The vanishing bible

Catholic World News ^ | 11-19-2004

[redgolum]

That was my point. There were a number of councils that had The Shepard of Hermes in the canon, and a few that liked to put third and fourth Maccabees in also. I was stating that at the time of the Reformation, Rome had not come out and closed the OT canon yet.

[JHavard]

St. Jerome thought the Septuagint was a-okay up to 391 AD. You will remember that it was in the 390's that the Church's canon was officially approved. The debate was rather heated, with conservatives against liberals and that kind of thing, and St. Jerome reacted.

The Church canon was published, but not officially approved until 1546 and the Council of Trent. None of those early Church Councils had the power or the authority to make them official since most of them were just local Councils who represented small areas of people.

If they were official, why did Trent have to decree them again?

He kind of threw a hissy fit. He and St. Augustine were always at odds over his translation. Canonizing sacred scripture was messy work for the Church. It was political, but that doesn't mean the Holy Spirit wasn't involved.

Then you agree that the Holy Spirit doesn’t always require believers to believe the exact same thing?

So which translation did the Catholic Church embrace for its official version of the Latin Vulgate? Any one?

JH :)

[Lilllabettt]

The Church doesn't 'create' doctrine. The Church sits in a dark room and the lights slowly come on, and as they do she sees the chairs and table in the room around her. Just because the lights were out and she couldn't see the furniture doesn't mean it wasn't always there.

Okay, thats my wierd analogy for the day.

[Campion]

When Christianity started making a name for itself, a bunch of rabbis got together and created a new canon that didn't have these seven books in it. The reason typically given is that it was in Greek and the rabbi's all the inspired scriptures had to be in Hebrew.

It can't be proven, but some people think that this "Greek" vs. "Hebrew" distinction was invented specifically so the rabbis could rule the NT out-of-order. In fact, their criteria (written before Ezra, written in Israel, written in Hebrew) rule out much of the NT on all three counts, and of course all of it on one count or another.

[samiam1972]

Yeah. That would be "The One"!! :-)

[Campion]

If they were official, why did Trent have to decree them again?

Because they were, after centuries of quiet acceptance, being vocally and angrily challenged by certain dissenters of whom you are fond.

[Campion]

I was stating that at the time of the Reformation, Rome had not come out and closed the OT canon yet.

I was pointing out, though, that they actually had ... just perhaps not in the most authoritative and final way they possibly could have.

[Lilllabettt]

Individuals can disagree! But once the Church says, doctrinally, that something is so, then it is so. No individual can provide an infalliable list of sacred scriptures. It is impossible, even for St. Jerome.

"We have no other assurance that the books of Moses, the four Gospels, and the other books are the true word of God, but by the canon of the Catholic Church." --St. Augustine.

"We are obliged to yield many things to the papists [Catholics]—that they possess the Word of God which we received from them, otherwise we should have known nothing at all about it." --Martin Luther, 16th chapter,Commentary on St. John

[Tamar1973]

Christ used the Septuagint, which contained these parts of Daniel and Esther.

Where do you get the idea that a Galillean Jew would need the Septuigant?! He would have used the Hebrew Scriptures, not the Greek translation of the Hebrew Scriptures.

Paul used the Septuigant when he wrote his letters to his congregants in the greek world but Yeshua would have had no need for a Greek translation, since as a Jewish man, He would have been able to easily read the Scriptures in their original language.

[Pyro7480]

Where do you get the idea that a Galillean Jew would need the Septuigant?! He would have used the Hebrew Scriptures, not the Greek translation of the Hebrew Scriptures.

You're forgetting your history. By the first century B.C., the Eastern Mediterranean region had been Hellenized. Many Jews spoke Greek, and they used a Greek translation of their Scriptures. Jesus did indeed live in Galilee, where they spoke Aramaic. They used an Aramaic version of the Septuagint. Only the priests and scribes at that time could read and speak Hebrew fluently.

[Rokke]

"In fact, both Jews and all Christians except Protestants pray for the dead."

Apparently, Protestants accept Christ's Salvation for the gift it is. Romans does a good job of explaining that. I'm pretty sure Romans is in the Catholic Bible. It is worth studying.

[redgolum]

LOL! I guess we agreed but talked past each other! The funny thing is that Luther didn't make as big of a deal about it as some of the later theologians did. He didn't like some of the Apocrypha, and some of the NT. That is why Revelation is not in the Lutheran lexionary. Great book, but to much above most peoples heads to try to preach on in a litany.

The question always comes up, when did the Eastern Orthodox set their canon? It is a bit different than in the west.

And for what it's worth, while in the LCMS the Apocrypha is not considered canon, it is encouraged that you study it.

[Rokke]

"You can never go wrong with the 4 marks of the true Church"

What are they?

[JHavard]

And I say to thee: That thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

And I will give to thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven. And whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth, it shall be bound also in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth, it shall be loosed also in heaven.

Jesus definitely built His church, (the assembly, the ecclesia,) with Peter and the other apostles as foundational stones, and Jesus Himself as the chief corner stone.

It was God answering Jesus question to the disciples through the Holy Spirit in Peter that made Jesus say, “Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven.”

This was the first example of how the “church” would have its knowledge given to it in the future, through His Holy Spirit.

Do you doubt that Paul was the apostle to the Gentiles? Did Paul reason and think exactly as the other apostles? Where did Paul learn the Gospel he taught, from the other twelve apostles? ….NOT.

He was taught it by the Holy Spirit, not by the other apostles, just as we are taught today in the true church of God.

Gal 1:1 Paul, an apostle, (not of men, neither by man, but by Jesus Christ, and God the Father, who raised him from the dead;)

1 John 2:27 But the anointing which ye have received of him abideth in you, and ye need not that any man teach you: but as the same anointing teacheth you of all things, and is truth, and is no lie, and even as it hath taught you, ye shall abide in him.

JH :)

[Pyro7480]

One, holy, catholic, and apostolic.

[Rokke]

"The Church doesn't 'create' doctrine."

But I still haven't read a usable definition of "The Church". Do you mean the Vatican?

[JHavard]

Yes, it teaches you one thing and me another. Oh bother. Now what do we do? I know! I'll go to the Church that Jesus gave me to help settle these disputes! Thank God!!

That's what He intended, and since I would have never found Christ through the Catholic Church, He had other plans for me.

Thank you God for your wisdom in knowing how to appeal to every man on earth.

JH :)

[Rokke]

Sigh. Could you perhaps explain each term. Or perhaps you can verify my best attempt....

One - one (not sure what kind of mark that is)

holy - associated with a divine power (God)

catholic - the universal Christian church

apostolic - derived from the teaching or practice of the 12 Apostles

[JHavard]

I went to Church school because my Ma was friend's with the other kids' mothers. I remember eating cookies and making a "Light of the World" felt banner. Thrilling, huh.

And that's my point, Catholicism seems natural to you because it's in your background as a child. It's impossible for you to view it as I do, nor for me to view it as you do.

There are few people in the world that would be comfortable in a Catholic Church unless it's somewhere in there past.

I'm not knocking it, only pointing out that it's not the religion of choice for most, but the religion of birth.

JH :)

[Tamar1973]

You're forgetting your history.

You are also forgetting some of yours. Even if Yeshua studied the Scriptures primarily in Aramaic from an Aramaic translation of the Septuigant, He also would have known that it was a translation of the Masoretic Text and therefore was not considered authoritative over the original Hebrew. If He had questions about the veracity of a text, He would have read the Hebrew tranlation, which was always conisidered the most authoritative translation, just as it is today.

He also would have know that the "deuterocanonical texts" were not listed anywhere in the Hebrew Scriptures.