The society after Martin Luther

[JoeyWarren]

Contarini:

can’t see that the deuterocanonicals are worth fighting over one way or the other.

I do since I have do deal with people that actually believe that if a Bible contains these books then it is a Satanic Bible because they believe we have added to the Bible.

I could actually say the same of the NIV version is a Satanic Bible because entire verses are taken out of the body of the scripture and put into footnotes.

 

[IanS]

Contarini:

The fact seems to be that the 73-book canon was a Western idea until relatively late.

Well, I guess if you consider the year 392AD to be relatively late. I challenge you to show me one Bible written before the year 1500 that does NOT contain the deuterocanonicals.

Contarini:

All I’m arguing for is a bit of flexibility. I can’t see that the deuterocanonicals are worth fighting over one way or the other. Let’s include them in the canon but not put too much weight on them for dogmatic purposes. My main target is the idea held by many on both sides that there must be some utterly clear, unquestionably reliable standard for determining these things or else all will collapse into chaos. The early Church worked in a much less rigid manner.

Edwin

So do you agree that there should be an authoritative body over Sacred Scripture to determine, under the guide of the Holy Spirit, what is inspired and what is not? The “Inspired Word of God” is always worth fighting for. Every last letter of it! To kick any of God’s own Word into the trash heap is to kick God himself into the trash heap.

 

[Contarini]

IanS:

Well, I guess if you consider the year 392AD to be relatively late.

Of course it is–the Church’s history by that time was considerably longer than all of U.S. history (not counting the colonial era–though the periods are comparable in length, depending on when you’re counting from in the case of Church history). This is part of the problem in Catholic-Protestant dialogues about the early Church. Protestants tend to see the earlier Fathers as having more authority than the later ones. Catholics tend to lump them all together.

I challenge you to show me one Bible written before the year 1500 that does NOT contain the deuterocanonicals.

Why would I want to do that? I’m not arguing for excluding them altogether. I’m pointing out that their exact status was debated.

It is worth noting that the earliest manuscripts of the Bible known to us (Sinaiticus, Vaticanus, Alexandrinus) usually include several books no one considers canonical today. Sinaiticus has Barnabas and Hermas; Alexandrinus has 3 and 4 Maccabees, Psalm 151, and the two Epistles of Clement (and apparently once included the Psalms of Solomon).

I think the fairest way of describing the early Church’s canon is to say that it included a core of books everyone recognized and a bunch of books that were floating around in different manuscripts but whose status was not quite determined. My argument is that differences about the status of these books are not of primary importance.

So do you agree that there should be an authoritative body over Sacred Scripture to determine, under the guide of the Holy Spirit, what is inspired and what is not?

I agree with Vatican II and the Catechism of the Catholic Church that there should be no such thing–that the Church is not over the Word of God (whether in written or unwritten form), but is rather the servant of the Word.

I agree that we are dependent on the historic witness of the Church for the canon of Scripture. Which is not the same thing as the blasphemous suggestion that the Church is “over” Sacred Scripture.

The “Inspired Word of God” is always worth fighting for. Every last letter of it! To kick any of God’s own Word into the trash heap is to kick God himself into the trash heap.

When have I suggested kicking anything into the trash heap? I don’t generally kick things into trash heaps–with the exception of pornography, junk mail, and Chick tracts.

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

JoeyWarren:

I do since I have do deal with people that actually believe that if a Bible contains these books then it is a Satanic Bible because they believe we have added to the Bible.

And I’m entirely on your side over against those people. I grew up around folks like that and I understand what you are up against. My purpose on this board is to articulate a rather different kind of Protestant position, to show you that fundamentalists aren’t the only voices out there.

I could actually say the same of the NIV version is a Satanic Bible because entire verses are taken out of the body of the scripture and put into footnotes.

And the real fundamentalists would agree with you. There’s a hilarious book by one Gail Riplinger called New Age Bible Versions which argues that the NIV (and every other version except for the KJV, but the NIV is her particular target because it’s so popular among evangelicals) is Satanic.

Edwin

 

[GKC]

Thanks for the opportunity. And sorry for the delay; I’ve been at work.

The example you tried to make, in the post I first replied to, wasn’t compelling, ar best, but for it to work at all, you have to show an etymological link between diao, and “denominate/denomination”. I don’t have to show the opposite. But I think I can.

The first link, of *diao * with demon is speculative, not certain, as the CE article says (and diabolus is an entirely different word). And for your point to be valid, daemonium must have an invariably invidious meaning. As the CE article shows, it doesn’t. Both points mitigate against your metaphor. But most fatally, you have to show a etymological link between daio/demon and denominate, not just a logical one, that of naming things after they are divided. And you can’t, as far as I know. The origin of “denomination” lies in the verb “to name”, as stated, and only begins with the same letter, (d), because the preposition (de) does. It certainly refers to naming, in the case of a fraction, the naming of the number of parts into which the whole is divided, as the numerator gives the number of such parts in that particular fraction. But, like the term “denominate number”, the point is the name.

And I don’t necessarily disagree with your larger point. Just that you haven’t supported it by your post.

GKC

IanS:

I don’t disagree with you here. Once the whole has been broken apart it must be labeled, designated (denominated) or given a value. For instance, let’s say that the whole of all currency in the United States has the value 100,000,000,000. Once that whole has been broken apart (divided) each part must be given a denomination or value, $100, $50, $20, $5, $1.

de•nom•i•nate ( P ) Pronunciation Key (d-nm-nt)
tr.v. de•nom•i•nat•ed, de•nom•i•nat•ing, de•nom•i•nates

1.To issue or express in terms of a given monetary unit: securities that are denominated in dollars or yen.
2.To give a name to; designate.

You are going to have a hard time convincing me that there is no correlation between daio, denominator, denominate, and denomination.

I think we are getting way off subject here. So I’ll let you have the last word on this if you want.