Who was the first ECF to reject the deutero's?

[Pwrlftr]

Where did you even get the notion that I was referring to Melito’s time? I was referring to your pet notion from another thread, which I see you still carry here on this thread.

I’m confused.

You don’t think the canon was settled in Melito’s time right?

I assume you believe that it was settled at either Carthage or Hippo, would that be correct?

 

[Pwrlftr]

Again, none mention hardly qualifies for a rejection. I have my own list of favourite songs, and I do fail to mention all of them in that list. Doesn’t mean the songs I left out weren’t my favourites (and considering I have a lot of favourites, it’s inevitable that I will leave out a number of them at one time or the other).

Why do you think he left the deutero’s off the list?

Also, what do you make of the Catholic Encyclopedia’s assertion that Melito:
a.) for lack of a better term, discerned his canon from the Jews of the time which rejected the deutero’s

b.) had a “restricted” canon

c.) limited his canon to only the protocanonical books

 

[sterryfamily]

Why do you think he left the deutero’s off the list?

Also, what do you make of the Catholic Encyclopedia’s assertion that Melito:
a.) for lack of a better term, discerned his canon from the Jews of the time which rejected the deutero’s

b.) had a “restricted” canon

c.) limited his canon to only the protocanonical books

Now we’re getting somewhere…

Answer: He was apparently contemplating what he personally thought should be included in the canon. Maybe even making a proposal for future discussion. He apparently consulted multiple authorities, including Jewish scholars at the time. However, it is only clear that he was presenting, as an answer to inquiry, what he used at the time.

I would speculate that;
a) The Church, in her infinite wisdom, understood why the Jews truncated the canon
b) She further understood the necessity to maintain use of the Septuagint that our Lord and the apostles used
c) St Melito would not have only acceded to her wisdom in these regards, but would have fully agreed once he understood it, too

 

[sterryfamily]

Milliardo gave a good example… When people debated the issue of Christ’s divinity/humanity, before any dogmatic definition - Does this mean that those with opposing arguments who were true to the Church REJECTED Christ’s divinity? Of course not. To question, debate, discuss, present ideas, AWAITING THE CHURCH’S FINAL DETERMINATION, does not equate to rejection.

I can tell you all day long that I believe the sky might be green tomorrow morning when we awake, rather than blue. But I will not reject the blue sky when it becomes clear to me. And my speculation is in no way a rejection of that possibility, either. I know it is not by my decree that the sky becomes green but, rather, by the facts. Just as Melito understood his decree does not determine the final canon.

 

[sterryfamily]

A Catholic trusts our Lord when He promised to send his Spirit to guide the Church into “all truth”.

 

[Pwrlftr]

Milliardo gave a good example… When people debated the issue of Christ’s divinity/humanity, before any dogmatic definition - Does this mean that those with opposing arguments who were true to the Church REJECTED Christ’s divinity? Of course not. To question, debate, discuss, present ideas, AWAITING THE CHURCH’S FINAL DETERMINATION, does not equate to rejection.

I can tell you all day long that I believe the sky might be green tomorrow morning when we awake, rather than blue. But I will not reject the blue sky when it becomes clear to me. And my speculation is in no way a rejection of that possibility, either. I know it is not by my decree that the sky becomes green but, rather, by the facts. Just as Melito understood his decree does not determine the final canon.

Sterry,

It has not been my intention to imply or insinuate that Melito or anyone else would not obey or listen to the church when the church spoke authoritatively. I have read your other posts but to be honest, I still don’t understand your rejection of my use of the term “reject”. Obviously you have tried to explain your position (several times) but I just don’t see it.

In your above example I would say that before you woke up in the morning you “rejected” the idea that the sky was blue. Your waking up and realizing that you were wrong doesn’t change the fact that you previously denied/rejected the idea that the sky was blue.

BTW, I am enjoying the more peaceful tone the thread has taken.

Thanks.

 

[Pwrlftr]

A Catholic trusts our Lord when He promised to send his Spirit to guide the Church into “all truth”.

I realize your position on you church’s authority and if one is catholic, your response is perfectly reasonable.

But, we both believe, at least to some degree, that doctrine develops. Our understanding of “develops” may be different but we both agree that some things were better understood with the passing of time.

