Posted on 02/27/2007 2:52:48 PM PST by stfassisi
Well, we have atleast one who is not arguing from silence. [Trumpets, please ---- that's enough]
What about Saint Melito from Sardis. The following written by Melito about 170 AD is From the Book of Extracts:
"Melito to his brother Onesimus, greeting:-- As you have often, prompted by your regard for the word of God, expressed a wish to have some extracts made from the Law and the Prophets concerning the Saviour, and concerning our faith in general, and have desired, moreover, to obtain an accurate account of the Ancient Books, as regards their number and their arrangement, I have striven to the best of my ability to perform this task: well knowing your zeal for the faith, and your eagerness to become acquainted with the Word, and especially because I am assured that, through your yearning after God, you esteem these things beyond all things else, engaged as you are in a struggle for eternal salvation.
"I accordingly proceeded to the East, and went to the very spot where the things in question were preached and took place; and, having made myself accurately acquainted with the books of the Old Testament, I have set them down below, and herewith send you the list. Their names are as follows:--
"The five books of Moses--Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy; Joshua, Judges, Ruth, the four books of Kings, the two of Chronicles, the book of the Psalms of David, the Proverbs of Solomon, also called the Book of Wisdom, Ecclesiastes, the Song of Songs, Job, the books of the prophets Isaiah, Jeremiah, of the twelve contained in a single book, Daniel, Ezekiel, Esdras. From these I have made my extracts, dividing them into six books."
There were no Deuts in his list. How can anyone ignore his testimony?
How can anyone ignore his testimony??? Do you notice what else is missing from his list? How about the book of Lamentations? The book of Esther?
Oh yeah... and regarding "The Proverbs of Solomon, also called the Book of Wisdom." I'm sure you presume this is the book of Proverbs, but one of the "deuts" was "The Book of the Wisdom of Solomon."
Melito of Sardis seems confused.
He was made a Saint by the Churches East and West and was highly regarded in both his day and afterwards. He's not confused --- those who made him a Saint but then ignore his canonical list are the ones who are confused.
The reason they call him confused....is because Melito, like Polycarp and many other Church Fathers of the East, celebrated Passover (on the 14th) instead of Easter.
They, the Churches of the East, continued this observance well into the fourth century until they were prevented from doing so by the Council of Antioch (341 A.D.). The Council of Laodicea (364 A.D.) put the final nail of anti Jewishness into the Church by preventing Christians from celebrating the Sabbath on the seventh day.... as had Our Saviour and The Apostles.
I would venture to say that no copies of the Septuagint were to be found during these Passover celebrations jointly held with the Jewish folks.
Melito is recognized as a saint, but he lost a LOT of arguments, including the Quartodecennial controversy, which held that Easter should be held on the 14th of the month, no matter what. He also believed that God was corporeal.
He did create a canon without the Septuagint, but he also left out several New Testament books, as well; he, therefore, cannot be regarded as authoritative. He nearly could be charged with Judaizing.
And the canon that he listed was within the mainstream of ante-Nicene church tradition. The chart below illustrates this. It did not copy well but comes from a website "bible-researcher.com/canon04".
The chart demonstrates that acceptance of an OT canon with Deuts did not begin until Augustine and the Council of Carthage circa 397 AD.
Disputed Books of the Old Testament
The table below shows which of the disputed Old Testament books are included in Christian catalogs of canonical books up to the eighth century. Y indicates that the book is plainly listed as Holy Scripture; N indicates that it is placed in an inferior class of books; M indicates that the terminology of the author may be construed as a reference to the book as Holy Scripture. An S indicates that the author does not mention the book in his catalog, which implies its rejection. See notes on the authorities below.
