The Character of God’s Words [Septuagint is a Fraud]

The Dean Burgon Society ^ | July, 2005 | H. D. Williams, M.D.

[Uncle Chip]

Why don't you ask the Orthodox posters on FR what Greek New Testamant Text that they have read in their churches for 2000 years?. Is it the text closer to the Received Text that underlies the King James Version? or the Latin Text that underlies the Douay-Rheims? or the Vaticanus B manuscript that underlies the Westcott and Hort Text?

[Uncle Chip]

Is the following statement about the deuterocanonicals from the New Catholic Encyclopedia accurate or not:

"St. Jerome distinguished between canonical books and ecclesiastical books. The latter he judged were circulated by the Church as good spiritual reading but were not recognized as authoritative Scripture. The situation remained unclear in the ensuing centuries...For example, John of Damascus, Gregory the Great, Walafrid, Nicolas of Lyra and Tostado continued to doubt the canonicity of the deuterocanonical books. According to Catholic doctrine, the proximate criterion of the biblical canon is the infallible decision of the Church. This decision was not given until rather late in the history of the Chruch at the Council of Trent. The Council of Trent definitively settled the matter of the Old Testament Canon. That this had not been done previously is apparent from the uncertainty that persisted up to the time of Trent [The New Catholic Encyclopedia, The Canon].

[AlaninSA]

Here's just a quick check. Does your copy of God's Word have these verses in it:

You've still not responded... Just so I get it right... The tactic the anti-Catholic crowd uses is: 1. Bash/snipe 2. Refuse to ID one's own "church" 3. Refuse to engage in discussions of one's own theology How cowardly. How sad.

[bornacatholic]

Because the Catholic Church Canonised the New Testament.

[bornacatholic]

With all due respect, I have no idea what you are talking about

[Tax-chick]

That's one reason, for example, that you will find certain psalms off by a number between the East and the West, etc.

Really? I wondered about that!

[Vicomte13]

"If the SHEPEHRD OF HERMAS was in the 4th century bibles why is it not in it today.
And why is no one throwing fits about it."


There are three answers.
There were no definitive 4th Century Bibles. There were different sets of Canons, and there wasn't agreement on them. The current Catholic Canon was fixed by Pope Damascus at the time of Jerome. But that was only followed in the West, where Latin was spoken and the Vulgate was used. In the East, where Greek was used, different Canons were used, and still are. The Greek Orthodox have a few extra new testament books like the Shepherd of Hermas and the letters of Clement. They also have two more Old Testament books: 3 and 4 Maccabees.

The Ethiopian Orthodox have several books more than that.

The second point is that that was true even when the Catholic and Orthodox Churches were all still in unity. And this is NOT a point of contention between Catholics and Orthodox, because those books were excluded from the Canon for specific reasons (the NT books were pastoral and probably not by apostles, and it was decided to draw the line at apostolic authorship), while 3 and 4 Maccabbees only contain a bit of really useful material, while the rest is odd and historical; the Orthodox place these books last, in an appendix at the back. Unlike Protestants, who REJECT the so-called "Apocrypha" because they say they're NOT in the Bible, Catholics don't say there's anything wrong with the Shepherd of Hermas or the Letters of Clement - these are still orthodox Christian works, they just didn't make the cut. They are good to read and valuable Christian homilies, by saints no less!

And that brings us to our final, and most important point: why nobody is throwing fits about it. Remember, PROTESTANTS are the ones who have elevated the Bible into the Supreme Authority over Church and man. Someone on one thread equated the Bible with The Word at the beginning of John. In other words, the Bible IS God, or nearly so.

That is absurd. Catholics (and Orthodox) never thought that way. The Bible is the written tradition of the apostles and the Jews. Being in written form does NOT supersede the oral tradition. So, the Bible does NOT have more authority than the Church. The Bible is interpreted WITHIN the traditions of the Church. That a book is in or not in the Bible is not really important, so long as it is within the traditions of the Church, which the books that are canonical in the East but not the West are just not a problem.

I have to reiterate this, because it is the answer to the question: to PROTESTANTS, the Bible is the "Constitution" of religion, the "Highest Authority", the "Law Book". To Catholics, the Bible is part of tradition, part of God's revelation. It's not MOST of revelation - look at the ongoing revelations of God's goodness from thousands of saints over the ages. Look at the great proselytizing of the early Church, which captured Rome and didn't have a Bible at all.

Protestants took the Bible, MADE IT their supreme law book, and then used it as a lever to bash the Church, and each other, in their quest for independent spiritual authority. No Catholic thinks that the Bible has that authority.
To put it bluntly, the Bible is the Word of God, but it has LESS authority than the Catechism of the Church. Why? Not because the Catechism is inspired while the Bible isn't, but because the Bible, though inspired, is not clear. It was collected by men at various points to address needs of the Church vis-a-vis heresies, and to recount history. The Bible can be MISUNDERSTOOD in infinite ways, and by giving it a legal authority which it emphatically DOES NOT HAVE, one usurps the authority that God DID give to the Church (Jesus left a CHURCH, and prayed for its unity. He did NOT leave a Bible dispensary, nor even any written texts of any certitude or importance. And he was God, so presumably knew what she was doing.)