The Holy Spirit guiding into “all truth” doesn’t mean that it happens or happened all at one time.

 

[Pwrlftr]

This better be good, or I will continue to remind you and everyone about what you are asserting here.

Why? Because there is NOTHING on Shea’s website even remotely close to your assertion that St Jerome did NOT accept the deurerocanon.

Robert

Robert,

Are you going to remind me and everyone about Mark Shea’s retraction? I wouldn’t want you to appear to be hypocritical.

For your reading pleasure:
markshea.blogspot.com/2006_06_01_markshea_archive.html#115048876537706683
Mark Shea:

I started writing about the Faith for the only reason anybody should write about stuff: because I found it very interesting. Soon, to my surprise, I found this whole subculture existed, not only of Catholic apologists, but of their various opponents, as well as a sort of growing cheer section for both. And I discovered (by experience) some of the problems that go with that.

Probably the most dangerous thing that goes with it is a curious sort of idolatry that can arise. The other day, I got a letter from somebody which read, in part:

Recently I came across a protestant web site of a Mr James Swan. He is extremely well educated regarding the writtings of Martin Luther. He has convincungly shown how our Catholic Apologists have taken quotes of Martin Luther out of context to try to show that he was a nutcase. It has really opened my eyes and it has got me wondering where else our Catholic Apologists have errored. Today on his blog, he posted an article which refutes your assertion that St Jerome, before he died, accepted the apocryopha as canonical. I am posting it below to give you a chance to respond. I hope you can. This bloq site has deeply disturbed me because Swan is shown many times where the Catholic Apologists that I have come to admire and learn from have been making serious errors in scholarship resulting in faulty conclusions. I have written Robert Sungenis, Scott hahn, Art Sippo etal to visit this blog and form some refutations if possible. I do not know if they have done so and it is really bugging me. Would you please take a look at James Swan’s blog (beggarsallreformation) because Catholic Appologists will be hearing from this guy soon and you had better be ready for him.

A number of things concern me about this note. But the first and foremost is that somebody’s faith could be disturbed by the fact that Catholic apologists have erred. But it’s not the first time I’ve encountered the tendency to anoint me or some other apologist as a sort of Alternative Magisterium to the real Magisterium by a “fan base” that is somewhere between a school of disciples and a cheer squad. It’s a very dangerous thing to do, because we apologists are not protected by the charism of infallibility in the slightest. In this case, for instance, ***from what I read of the critique of my article on the apocrypha in the materials forwarded me, it would appear that I did indeed misread Jerome (not wilfully, as the article suggests, but nonetheless erroneously). That is, it would appear that Jerome, although he did include the deuterocanon in his Vulgate, did so grudgingly and never really bought the idea they should be in the canon of Scripture. ***That’s the breaks. I make mistakes. It does not mean everything I’ve written is worthless, it doesn’t even mean that the central point of my article–that the only authority we have for canonizing Scripture is the Church and not some guy named Ray Aviles–is wrong. But it certainly does mean that St. Paul is emphatically right when he urges us “test everything, hold on to what is good.” I’m as prone as the next guy to passing on pseudo-knowledge. So are James Swan and Ray Aviles.

The above response from Mark was after Ray Aviles had read one of Mark’s articles in Envoy Magazine (I think it was Envoy) and posted a response at:

beggarsallreformation.blogspot.com/2006/06/guest-blogdid-jerome-change-his-mind.html

So, what do you think Robert?

 

[Pwrlftr]

Now we’re getting somewhere…

Answer: He was apparently contemplating what he personally thought should be included in the canon. Maybe even making a proposal for future discussion. He apparently consulted multiple authorities, including Jewish scholars at the time. However, it is only clear that he was presenting, as an answer to inquiry, what he used at the time.

Thanks Sterry.

I would speculate that;
a) The Church, in her infinite wisdom, understood why the Jews truncated the canon

I’m not sure that even if I were Catholic that I would say the church understood why the Jews used a “truncated” canon at this time in history. I believe the church was still working this out.

b) She further understood the necessity to maintain use of the Septuagint that our Lord and the apostles used

c) St Melito would not have only acceded to her wisdom in these regards, but would have fully agreed once he understood it, too

I don’t know for sure what Melito would or wouldn’t have done but your above assertion is certainly reasonable if not probable.

