Why is the Book of Wisdom in the Bible?

[wondrousgnat]

I would like to know why the Didache is not in the bible. It deals with so many controversial issues that antiCatholics could not argue against.

 

[TimothyH]

Very interesting, I did not know this. Is this because of the concerns I am raising now combined with the belief of sola scriptura?

I never really understood why Catholics and non-Catholics use the two different Old Testament texts, and never really did any research as to why.

There is much rhetoric on both sides. Some on one side scream “Heretic!” and insist that Martin Luther took seven books out of the Bible because they support Catholic doctrine. Some on the other side scream “Whore!” and insist that the Catholic Church added man made texts to the inspired word of God in order to support some kind of agenda.

That the Holy Church says there are 46 books is enough for me. Mother Church has proved herself right enough times in my life to instill in me a basic level of trust. I hope everyone gets to that point some day.

I’d encourage your own independent research, with a healthy dose of salt, knowing that there is much emotion on the subject and history is often not as exciting as we make it out to be. I would also encourage a read of Wisdom 16 through 19, which speaks of elements changing places.

For the elements, in ever-changing harmony,
like strings of the harp, produce new melody,
while the flow of music steadily persists.
And this can be perceived exactly from a review of what took place.
For land creatures were changed into water creatures,
and those that swam went over on land.
Fire in water maintained its own strength,
and water forgot its quenching nature;
Flames, by contrast, neither consumed the flesh
of the perishable animals that went about in them,
nor melted the icelike, quick-melting kind of ambrosial food.
(Wisdom 19:18-21)

I find this sublimely beautiful, and evocative of what happens at transubstantiation. Chapters 16 through 19 are poetic, and speak of such things at length. Wisdom is also rich with images of the second greatest love in my life, Mary.

-Tim-

 

[jinc1019]

I never really understood why Catholics and non-Catholics use the two different Old Testament texts, and never really did any research as to why.

There is much rhetoric on both sides. Some on one side scream “Heretic!” and insist that Martin Luther took seven books out of the Bible because they support Catholic doctrine. Some on the other side scream “Whore!” and insist that the Catholic Church added man made texts to the inspired word of God in order to support some kind of agenda.

That the Holy Church says there are 46 books is enough for me. Mother Church has proved herself right enough times in my life to instill in me a basic level of trust. I hope everyone gets to that point some day.

I’d encourage your own independent research, with a healthy dose of salt, knowing that there is much emotion on the subject and history is often not as exciting as we make it out to be. I would also encourage a read of Wisdom 16 through 19, which speaks of elements changing places.

For the elements, in ever-changing harmony,
like strings of the harp, produce new melody,
while the flow of music steadily persists.
And this can be perceived exactly from a review of what took place.
For land creatures were changed into water creatures,
and those that swam went over on land.
Fire in water maintained its own strength,
and water forgot its quenching nature;
Flames, by contrast, neither consumed the flesh
of the perishable animals that went about in them,
nor melted the icelike, quick-melting kind of ambrosial food.
(Wisdom 19:18-21)

I find this sublimely beautiful, and evocative of what happens at transubstantiation. Chapters 16 through 19 are poetic, and speak of such things at length. Wisdom is also rich with images of the second greatest love in my life, Mary.

-Tim-

Thanks Tim for your thoughts, as always, they are greatly appreciated.

 

[DCNBILL]

Yes, good point. But my question still remains why we should be interested in the wisdom of unknwn individuals who may or may not have been Divinely inspired?

But it was determined by the Church which is guided by the Holy Spirit that the book of Wisdom is in fact, Divinely inspired.

Note that this was not done in someones garage over a couple of beers, Numerous, learned and holy men labored and prayed many years to ensure that the correct texts were selected for the Bible canon.

 

[jinc1019]

But it was determined by the Church which is guided by the Holy Spirit that the book of Wisdom is in fact, Divinely inspired.

Note that this was not done in someones garage over a couple of beers, Numerous, learned and holy men labored and prayed many years to ensure that the correct texts were selected for the Bible canon.

Yes I understand that…but those same men also believed that these books were written by the authors that today we reject as the true authors, at least as far as I know.

 

[Theophorus]

New Testament scriptures, yes you are exactly right regarding your last point…But Old Testament scriptures were determined to be holy well before the Church. The Church essentially verified scriptures already believed to be holy, so on that count, you should believe them to be holy. Are you suggesting that prior to the canon being created, hundreds of years after Christ, no one should have believed the Jewish scriptures to be the Word of God? Because according to your logic, the only validity you give them comes from the Church, who didn’t give them validity until hundres of years later.