So, it isn't very RELEVANT, to Catholics and the Orthodox, that The Shepherd of Hermas is in the Bible or not, because the Bible isn't radically different from the rest of authority, and it stands BELOW the Church in authority.

That's why Catholics and the Orthodox don't fight over this point. It is not a theological issue. The Shepherd of Hermas is canonical, according to the Orthodox, but canonical does not give it independent authority as tradition outside of the Church. The Shepherd of Hermas is not canonical in the Catholic tradition, but not being canonical does not leave it outside of the tradition, or without spiritual authority. Orthodox and Catholic draw the identical moral lesson and teaching from it, and oral tradition is AS AUTHORITATIVE as written tradition (the Bible) in both wings of the Church (Catholic and Orthodox).

That's why nobody within the Catholic and Orthodox fold is throwing fits about it. Because neither of them has exaggerated the authority of the Bible and made an idol out of it.

Protestants have exaggerated the authority of the Bible to the point of quasi-idolatry, which WOULD make the question very relevant when Protestants look at the Orthodox or Catholics.

[Uncle Chip]

Thank you for your honest dissertation of the RCC position on TRADITION. It fully vindicates the Protestant criticism of the RCC as a Church gone astray because it "worships and serves the creation and its words more than the Creator and His words that are blessed forever".

[Iscool]

Thank you for your honest dissertation of the RCC position on TRADITION.

I was about to say the same thing...It's really tough to pin-point the actual position of the Catholic church...This seems to cover it...

[Cvengr]

If I may so bold as to suggest a slightly different perspective which still honors the Church, while remaining faithful through Christ....

In the formation of the body of Christ, i.e. the Church, we have different believers who are given different spiritual gifts by the enabling work of God, the Holy Spirit.

The true Church is composed of believers each with body, soul, and spirit. The believer remains in fellowship with God, through faith in Christ, the enabling work of God, the Holy Spirit.

When viewed from the dark glass of a worldly, cosmic view, without human spirit life, as an unbeliever views the Church, only from the perspective and perception of body and soul, there are many ways in which an unbeliever might enter into the worldly aspects of the Church and not always be perceived as a wolf in sheep's clothing. In large part, this is possible where believers themselves might slip back into sin by attempting to perform good works, without putting on the mind of Christ, thereby working in a COSMOS or worldly system independent of God (especially of His gifts by the Holy Spirit).

Accordingly, it is very easy for a religious establishment to become mired in worldly perspectives, become preoccupied with worldly issues, rather than retaining the mind of Christ in all things we do and continuing to walk through faith in Christ.

Most denominations only last perhaps a couple to several centuries before they falter. Even various flavors or perspectives within Catholicism remained as politically dominant within the church over several centuries, while the bodily and soulish form of the RCC has remained for two millenia, the spiritual life of many within the Catholic Church as a denomination has varied over the centuries, being highly influenced by other worldly events/powers.

The revelation of God is always with power and authority. Accordingly, the Word of God has just as much authority as any other work of God. Where God the Holy Spirit has performed His enabling ministry in believers over the millenia, His work is indeed as true as he reveals in His Word. Accordingly, when we look at fruit of the spirit which is divinely good fruit, we have other manifestations of His work in us. Tradition as formed by such works is a valid source of Divine revelation.

It might be noted, though, that some of those works may not have been explicitly intended for the education and growing of other believers, but might have been performed simply as manifestation of different aspects of Truth.

Likewise, with the respect of various believers, although a believer who remains in fellowship with God through faith in Christ may manifest God's work, and accordingly might also be a source of truth, discernment is still required.

There are indeed many believers, who fall into moral degeneracy, guilty of worldly sin, thinking independently of the mind of Christ.

They may use morality as a crutch, placing their hope, not through a realized hope of eternal life and continuing in faith through Christ, but instead after receiving eternal life, placing their hope in making order out of CHAOS independent of God through faith in Christ. Then the degenrate believers may proceed to live worldly lives by building religious institutions along worldly and soulish perspectives.

The grouping of degenerate believers is possible within the catholic church as well as any protestant denomination. More preferably, the true church of God, His body of believers shall return to Him with confession individually, and again continue to grow through faith in Him, renewing their mind daily.

The respect shown to Scripture is not misplaced when one continues in faith through Christ, although a degenerate believer might fall into a form of legalism, not in fellowship with God, and use Scripture in a worldly fashion independent of the enabling ministry of God, the Holy Spirit, and forming a false religion.

This type of degeneracy is not unique amongst Protestants, but is also very possible within the RCC or Orthodox Church, when any believer falls out of fellowship with Him, and uses religion as a crutch or counterfeit to the living work of God the Holy Spirit.

One method of assurance is simply in returning to God, confession and keeping short accounts and allowing Him to do the work, first in us as believers, remaining in fellowship with Him, and in all good works we perform, always through faith in Christ.

