Why did the RCC change the Bible?

[Steadfast]

If you would just scroll up the page and read the post I wrote which started this thread, you’ll see my “proof”.

Now, I don’t have pictures or film of Jerome refusing to include them, and I don’t have an email or a voicemail message from him, but I do have the documented opinion of a renowned scholar of ancient texts.

This will have to suffice until you, or another Catholic can provide another outstanding scholar who says otherwise.

Thanks,

Mike

Excuse me? You started a thread asserting that the Catholic Church added books to “the Bible”. It is entirely your obligation to prove that the Church added books to “the Bible”. Not to a Bible, but “the Bible”, meaning, obviously, the authoritative canon. Show us an authoritative canon taught by the Church that did not include the deuterocanonical books. You cannot, because none has ever existed.

As to Trent, if you want to claim that the deuterocanonicals were never dogmatically added to the canon until Trent, fine, but then neither were any of the gospels or epistles. Where does that leave you?

 

[Steadfast]

Correct. Actually, the term “deuterocanonical”, or “other canon”, refers to the “list” from which the Protestants, particularly Luther, drew their books. It was established after the destruction of Massada by the Romans that certain books (notably the 7 books of the “Apocrypha”) were not acceptable to JEWISH theologians and were therefore left out of the canon. It was from this “synod” of rabbis and elders that Luther drew his inspiration for the “correct” version of the Bible, the KJV.

And, evidently Luther was in very good company, Jerome having held this opinion before him.

And here is the difference between them:

Where Luther is often charged (falsely) with omitting books from the Bible, Jerome actually did it.

 

[NotWorthy]

And, evidently Luther was in very good company, Jerome having held this opinion before him.

** And here is the difference between them:
**
Where Luther is often charged (falsely) with omitting books from the Bible, Jerome actually did it.

No, no, no.

And here is the difference between them:
Whereas Luther disagreed with the Catholic Church and started a church of his own, Jerome realized the authority of the Catholic Church and bowed to Papal Authority. Jerome included the Deuterocanonicals despite any opinion he held to the contrary.

 

[VociMike]

If you would just scroll up the page and read the post I wrote which started this thread, you’ll see my “proof”.

Now, I don’t have pictures or film of Jerome refusing to include them, and I don’t have an email or a voicemail message from him, but I do have the documented opinion of a renowned scholar of ancient texts.

This will have to suffice until you, or another Catholic can provide another outstanding scholar who says otherwise.

Your proof proves nothing. As I made clear, when you talk about “the Bible” you are talking about the canon of scripture. So once again I invite you to show an authoritative canon of scripture that does not include the deuterocanonicals. That, and that alone, will prove your contention.

And, as has been pointed out, the Eastern Church has these books in their canon too, and they don’t do Latin.

 

[NotWorthy]

Steadfast,

Even if there are no Bibles left from this time that show this “progression” of Deutero’s returning to the Vulgate, there would be letters from within the Church that would be questioning this.

*“Why doesn’t Jerome’s Canon match our Greek Canon”?

“Why doesn’t our Church’s Vulgate match the Canon of the Vulgate at Smyrna”?

*The Church has long used this technique to study whether ECF’s writings were part of Church Doctrine or Heretical works. Is there any proof with Dr. de Hamel that such writings exist as to question this “rebirth” of the deutero’s?

 

[inJESUS]

And here are some of the quotations
from the Deuterocanon in the New Testament

Matt. 2:16 - Herod’s decree of slaying innocent children was prophesied in Wis. 11:7 - slaying the holy innocents.

Matt. 6:19-20 - Jesus’ statement about laying up for yourselves treasure in heaven follows Sirach 29:11 - lay up your treasure.

Matt… 7:12 - Jesus’ golden rule “do unto others” is the converse of Tobit 4:15 - what you hate, do not do to others.

Matt. 7:16,20 - Jesus’ statement “you will know them by their fruits” follows Sirach 27:6 - the fruit discloses the cultivation.

Matt. 9:36 - the people were “like sheep without a shepherd” is same as Judith 11:19 - sheep without a shepherd.

Matt. 11:25 - Jesus’ description “Lord of heaven and earth” is the same as Tobit 7:18 - Lord of heaven and earth.

Matt. 12:42 - Jesus refers to the wisdom of Solomon which was recorded and made part of the deuterocanonical books.

Matt. 16:18 - Jesus’ reference to the “power of death” and “gates of Hades” references Wisdom 16:13.