You misunderstand.
The validity of sacred scripture is objective -it is valid whether recognised or not, but the question is, how to recognise what is valid, that is what is Sacred Scripture. This I think is the core of your original question. That particular charism properly belongs to the Church as the authentic interpreter of revelation in the new testament period.

The jewish canon was finally closed(if it is closed?) well after A.D. 33 and so while we would recognise the Torah(1st five books) and the Nevi’im(prophets) as canonical from the pre-christian jewish community the final section called the Ketuvim(the writings) was not finally decided by them till about A.D. 200 long after we were using books they later excluded.

 

[DCNBILL]

Yes I understand that…but those same men also believed that these books were written by the authors that today we reject as the true authors, at least as far as I know.

So who is to say that current thoughts on authorship are right and their belief on authorship was wrong?

 

[jinc1019]

You misunderstand.
The validity of sacred scripture is objective -it is valid whether recognised or not, but the question is, how to recognise what is valid, that is what is Sacred Scripture. This I think is the core of your original question. That particular charism properly belongs to the Church as the authentic interpreter of revelation in the new testament period.

The jewish canon was finally closed(if it is closed?) well after A.D. 33 and so while we would recognise the Torah(1st five books) and the Nevi’im(prophets) as canonical from the pre-christian jewish community the final section called the Ketuvim(the writings) was not finally decided by them till about A.D. 200 long after we were using books they later excluded.

Ok, I can accept the argument…Basically what you are saying this boils down to is that the Church has determined that the books have to be infallible because the Church is infallible and they made this decision. The question of which books are valid is left to the Church and the Church made their infallible decree on this, thus confirming the authenticity of the books regardless of whether we know who the authors are.

I honestly don’t believe this logic makes much sense but I can at least accept it as the teaching. I mean, in my opinion, it seems like the Church is working backwards; they believe the Bible is infallible because they are infallible, rather than pointing out reasons why they know the Bible is infallible based on its own merit. For the New Testament, I can understand why you cannot separate the Church from the writings, but in the Old Testament, I believe the merit of those books as being truly Divinely inspired should be confirmed without relying solely on the argument that “it must be true because Church says so.”

 

[jinc1019]

So who is to say that current thoughts on authorship are right and their belief on authorship was wrong?

According to Catholic Encyclopedia cited in my first post, Catholic scholars themselves often believe the authorship is not what tradition states.

 

[DCNBILL]

According to Catholic Encyclopedia cited in my first post, Catholic scholars themselves often believe the authorship is not what tradition states.

They (as scholars often do because of the fact they get paid to do such things) offer doubts and alternatives and questions I doubt any one would come out and definitively state that there is no way that Solomon wrote Wisdom.

The fact that some scholars do question the authorship of Solomon does not make them correct.

By the way, the Church does not have a definitive statement about this one way or another while the Church does have a definitive statement on the Canon of the Bible.

 

[Evan]

You could regard the books in a similar way to the way you regard the Eucharist.

The books are inspired. The authors may be holy or sinful; evil or good. In either case, the author received graces from God to write those words we have preserved and the Church, in union with the Holy Spirit, have declared as inspired works of God .Not works of man, but works produced through man.

The Eucharist is confected by a priest. He may be holy or sinful; evil or good. But by the working of the Holy Spirit, through is ordination, the bread and wine become the Body and Blood of Christ. Not through the actions of a man, but through the actions of the Holy Spirit working through man.

 

[jinc1019]

They (as scholars often do because of the fact they get paid to do such things) offer doubts and alternatives and questions I doubt any one would come out and definitively state that there is no way that Solomon wrote Wisdom.

The fact that some scholars do question the authorship of Solomon does not make them correct.

By the way, the Church does not have a definitive statement about this one way or another while the Church does have a definitive statement on the Canon of the Bible.

The overwhelming majority of scholars feel this way about Wisdom as is evidenced by virtually every available source on the subject.

 

[jinc1019]

You could regard the books in a similar way to the way you regard the Eucharist.

The books are inspired. The authors may be holy or sinful; evil or good. In either case, the author received graces from God to write those words we have preserved and the Church, in union with the Holy Spirit, have declared as inspired works of God .Not works of man, but works produced through man.