[RobbyS]

It's the appeance that bothers me. The apparent lack of holiness in the self-proclaimed "saved."

[dangus]

>> Oh sure. Rabbis all met in Jambia so that they could deliberately alter the accuracy of their own writings. <<

No-one said anything about altering the accuracy. They merely set forth, for the FIRST time among Palestinian Jews, a canon.

[dangus]

>> I think the Jews at Jamnia rejected the Septuagint primarily because it was GREEK, and the Jews in post-revolt mode were EXTREMELY bigoted and racist, and rejected anything that wasn't Hebrew as unacceptable (even though the Jews themselves didn't actually SPEAK Hebrew themselves anymore, and hadn't for centuries). <<

That was one Protestant argument which was shot to hell when the Dead Sea scrolls unearthed HEBREW versions of all but one book of the Deuterocanonicals.

But, yes, Luther did move to remove the Deuterocanonicals (as well as the "Catholic Letters" of Revelations, 1-2-3 Petr, 1-2 John, James, and Hebrews*) after losing an argument in which it was proven to him that the doctrines he most hated were biblical. Luther also struck portions of Daniel (the hymn in the furnace was seen as a prophetic allusion to purgatory.)

(*Luther's controversy over these is nothing at all to do with the label, "Catholic letters." The label simply refers to the fact that they were not addressed to a specific person or church.)

[SuzyQue]

Fascinating discussion. I had no idea what I was stepping into.

My observation: the respondents fall into two categories, those who have long ago decided exactly what they believe and are unwilling or unable to engage in conversation with anyone coming from a different perspective or background. Because this kind of faith is closed, unchangeable and unresponsive to others, it becomes rigid and impermeable, and because it is based on the process rather than goals, it can be a fairly shallow faith, and therefore in order to maintain it, its owner must steadfastly refuse to consider any other point of view.

Those in the second group may be more focused on the eventual outcome. That kind of focus demands a certain openness to additional input along the path to that eventual goal. This is the kind of faith that is continually tested and refined by the world, and is much more difficult to maintain, and requires much more of those on this path.

So you all go ahead and argue about which version of which book should or shouldn't be included in our search for God, and which version of worship is legitimate and which aren't, and based on your judgement, who is "really" God's child and who not.

But - I think there may be much wisdom in these posts and I will continue to read them. I have a lot to learn. May we all find God.

[Titanites]

In post #77, you stated that for Catholics, God's word takes a backseat to religious tradition.

In response, in post #83, I posted some of God's word about baptism and asked how your tradition views baptism.

You still haven't answered the question in relation to the Scripture posted from 1 Peter 3. We would like to know so that we can be sure you weren't being hypocritical of Catholics.

[Titanites]

Fascinating discussion. I had no idea what I was stepping into.

That's the way it usually works - the discussion takes off in all different directions, which can make it very interesting. Personally, I would have liked to have seen more posts about the historicity of the Septuagint. But on the other hand, I have to admit I am as guilty as any about getting off topic.

[Titanites]

That was one Protestant argument which was shot to hell when the Dead Sea scrolls unearthed HEBREW versions of all but one book of the Deuterocanonicals.

That is a great point, Dangus. You don't see it come up very often, if at all, in discussions of the Deuterocanonicals.

[Titanites]

I am glad you showed up to this thread, especially since you seem to be primarily the one on these threads who claims the Septuagint was generated by Origen.

I'd appreciate it if you would address the arguments in post #6. Thanks.

[AliVeritas]

Very informative.

[bornacatholic]

My observation: the respondents fall into two categories, those who have long ago decided exactly what they believe and are unwilling or unable to engage in conversation with anyone coming from a different perspective or background.

*I think just the opposite is happening.

Because this kind of faith is closed, unchangeable and unresponsive to others, it becomes rigid and impermeable, and because it is based on the process rather than goals, it can be a fairly shallow faith, and therefore in order to maintain it, its owner must steadfastly refuse to consider any other point of view.

*Well, the Deposit of Faith is closed. While the Holy Spirit does lead the Catholic Church to understand more deeply and completely the Original Deposit of Faith, the Faith does not "change" ,so, it appears to me any idea that Faith is "rigid" and "impermeable" can only fairly be used if one understands that the Faith is incapable of being changed and is impregnable by heresies.

Those in the second group may be more focused on the eventual outcome. That kind of focus demands a certain openness to additional input along the path to that eventual goal. This is the kind of faith that is continually tested and refined by the world, and is much more difficult to maintain, and requires much more of those on this path.

*You appear to think Faith a "process" rather than a gift. Unfortunately, that makes Faith susceptible to the whims, prejudices, proclivities, ignorance, of the individual believer - subject - rather than a gift from our Creator - objective

So you all go ahead and argue about which version of which book should or shouldn't be included in our search for God, and which version of worship is legitimate and which aren't, and based on your judgement, who is "really" God's child and who not.

* LOL That is an insult masquerading as an observatiobn

But - I think there may be much wisdom in these posts and I will continue to read them. I have a lot to learn. May we all find God.

* He alraedy found me