 

[Pwrlftr]

Again, none mention hardly qualifies for a rejection. I have my own list of favourite songs, and I do fail to mention all of them in that list. Doesn’t mean the songs I left out weren’t my favourites (and considering I have a lot of favourites, it’s inevitable that I will leave out a number of them at one time or the other).

So why do you think he left them out?

Also how do you explain the Catholic Encyclopedia’s explanation:
a.) Melito got the canon he used from the Jews (in Palestine?) who rejected the deutero’s.

b.) Melito had a RESTRICTED canon. What might “restricted” mean?

c.) Melito used only the protocanonicals in his list of the canon minus Esther.

 

[Pwrlftr]

Please stop saying this. I’ll post this again from St. Jerome on the topic. He did NOT reject the deuterocanon:

See post 146 and let me know what you think.

 

[Pwrlftr]

Pwrlftr:

Rbt Southwell:

This better be good, or I will continue to remind you and everyone about what you are asserting here.

Why? Because there is NOTHING on Shea’s website even remotely close to your assertion that St Jerome did NOT accept the deurerocanon.

Robert

Robert,

Are you going to remind me and everyone about Mark Shea’s retraction? I wouldn’t want you to appear to be hypocritical.

For your reading pleasure:
markshea.blogspot.com/2006_06…87653770668 3
Mark Shea:

I started writing about the Faith for the only reason anybody should write about stuff: because I found it very interesting. Soon, to my surprise, I found this whole subculture existed, not only of Catholic apologists, but of their various opponents, as well as a sort of growing cheer section for both. And I discovered (by experience) some of the problems that go with that.

Probably the most dangerous thing that goes with it is a curious sort of idolatry that can arise. The other day, I got a letter from somebody which read, in part:

Recently I came across a protestant web site of a Mr James Swan. He is extremely well educated regarding the writtings of Martin Luther. He has convincungly shown how our Catholic Apologists have taken quotes of Martin Luther out of context to try to show that he was a nutcase. It has really opened my eyes and it has got me wondering where else our Catholic Apologists have errored. Today on his blog, he posted an article which refutes your assertion that St Jerome, before he died, accepted the apocryopha as canonical. I am posting it below to give you a chance to respond. I hope you can. This bloq site has deeply disturbed me because Swan is shown many times where the Catholic Apologists that I have come to admire and learn from have been making serious errors in scholarship resulting in faulty conclusions. I have written Robert Sungenis, Scott hahn, Art Sippo etal to visit this blog and form some refutations if possible. I do not know if they have done so and it is really bugging me. Would you please take a look at James Swan’s blog (beggarsallreformation) because Catholic Appologists will be hearing from this guy soon and you had better be ready for him.

A number of things concern me about this note. But the first and foremost is that somebody’s faith could be disturbed by the fact that Catholic apologists have erred. But it’s not the first time I’ve encountered the tendency to anoint me or some other apologist as a sort of Alternative Magisterium to the real Magisterium by a “fan base” that is somewhere between a school of disciples and a cheer squad. It’s a very dangerous thing to do, because we apologists are not protected by the charism of infallibility in the slightest. In this case, for instance, from what I read of the critique of my article on the apocrypha in the materials forwarded me, it would appear that I did indeed misread Jerome (not wilfully, as the article suggests, but nonetheless erroneously). That is, it would appear that Jerome, although he did include the deuterocanon in his Vulgate, did so grudgingly and never really bought the idea they should be in the canon of Scripture. That’s the breaks. I make mistakes. It does not mean everything I’ve written is worthless, it doesn’t even mean that the central point of my article–that the only authority we have for canonizing Scripture is the Church and not some guy named Ray Aviles–is wrong. But it certainly does mean that St. Paul is emphatically right when he urges us “test everything, hold on to what is good.” I’m as prone as the next guy to passing on pseudo-knowledge. So are James Swan and Ray Aviles.

The above response from Mark was after Ray Aviles had read one of Mark’s articles in Envoy Magazine (I think it was Envoy) and posted a response at:

beggarsallreformation.blogspo…-his-mind.html

So, what do you think Robert?

BUMP for Mr. Robert.