Matt. 22:25; Mark 12:20; Luke 20:29 - Gospel writers refer to the canonicity of Tobit 3:8 and 7:11 regarding the seven brothers.

Matt. 24:15 - the “desolating sacrilege” Jesus refers to is also taken from 1 Macc. 1:54 and 2 Macc. 8:17.

Matt. 24:16 - let those “flee to the mountains” is taken from 1 Macc. 2:28.

Matt. 27:43 - if He is God’s Son, let God deliver him from His adversaries follows Wisdom 2:18.

Mark 4:5,16-17 - Jesus’ description of seeds falling on rocky ground and having no root follows Sirach 40:15.

Mark 9:48 - description of hell where their worm does not die and the fire is not quenched references Judith 16:17.

Luke 1:42 - Elizabeth’s declaration of Mary’s blessedness above all women follows Uzziah’s declaration in Judith 13:18.

Luke 1:52 - Mary’s magnificat addressing the mighty falling from their thrones and replaced by lowly follows Sirach 10:14.

Luke 2:29 - Simeon’s declaration that he is ready to die after seeing the Child Jesus follows Tobit 11:9.

Luke 13:29 - the Lord’s description of men coming from east and west to rejoice in God follows Baruch 4:37.

Luke 21:24 - Jesus’ usage of “fall by the edge of the sword” follows Sirach 28:18.

Luke 24:4 and Acts 1:10 - Luke’s description of the two men in dazzling apparel reminds us of 2 Macc. 3:26.

John 1:3 - all things were made through Him, the Word, follows Wisdom 9:1.

John 3:13 - who has ascended into heaven but He who descended from heaven references Baruch 3:29.

John 4:48; Acts 5:12; 15:12; 2 Cor. 12:12 - Jesus’, Luke’s and Paul’s usage of “signs and wonders” follows Wisdom 8:8.

John 5:18 - Jesus claiming that God is His Father follows Wisdom 2:16.

John 6:35-59 - Jesus’ Eucharistic discourse is foreshadowed in Sirach 24:21.

John 10:22 - the identification of the feast of the dedication is taken from 1 Macc. 4:59.

John 15:6 - branches that don’t bear fruit and are cut down follows Wis. 4:5 where branches are broken off.

Yes…there’s more too.

why still arguing? these quotes are clear enough to all.

 

[inJESUS]

Wis 2:12 Let us, therefore, lie in wait for the just, because he is not for our turn, and he is contrary to our doings, and upbraideth us with transgressions of the law, and divulgeth against us the sins of our way of life.
Wis 2:13 He boasteth that he hath the knowledge of God, and calleth himself the son of God.
Wis 2:14 He is become a censurer of our thoughts.
Wis 2:15 He is grievous unto us, even to behold: for his life is not like other men’s, and his ways are very different.
Wis 2:16 We are esteemed by him as triflers, and he abstaineth from our ways as from filthiness, and he preferreth the latter end of the just, and glorieth that he hath God for his father.
Wis 2:17 Let us see then if his words be true, and let us prove what shall happen to him, and we shall know what his end shall be.
Wis 2:18 For if he be the true son of God, he will defend him, and will deliver him from the hands of his enemies.
Wis 2:19 Let us examine him by outrages and tortures, that we may know his meekness, and try his patience.
Wis 2:20 Let us condemn him to a most shameful death: for there shall be respect had unto him by his words.
Wis 2:21 These things they thought, and were deceived: for their own malice blinded them.
Wis 2:22 And they knew not the secrets of God, nor hoped for the wages of justice, nor esteemed the honour of holy souls.

(man! I LOVE this e-sword program!)

wooow what a passage!

 

[NotWorthy]

why still arguing? these quotes are clear enough to all.

I don’t think you understand Steadfast’s point. He’s not arguing whether or not the Deutero’s deserve to be in the OT or not.

He’s claiming that:
a) Jerome didn’t think they were canonical (This is a well known fact)
b) Jerome did not include them in his first Vulgate (This is what is being contended. Catholics claim that Jerome capitulated to Papal Authority and included them no matter what he felt about the matter).
c) The Deutero’s slowly crept back into the bible after Jerome’s death over a period of time (He’s yet to show proof of this phenomenon other than Dr. de Hamel’s historical expertise).
d) Jerome’s Vulgate established the Catholic’s Canon (whereas Catholic’s site the councils of Hippo and Carthage, with the final approva of the Pope in the eartly 5th century).

