M
Mannyfit75
Guest
The authors of Roman Catholics and Evangelicals Chapter 9, says that the earliest Septuagint may not have the seven deuterocanonical books (same statement was also made by W. Webster). This claim is speculative and cannot be proved unless a manuscript of that period has been found. The available Septuagint manuscripts were produced by Christians but the inclusion of deuterocanonical books in Septuagint has been accepted even by prominent Protestant scholar F.F. Bruce. For comparison, the oldest existing manuscript of Hebrew Bible is that of Dead Sea scrolls; yet it does not include Esther. Thus if they are consistent, they should drop Esther from their Bible. The authors also wrote that no Greek manuscript has the same list with that of Trent, even Codex Vaticanus does not have Maccabees. Yet the difference in (earlier) list is not unexpected because councils at Carthage and Hippo are not ecumenical councils. The later Codex Alexandrinus of 5th century has all four Maccabees. It is worth to mention that the same also applies to New Testament books. There were different versions of New Testament books before and even after fourth century. If they can tolerate them, why they fail to do so for Old Testament canon? They (and also W. Webster) also argue that because the councils held in Hippo and Carthage were not ecumenical councils, then the decision is not binding on the whole church. Quite true, but ironically they have no problem in accepting the list of New Testament books declared by the same councils as binding. They did not realize that before Reformation, the issue of canon of Bible is not an issue that divided Christians. Even during Reformation, cardinal Cajetan of the Catholic Church (Luther’s opponent) did not consider deuterocanonical books as equal to the rest of Old Testament books. It became dividing issue during Reformation which prompted the (ecumenical) council of Trent to declare the limit of both Old and New Testament books. The same authors also said that the apocryphal books are not prophetic books unlike the other 39 books. They don’t bother to mention what kind of prophecy the book of Esther has. Esther and Song of Songs are the two Old Testament books where the name of God is not mentioned at all. They also said that Jewish teachers acknowledged that the prophetic line ended in the fourth century (page 168) in which they quoted supporting statement made by Josephus (in Against Apion) and other Jewish source. Yet it is ridiculous to rely on uncanonical book of non-Christian Josephus and of others to determine the limit of Christian canon. They quoted Rom 3:2 to support the decision of Jamnia council in 70 CE. If that what Paul meant, then why he (and other New Testament writers) quoted from non-biblical source like 2 Tim 3:8, Jude 9 and 14?. On page 171, they made the same mistake as W. Webster by stating that Cyril of Jerusalem and Origen rejected all apocryphal books. They also question why some books like Prayer of Manasseh were not accepted by Council of Trent (page 172). Those books were never accepted by earlier councils in Laodicea, Rome, Hippo and Carthage. In page 173, the authors wrote that the correct view of Canon should be “Church discovers Canon and is Child of Canon”, not “Church determines Canon and is Mother of Canon”. However, if (Catholic) Church discovered Canon then why she never included the Epistle from Laodicean mentioned in Col 4:16 (which Paul treated as equal to that to Colossians) as one book of New Testament? Saying that this epistle is equal to Paul epistle to Ephesians (some of its manuscript do not have “in Ephesus” in Eph 1:1) is speculative and cannot be proved (history shows only heretical Marcion in the second century treated epistle of Ephesian equal to Laodicean). If she is the daughter of Canon, why she existed even before New Testament books were written, which the authors also acknowledged?
In conclusion Catholics accept the authority of the Church, the foundation and pillar of truth (1 Tim 3:15) whom our Lord promised to be protected from gates of hades (Matthew 16:19) to determine the canon of Scripture, both Old and New Testaments.
In conclusion Catholics accept the authority of the Church, the foundation and pillar of truth (1 Tim 3:15) whom our Lord promised to be protected from gates of hades (Matthew 16:19) to determine the canon of Scripture, both Old and New Testaments.