 

[Pwrlftr]

Ah, you come back to your pet notion, which in the other thread time and again has been debunked; all you have to show us is this and that person did not agree to the canon. Hardly argument to say the canon was not fixed at that point. Until now people argue as to whether Christ is divine or not; by such an analogy then, Christ’s divinity must not be fixed nor certain, yet no serious Christian would think of that notion. Curiously though, you apply this criterion of some people questioning the canon as somehow evidence it is not yet fixed. We could go on with this to show how flawed your notion stands, but I would think one example should suffice to show the flaw of your argument.

I have gone back and re-read our interaction on this subject and you have a few mis-conceptions.

First, I have argued that the canon was not “settled” at the time of Carthage or Hippo. I don’t recall using the term “fixed” as you do above. Even so, “fixed” would definitely not be an accurate term bcause it is a fact that the canon of Trent does not match up exactly with that of Hippo and Carthage. If the canon was “fixed” there would have to be no differences and as we know, that isn’t the case.

Secondly, it’s not my contention that the canon wasn’t settled because of “X” number of people rejected the deutero’s after Carthage and Hippo. It is my contention that neither Carthage or Hippo were ecumenical councils (they were provincial) and therefore the decision at these councils (or any council earlier than Trent) was not binding because the earlier councils didn’t have the authority to settle the canon for the church as a whole.

When one looks at the evidence it seems to me to be very difficult to say that the canon was “settled”.

But, let’s look as the Merriam Webster definition of settled to see what our difficulty may be:
Merriam Webster:

va=settled
One entry found.

settle[1,verb]

Main Entry: 1set·tle
Pronunciation: \ˈse-təl\
Function: verb
Inflected Form(s): set·tled; set·tling \ˈset-liŋ, ˈse-təl-iŋ\
Etymology: Middle English, to seat, bring to rest, come to rest, from Old English setlan, from setl seat
Date: 1515
transitive verb
1: to place so as to stay
2 a: to establish in residence b: to furnish with inhabitants : colonize
3 a: to cause to pack down b: to clarify by causing dregs or impurities to sink4: to make quiet or orderly
5 a: to fix or resolve conclusively b: to establish or secure permanently c: to conclude (a lawsuit) by agreement between parties usually out of court d: to close (as an account) by payment often of less than is due
6: to arrange in a desired position
7: to make or arrange for final disposition of
8of an animal : impregnate
intransitive verb
1: to come to rest
2 a: to sink gradually or to the bottom b: to become clear by the deposit of sediment or scum c: to become compact by sinking
3 a: to become fixed, resolved, or established b: to establish a residence or colony —often used with down
4 a: to become quiet or orderly b: to take up an ordered or stable life —often used with down
5 a: to adjust differences or accounts b: to come to a decision —used with on or upon c: to conclude a lawsuit by agreement out of court
6of an animal : conceive

Maybe our differences are due to semantics?

In the above definition I highlighted those definitions of “settled” that support what I am saying in red and those that support what you are apparently saying in blue.

Obviously definitions 1 and 5 can’t apply to the earlier councils because they don’t match the dogmatic listing of the canon given at Trent.

I guess you could say defintions 3 and 6 would apply to the canon being settled at the earlier councils.

 

[Rbt_Southwell]

Robert,

So, what do you think Robert?

Oh gee, I think my bubble has burst! I thought Mark Shea was the ONE, TRUE VOICE of what the Church taught, just like St Jerome!

Instead, it is Jas White and Ray Aviles and Jas Swan who are infallible on matters canonical!

Shucks! And I was having so much fun watching you in print deny the obvious (from folks like sterryfamily, milliardo and others) with “I don’t see it,” and throwing in the word “reject” when it isn’t there.

Don’t give up, powerlifter, keep changing the premise, you might find the answer you need, although, for the record, [and this is to make sure you understand]

St Jerome translated the Vulgate (Latin being the lingua franca of the late Empire and Church) including the Deuterocanon and the ONLY Christian Church at the time (what we now call the Catholic Church) through its teaching and Tradition (the Divine Liturgy) accepted it as the CANON of Holy Scripture.

All the other verbal machinations and histrionics about ECFs “rejecting” this book or those books are logorrhea.

Robert

 

[Milliardo]

I’m confused.