Steadfast, if I’ve mis-stated your arguements (or schewed them to my own bias) feel free to correct me.

 

[inJESUS]

thx for clarifiation but howcome Jerome did not consider them canonical when Jesus and the apostle quoted from them?

 

[RCCDefender]

I remember doing a senior research paper for English in high school. I only used one source, too. My resulting grade was an F.

Is Dr. de Hamel the only source you have to back you up?? One source doesn’t cut it.

Now others have provided you with a number of sources that show that the early Church, well in fact the Church period, has never renounced the Deuterocanonical books, that they have always been included. Is your one source the only “proof” you have with which to counter?? “Renowned scholar” or not, the opinions of only one man will not take you very far. If you want to have any creditability you’d better find some more sources, otherwise your grade on this subject can only be rewarded with an F.

 

[slyboots]

Now, I don’t have pictures or film of Jerome refusing to include them, and I don’t have an email or a voicemail message from him, but I do have the documented opinion of a renowned scholar of ancient texts.

This will have to suffice until you, or another Catholic can provide another outstanding scholar who says otherwise.

Thanks,

Mike

No it doesn’t. Just because a non-Catholic “scholar” says something is so doesn’t mean we have to believe it. He is neither of the Church nor of the magisterium. And those sources are the authorities which rest on the shoulders of the Rock…and He who appointed him.
I listened to non Catholic ministers and scholars for 30 years of my life. Then I begged the Holy Spirit for guidance. I was clearly and without any doubt at all in my mind sent to the Catholic Church wherein all the teachings of Christ are taught.
We can have a “spitting contest” all day and all night as to whose scholars are correct. But there is no point. You will choose your mistaken “scholar” and we will hold with the truth.
Bless you.

 

[NotWorthy]

thx for clarifiation but howcome Jerome did not consider them canonical when Jesus and the apostle quoted from them?

Jerome (and a few other ECF, Origen for example) studied with Jewish scholars. As you well know, our Jewish brothers didn’t include them in their Canon. It seemed Jerome felt that since the Deutero’s were never written in Hebrew, they couldn’t have been part of the Hebrew Scritpures. Luckily, the Dead Sea Scrolls have recently proved St. Jerome wrong on this issue (they were discovered in the 40’s(?)). But despite Jerome’s protestastions, he did accede to the Pope and the Mastisterium.

Isn’t Church authority great. Without it, there would have been dozens of different Canons as some ECF’s (i.e. St. Athanasius) included 40 something in his OT Canon.

I mean, if it wasn’t for Church Authority, guided of course by the Holy Spirit, we’d be having discussions among Catholics as to whether the Deuterocanonicals were Inspired or not!!!

 

[inJESUS]

in my opinion Jerome was pretty mistaken by not takin into consideration that Jesus and the apostles quoted them !

 

[NotWorthy]

in my opinion Jerome was pretty mistaken by not takin into consideration that Jesus and the apostles quoted them !

And the choir sings, !!!

 

[Steadfast]

Just wondering…

Do you guys rent the equipment you use to move the goalposts or do you own it, because if you rent, I think a cost-benefit analysis would reveal that, as often as you do it, you’d be better off with a decent lease plan.

 

[benaiah]

Just wondering…

Do you guys rent the equipment you use to move the goalposts or do you own it, because if you rent, I think a cost-benefit analysis would reveal that, as often as you do it, you’d be better off with a decent lease plan.

I know that this is a Catholic forum, but there are non-Catholics that have doubt about a pre-Christian LXX and whether Jesus and the Apostles quoted from a “greek” Old Testament, due to the lack of sufficient manscript support (before 100 AD). Check out Dr. Jack Moorman’s book “Forever Settled” on biblebelievers.net/BibleVersions/kjcforv1.htm
It may be of interest.
God Bless,
Benaiah

 

[Chris_LaRock]

wooow what a passage!

The DRB is one good translation!

 

[NotWorthy]

Just wondering…

Do you guys rent the equipment you use to move the goalposts or do you own it, because if you rent, I think a cost-benefit analysis would reveal that, as often as you do it, you’d be better off with a decent lease plan.

'que?!?

 

[exoflare]

'que?!?

He thinks it’s a joke.

 

[RCCDefender]

Just wondering…

Do you guys rent the equipment you use to move the goalposts or do you own it, because if you rent, I think a cost-benefit analysis would reveal that, as often as you do it, you’d be better off with a decent lease plan.

So, this is what you come back with when you have nothing?