The Eucharist is confected by a priest. He may be holy or sinful; evil or good. But by the working of the Holy Spirit, through is ordination, the bread and wine become the Body and Blood of Christ. Not through the actions of a man, but through the actions of the Holy Spirit working through man.

Interesting take on it…but bread and wine are turned into the Eucharist for a very specific purpose, to equate the two would be like suggesting the books don’t say anything valid until the Church says they do, and then the words suddenly change when the Catholic Church says it is valid…that’s how the Eucharist works; at first its just bread and wine and then it is MADE into something more. The books were written and were either objectively true when they were written as inspired works or not…nothing the Catholic Church does can change that.

 

[DCNBILL]

The overwhelming majority of scholars feel this way about Wisdom as is evidenced by virtually every available source on the subject.

At one time the overwhelming majority of scholars of the time thought the world was flat.

I look at it this way.

If one believes Jesus was the Christ the Son of God.

And if one believes that He set up a community of believers (His Church) that the gates of hell would not prevail against.

And if one believes that God is not stupid and actually did leave someone in charge of His Church and that it is actually guided by the Holy Spirit.

Then one should be trusting in the Authority of this Church and what it claims as truth and not give a rats pattuti about what some, most or even all of scholars might propose.

 

[Evan]

Interesting take on it…but bread and wine are turned into the Eucharist for a very specific purpose, to equate the two would be like suggesting the books don’t say anything valid until the Church says they do, and then the words suddenly change when the Catholic Church says it is valid…that’s how the Eucharist works; at first its just bread and wine and then it is MADE into something more. The books were written and were either objectively true when they were written as inspired works or not…nothing the Catholic Church does can change that.

I wrote similar way, not same way.

In both cases, the Holy Spirit (not the Church) effects the result. In one, bread and wine into Body and Blood. In the other, human words, become inspired words.

Anyone can say the words of institution. But only the Holy Spirit can effect the change.
Anyone can write a book. But only the Holy Spirit can inspire scripture.

 

[jinc1019]

At one time the overwhelming majority of scholars of the time thought the world was flat.

I look at it this way.

If one believes Jesus was the Christ the Son of God.

And if one believes that He set up a community of believers (His Church) that the gates of hell would not prevail against.

And if one believes that God is not stupid and actually did leave someone in charge of His Church and that it is actually guided by the Holy Spirit.

Then one should be trusting in the Authority of this Church and what it claims as truth and not give a rats pattuti about what some, most or even all of scholars might propose.

I can certainly respect that and understand it.

 

[jinc1019]

I wrote similar way, not same way.

In both cases, the Holy Spirit (not the Church) effects the result. In one, bread and wine into Body and Blood. In the other, human words, become inspired words.

Anyone can say the words of institution. But only the Holy Spirit can effect the change.
Anyone can write a book. But only the Holy Spirit can inspire scripture.

I understand what you were getting at now…I get the point about the Holy Spirit and I think understand the view on this. Thanks for making it clear.

 

[1ke]

they believe the Bible is infallible because they are infallible

The bible is not “infallible” nor does the Church teach that it is. What is your understanding of the word “infallible”?

 

[jinc1019]

Free from error…and yes the Church does do that…and by the way, you are getting WAY off topic and playing word games. I don’t care to debate any of those issues, it has nothing to do with the OP, which is completely about whether or not we should have books in the Bible without sources who teach us about Divine wisdom. That’s a fair question to ask. If the wisdom in Wisdom is not coming from a Divinely inspired source, then why is it in the Bible? And if you do believe it comes from a divinely inspired source, how can you when you don’t have a clue who the source is?

 

[Evan]

Free from error…and yes the Church does do that…and by the way, you are getting WAY off topic and playing word games. I don’t care to debate any of those issues, it has nothing to do with the OP, which is completely about whether or not we should have books in the Bible without sources who teach us about Divine wisdom. That’s a fair question to ask. If the wisdom in Wisdom is not coming from a Divinely inspired source, then why is it in the Bible? And if you do believe it comes from a divinely inspired source, how can you when you don’t have a clue who the source is?

Free from error is ‘inerrant’. The bible is inerrant, not infallible.

I have a clue who the source is: His initials are HS, before His name change they were HG.

We don’t know the name of the one who held the pen that wrote Hebrews either, but it had the same divinely inspired source.