You don’t think the canon was settled in Melito’s time right?

First, which canon are you talking about? The whole Bible itself? The New Testament? The Old Testament? St. Melito’s time was around the late 100s, which any Christian who knows his early Church history will find that at that point, the Bible as we know now simply does not exist yet. The most at that time anyone had for a compilation, if I am correct, would be Marcion’s, which only had a heavily edited version of Luke plus a few Pauline epistles.

It is my contention that neither Carthage or Hippo were ecumenical councils (they were provincial) and therefore the decision at these councils (or any council earlier than Trent) was not binding because the earlier councils didn’t have the authority to settle the canon for the church as a whole.

Yes, we’ve been through this discussion in the other thread before; I have shown there that the bishops in Carthage did send out copies of their canon to the various Patriarchates and bishops for them to get their assessment and approval; that none disapproved and indeed the canon was adopted by the Church shows that, even if the Council was local, the subsequent action of seeking the other bishops’ assent and the adoption of the canon already made it binding. There was already a universal accord after the Council.

Secondly, it’s not my contention that the canon wasn’t settled because of “X” number of people rejected the deutero’s after Carthage and Hippo.

Unfortunately, your previous posts here and in the other thread makes that quite clear–your reasoning goes thus: since X number of people reject or question the canon, then the canon wasn’t settled then. And in which you produce then quotes from these said people, as if producing them is proof of anything. Like I posted in the other thread, let’s look at what the Church as a whole did–what was its response to these objections? Did it call for a revision of the canon? Any move to delete certain books from it? If there’s none, then what does that imply?

 

[Pwrlftr]

Oh gee, I think my bubble has burst! I thought Mark Shea was the ONE, TRUE VOICE of what the Church taught, just like St Jerome!

Do you do anything other than rant? Anyway, I never said Mark Shea was the one true voice, Nor did I ever say Jerome was the one true voice.

BTW, I am guessing you are busying yourself letting everyone know Mark Shea made an error, right? I know you wouldn’t want to be thought of as hypocritical, right?

Since you had the nerve to post the following
"Robert:

This better be good, or I will continue to remind you and everyone about what you are asserting here.

Why? Because there is NOTHING on Shea’s website even remotely close to your assertion that St Jerome did NOT accept the deurerocanon.

I would have expected a “Hey, you were right” but you did nothing but rant some more.

Instead, it is Jas White and Ray Aviles and Jas Swan who are infallible on matters canonical!

More ranting.

Shucks! And I was having so much fun watching you in print deny the obvious (from folks like sterryfamily, milliardo and others) with “I don’t see it,” and throwing in the word “reject” when it isn’t there.

Robert,

I asked you these questions before and I don’t think you ever answered. Let’s see if you can answer them now (I can hardly wait for this):
A.) Why did Melito leave out the deutero’s in his list of the canon?

B.) Do you have any information that suggests he accepted the deutero’s?

C.) What do you make of the Catholic Encyclopedia’s assertion that Melito received the canon of the OT from the Jews who had rejected the deutero’s?

D.) What of the Catholic Encyclopedia’s assertion that he had a restricted canon? In what sense was it restricted?

E.) What of the Catholic Encyclopedia’s assertion that Melito limited his canon to the proto-canonical books minus Esther? BTW, you can use “modern” terms to describe events from the past.

Don’t give up, powerlifter, keep changing the premise, you might find the answer you need, although, for the record, [and this is to make sure you understand]

St Jerome translated the Vulgate (Latin being the lingua franca of the late Empire and Church) including the Deuterocanon and the ONLY Christian Church at the time (what we now call the Catholic Church) through its teaching and Tradition (the Divine Liturgy) accepted it as the CANON of Holy Scripture.

All the other verbal machinations and histrionics about ECFs “rejecting” this book or those books are logorrhea.

Robert

I thought that I had stated this before but I guess you missed it. I never said Jerome didn’t put the deutero’s in the vulgate. Did I ever say that Jerome threw the deutero’s out of the vulgate? If so, where (what post)?

I did say that Jerome also rejected the deutero’s and I have never heard anyone other than a few overzealous catholic posters even britstle over that fact because it’s common knowledge.

The vulgate included Jerome’s commentary to each of the deutero’s where he clearly rejected the canonical status of each of those books.

