemiah: there was also a Greek work which combined these two along with some original material and a little bit of Chronicles to form a single document. This is what is known as the Greek 1 Esdras. (The Greek 2 Esdras meanwhile is a straightforward mechanical translation of Ezra-Nehemiah.)

Combining Ezra-Nehemiah into one book doesn’t change the canon, just the grouping of it. It still contains the exact same words.

As for the Psalms, well, there were not always 150 of them. The Greek Septuagint contains an extra psalm (Psalm 151, acknowledged to be “outside the number”),

Yeah, & Psalm 151 was also in the Greek Septuagint. And the books in the Septuagint is what the Catholic church used to “canonize” their OT. So, why isn’t Psalm 151 in it, since it was in the Greek Septuagint?

(3) You have to take the Jewish tradition of ascribing the fixing of the canon to Ezra and “the men of the Great Assembly” with a grain of salt. AFAIK the first person to propose this was a 16th century German-Italian Jewish writer named Elia Levita, who in turn was building on the work of the 12th-13th century French rabbi David Kimhi. All the Talmud (the ultimate source for this idea) says is that the men of the Great Assembly are credited with the writing of Ezekiel, the Twelve Minor Prophets, Daniel and Esther (Baba Bathra 14-15a). (The Mishnaic concept of “the men of the Great Sanhedrin” acting as a main authority for Judaism is itself problematic historically - especially when checked with contemporary sources like Josephus, who seem to present a different picture - which is why many people no longer take the references to them in rabbinic literature at face value.

Did it ever occur to you that since JESUS HIMSELF referred divided the OT into a THREE-FOLD division (“Law…Prophets…Psalms”) that their “actual” source was Jesus Himself? After all, you still haven’t explained “why” Jesus “divided” the division of the Psalms from the Prophets, rather than simply calling the OT canon as “the Law & the Prophets” like He did elsewhere in Scripture.

Again, let’s stick to the topic of this thread (“since the Bible is the Word of God it is all we need…”) rather than the canon of Scripture. If you wish to discuss it, please refer to it here:

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=12716641&postcount=12

God bless!

 

[Gorgias]

BTW, the article about Elizabeth’s relationship with Mary is incorrect. The Greek word to describe their relationship in Luke 1:36 isn’t “syggenes” (with an “e”), but “syggenis” (with an “i”), which unlike syggenes can be translated “cousin,” which is why even on Vatican.va their relationship is described as being “cousins.”

I’m not really going to get into your whole rebuttal, but this part made me scratch my head. Are you really trying to convince us that the feminine form of συγγενής – that is, συγγενίς – means something different than its masculine form? That’s ludicrous. Yes, Elizabeth is συγγενίς – that is, a ‘kinswoman’ – because she’s a woman.

Also, are you really suggesting that the usage ‘cousin’ (as found in the New American Bible – which is the English-language translation provided on the Vatican website) is authoritative simply because it’s found on the Vatican’s site? How, then, would you explain the other translations in other languages there? How would you explain the translation ‘kinswoman’, found in the RSV-CE? How would you explain the translation ‘cognata’ (‘relative’) found in the Latin Vulgate?

You’re really grasping at straws with this one.

 

[Gorgias]

Then why does no Scripture writer, let alone Jesus Himself, use extra-biblical “traditions” to defend doctrine?

Can you expand on this assertion a bit? I’m confused about what you are implying with respect to ‘Scripture defending doctrine’.

Why is when Jesus corrected the Pharisees, he corrected their extra-biblical “traditions” with the Word of God (Matthew Ch 15)?

Because, as you continue to blithely ignore, Jesus was correcting one particular tradition “that nullified the word of God”. He didn’t say that all traditions nullify the word of God – in fact, He completely ignores the one that the Pharisees mentioned, in order to address the one that was bothering Him – but rather, simply points out what could be wrong in a tradition of the Pharisees.

Why Paul state that ALL Scripture is God-breathed, and not extra-biblical “traditions,”

Because he’s already asserted the veracity of non-Biblical teaching! He says, in 2 Tim 3:14 “But you, remain faithful to what you have learned and believed, because you know from whom you learned it”. Take a look at the cross-references in your Bible. He’s referring to 2 Tim 2:2 – “And what you heard from me through many witnesses”. You see, what Paul is actually doing here is making recourse to his own teaching of the people – before he appeals to the inspiration of the Scriptures! Thanks for helping us demonstrate to you the weakness of your own case.

Why is it that when extra-biblical “traditions” are mentioned in Scripture, they are viewed as being a negative thing, & never positive?

We’ve shown you many “extra-biblical traditions” that aren’t refuted by the Scriptures, and even shown that Jesus practiced them. Clearly, they’re “mentioned”. The ones that get our attention are the ones held up for scrutiny. Nevertheless, this is all a red herring. You continue to refuse to acknowledge that a “human tradition” (e.g., hand washing) is not what’s meant by the Church in its term “Sacred Tradition”, which simply refers to Apostolic Teaching. Until you do so, you can continue to tilt at your “human traditions” windmill all you like – but you’re not addressing Catholic teaching at all.

 

[ShanPO]

When I left Catholicism & started attending Protestant churches, that wasn’t something I was ever told. Any doctrinal question I had was immediately answered by strictly going to Scripture, which I was encouraged “NOT to just take their word for it, but to look into it for myself,” which I didn’t.

You typed that you “didn’t” but I’m going to assume that’s a typo and that you did look into things for yourself. What would have happened with your n-C brethren had you come to a conclusion that was completely opposite of what they held?

A thought experiment:

I read John 6:53 and conclude that Jesus really wants us to eat someone’s (the Son of Man) flesh and drink His blood.

You read the same thing and say “Nahhh, it’s a metaphor.”

How are we to determine who is right? You keep bringing up abortion and homosexual unions, when everyone here knows that most Christian denominations are opposed to those things. But by participating in the thought experiment above, we’re looking at an issue that happens daily, i.e. two conflicting beliefs from the same text.

Now, I would like to ask again, where did you get the authority to proclaim your definition, and no matter what you say, post 50 is YOUR definition (because there are others) is more right than any other one floating around out there?

 

[PRmerger]

In order to understand the THREE-fold division that Jesus referred to in Luke 24:44-45 (“the Law…the Prophets…and the Psalms”), you have to understand, historically prior to the time of Christ, that the Psalms was the first book of the “Writings” in that THIRD “division.” Proverbs followed Psalms, which was followed by Job. The TaNaKh later recognized this THIRD “division” Ketuvim (“The Writings”), which is how Jesus referred to it earlier in Luke Ch.24 ("…and ALL the “Scriptures” or “Writings.”)

And this means we exclude Sirach and Wisdom from the same category as Proverbs…why?

You seem to be making some weird arbitrary division (which Christ doesn’t make)…which means you are ADDING to Scripture (something you seem to reserve for yourself but object to in others)…by saying, “When Jesus says Psalms, he also means Proverbs, but not Sirach and Wisdom.”

Where, exactly, does Jesus say this?

Nowhere?

Well, then that’s ADDING to Scripture.