Also, who’s word shoud I take, Mark Shea, Gary Michuta, the Catholic Encyclopedia, Robert Sungenis, Mitch Pacwa and others or yours?

 

[Pwrlftr]

Yes, we’ve been through this discussion in the other thread before; I have shown there that the bishops in Carthage did send out copies of their canon to the various Patriarchates and bishops for them to get their assessment and approval; that none disapproved and indeed the canon was adopted by the Church shows that, even if the Council was local, the subsequent action of seeking the other bishops’ assent and the adoption of the canon already made it binding. There was already a universal accord after the Council.

I have a few questions I would like for you to answer:
1.) If the canons of Carthage and Hippo were binding on the whole church than why does the Catholic Encyclopedia say that "The Tridentine decrees from which the above list is extracted was the first infallible and effectually promulgated pronouncement on the Canon, addressed to the Church Universal. " I apologize if you have already answered this but if you did, I don’t rememer it. How can Trent be the first if Carthage and Hippo were first?

2.) If the decision at Carthage and Hippo were binding, why did Trent modify it slightly by passing over in silence on the canonicity of 1 Esdras? Why would Trent change something that was binding from the earlier councils?

 

[Pwrlftr]

Robert,

I have gone back and checked your contributions to this thread. Other than insulting me, you really haven’t added a whole lot but I thought I would give you one more chance concerning Melito. Please lend your brilliant apologetic skills to the following discussion.

Here is what we know of Melito so far:

Melito:

Melito, to his brother Onesimus, greeting: Since thou hast often, in thy zeal for the word, expressed a wish to have extracts made from the Law and the Prophets concerning the Saviour, and concerning our entire faith, and hast also desired to have an accurate statement of the ancient book, as regards their number and their order, I have endeavored to perform the task, knowing thy zeal for the faith, and thy desire to gain information in regard to the word, and knowing that thou in thy yearning after God, esteemeth these things above all else, struggling to attain eternal salvation. Accordingly when I came East and came to the place where these things were preached and done, I learned accurately the books of the Old Testament, and send them to thee as written below. Their names are as follows: Of Moses, five books: Genesis, Exodus, Numbers, Leviticus, Deuteronomy; Jesus Nave, Judges, Ruth; of Kings, four books; of Chronicles, two; the Psalms of David, the Proverbs of Solomon, Wisdom also, Ecclesiastes, Song of Songs, Job; of Prophets, Isaiah, Jeremiah; of the twelve prophets, one book; Daniel, Ezekiel, Esdras.

NPNF2, Vol. 1, Eusebius, Church History IV.26.13-14.

We also have from the Cathlic Encyclopedia
CE:

St. Melito, Bishop of Sardis (c. 170), first drew up a list of the canonical books of the Old Testament While maintaining the familiar arrangement of the Septuagint, he says that he verified his catalogue by inquiry among Jews; Jewry by that time had everywhere discarded the Alexandrian books, and **Melito’s Canon consists exclusively of the protocanonicals **minus Esther.

a.) Do you see anything in either quote that leads you to believe that Melito accepted the deutero’s as canonical? If so where?

b.) Do you have any reason to doubt the quote from Eusebius? If so, why do you doubt it? BTW, the fact that it isn’t a primary source isn’t a very good reason in and of itself.

c.) Do you have any reason to doubt the work of the Catholic Encyclopedia (it’s not infallible is guess so it could be mistaken)? If so, why do you doubt it?

d.) Do you understand what the protocanonicals are? If you don’t, for the sake of our discussion, they don’t include the deutero’s.

e.) What exactly is it that is ambiguous concerning the canon that Melito used in the above two quotes?

f.) Do you have any information from a source that you can provide that states Melito accepted the deutero’s?

I will be impressed if you can answer all six of the above questions without ranting or insulting me. I am anxiously awaiting your reply.

 

[Pwrlftr]

Milliardo,

My position is that Melito did not include the deutero’s in his canon. To me that is synonymous with his “rejection” of the deutero’s but that seems to drive some posters over the edge so for this post I will refrain from using the dreaded “r” word.

Your responses about Melito have been as follows, and I may have missed one or two but I think the following is a representative sampling:

Milliardo:

I agree with this (forgive me if I have not read the subsequent exchanges regarding this, if any), but reading the quote from Eusebius, there is no indication that St. Melito rejected the deuterocanonicals. He did not mention them; it does not follow he rejected them. Same way that I would not mention in my listing of Presidents, say, Bush, that I do not consider him to be have become President. Again, it does not follow.

Milliardo:

Neither did he think of them as non-canonical; where is the basic evidence that tells us this? Quotes, anything? Aside from Eusebius’s.

Milliardo:

Again, none mention hardly qualifies for a rejection. I have my own list of favourite songs, and I do fail to mention all of them in that list. Doesn’t mean the songs I left out weren’t my favourites (and considering I have a lot of favourites, it’s inevitable that I will leave out a number of them at one time or the other).

Now, you haven’t really interacted with much of what I have said with Melito and I would like to give you that chance.

Here is what we know of Melito so far:

Melito:

Melito, to his brother Onesimus, greeting: Since thou hast often, in thy zeal for the word, expressed a wish to have extracts made from the Law and the Prophets concerning the Saviour, and concerning our entire faith, and hast also desired to have an accurate statement of the ancient book, as regards their number and their order, I have endeavored to perform the task, knowing thy zeal for the faith, and thy desire to gain information in regard to the word, and knowing that thou in thy yearning after God, esteemeth these things above all else, struggling to attain eternal salvation. Accordingly when I came East and came to the place where these things were preached and done, I learned accurately the books of the Old Testament, and send them to thee as written below. Their names are as follows: Of Moses, five books: Genesis, Exodus, Numbers, Leviticus, Deuteronomy; Jesus Nave, Judges, Ruth; of Kings, four books; of Chronicles, two; the Psalms of David, the Proverbs of Solomon, Wisdom also, Ecclesiastes, Song of Songs, Job; of Prophets, Isaiah, Jeremiah; of the twelve prophets, one book; Daniel, Ezekiel, Esdras.

NPNF2, Vol. 1, Eusebius, Church History IV.26.13-14.

We also have from the Cathlic Encyclopedia
CE:

St. Melito, Bishop of Sardis (c. 170), first drew up a list of the canonical books of the Old Testament While maintaining the familiar arrangement of the Septuagint, he says that he verified his catalogue by inquiry among Jews; Jewry by that time had everywhere discarded the Alexandrian books, and Melito’s Canon consists exclusively of the protocanonicals minus Esther.

a.) Do you see anything in either quote that leads you to believe that Melito accepted the deutero’s as canonical? If so where?

b.) Do you have any reason to doubt the quote from Eusebius? If so, why do you doubt it? BTW, the fact that it isn’t a primary source isn’t a very good reason in and of itself.

c.) Do you have any reason to doubt the work of the Catholic Encyclopedia (it’s not infallible is guess so it could be mistaken)? If so, why do you doubt it?

d.) Do you understand what the protocanonicals are? If you don’t, for the sake of our discussion, they don’t include the deutero’s.

e.) What exactly is it that is ambiguous concerning the canon that Melito used in the above two quotes?

f.) Do you have any information from a source that you can provide that states Melito accepted the deutero’s?

Thanks in advance for your answers.

 

[Pwrlftr]

Powerlifter:

If the Pope declares something to be binding upon the Universal Church, it is binding. (psst, it’s in the Bible)

If the Pope declares the canon to be binding, then it is dogma.

This is a matter of Faith and Morals.

It is NOT a matter of discipline (like a celibate priesthood or no meat on Fridays or saying the Rosary).

Robert

Robert,

Based on your above post I have the same question for you that I had for Milliardo:

I have a few questions I would like for you to answer:
1.) If the canons of Carthage and Hippo were binding on the whole church than why does the Catholic Encyclopedia say that "The Tridentine decrees from which the above list is extracted was the first infallible and effectually promulgated pronouncement on the Canon, addressed to the Church Universal. " I apologize if you have already answered this but if you did, I don’t rememer it. How can Trent be the first if Carthage and Hippo were first? I have asked this before but I don’t recall you answering.

2.) If the decision at Carthage and Hippo were binding, why did Trent modify it slightly by passing over in silence on the canonicity of 1 Esdras? Why would Trent change something that was binding from the earlier councils?