KEY Esth. - Esther Bar. - Baruch Eccl. - Ecclesiasticus Wisd. - Wisdom of Solomon Tob. - Tobit Jud. - Judith Mac. - First and Second Maccabees
1. Greek Authors. Date Esth. Bar. Eccl. Wisd. Tob. Jud. Mac. Melito 160 S S S S S S S Origen 225 Y M S S S S N Cyril of Jerusalem 348 Y Y N N N N N Council of Laodicea 363 Y Y S S S S S Athanasius 367 N Y N N N N S Gregory of Nazianzus 380 S S S S S S S Amphilocius of Iconium 380 M S S S S S S Epiphanius 385 Y S N N S S S Stichometry of Niceph. 550 N Y N N N N N Synopsis of Sac. Scrip. 550 N S N N N N S Leontius 590 S S S S S S S List of the Sixty Books 650 N S N N N N N John of Damascus 730 Y S N N S S S
2. Syrian Greek. Date Esth. Bar. Eccl. Wisd. Tob. Jud. Mac. "Apostolic Canons" 380 Y S N S S M Y
3. Latin Authors.* Date Esth. Bar. Eccl. Wisd. Tob. Jud. Mac. Hilary of Poitiers 360 Y M S S M M S Cheltenham List 360 Y M S M Y Y Y Rufinus 380 Y M N N N N N Jerome 390 Y M N N N N N Augustine 397 Y M Y Y Y Y Y 3rd Council of Carthage 397 Y M Y Y Y Y Y Codex Claromontanus 400 Y M Y Y Y Y Y Letter of Innocent I 405 Y M Y Y Y Y Y Decree of Gelasius 550 Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Cassiodorus 560 Y M Y Y Y Y Y Isidore of Seville 625 Y M Y Y Y Y Y
First, I won't allow you to cloud the issue by getting bogged down in side issues. I repeat: No author rejected the Septuagint. Several authors distinguished them as not being in the Hebrew canon, and thus unavailable for comparative translation (Origen, Jerome, etc.). Others noted that they were useless in apologetics to the Jews, since the Jews did not recognize their authenticity. And no author accepts, for instance, Esther but not Baruch.
Here's how good your chart is:
(1) it repeats the insipid canard that Jerome rejected the Septuagint's books, despite Jerome's explanation that he was representing the opinion of the Jews, and assertion that anyone who would believe he would reject them is a "fool and a slanderer." If anything, Jerome demonstrates that acceptance of the disputed books was de rigeur; even if Jerome failed to see the wisdom of the Catholic canon, he felt obliged to acknowledge the findings. (Notions he did so grudgingly are unfounded but irrelevant.)
(2) it lists Rufinus as opposing the disputed book's canonicity. It was Rufinus who accused Jerome of heresy for not having accepted them.
(3) it suggests Origen's omission of the books implies rejection; Origen (like Jerome) was preparing a translation including Hebrew, for which the disputed books were not available.
(4) the council of Laodicea's canon is commonly considered a fake; the Galatian council lists 59 rulings, making no mention of the 60th where this canon lies; In fact, a list of specifically rejected books does exist, including several apocryphal books, and it does not include any of the debated books, despite warnings that all non-canonical books must be prohibited from services. Thus, the council implicitly recognized the disputed books or (improbably) failed to recognize their significant existence.
The only author in your list which holds up is Nazanius, who was (for some reason) deposed as bishop, before being re-affirmed at the Council of Carthage, which felt the odd urge to clarify the books of the bible when it did so.
>> The chart demonstrates that acceptance of an OT canon with Deuts did not begin until Augustine and the Council of Carthage circa 397 AD. <<
It is far from exhaustive, highly inaccurate, and fails to list any author who simply refers to the Septuagint. The list of authors who cite as scripture books among the disputed list is quite vast, but these do not need to enumerate which books they accept, since they equate scripture simply with the Septuagint.
Oh, and I found this aboslute clincher:
Several of those who enumerate the Hebrew canon list "22 books": 1. Genesis, 2. Exodus, 3. Leviticus, 4. Numbers, 5. Deuteronomy, 6. Ruth, 7. Samuel, 8. Kings, 9. Chronicles, 10. Esdras (Ezra/Nehemiah), 11. the 12 lesser prophets, 12. Proverbs, 13. Psalms, 14. Daniel, 15. Esther, 16. Job, 17. Canticles (Song of Songs), 18. Jeremiah/Lamentations, 19. Ezekiel, 20. Ecclesiastes, 21. Judges, 22. Joshua.
Well, guess what? Esdras (Nehemiah 14) reveals how many books there were in holy scripture, before Esdras was written. Know how many there were? 24.
Since the events described in Esdras too place before Esdras hadn't been written yet, that means we have to find three extra books.
Seperating Jeremiah into Jeremiah and Lamentations gives us one; it might be tempting to seperate Samuel, Kings and Chronicles, but such a notion hadn't occured to anyone at the time of Esdras; these books were published as single volumes, until the switch from scrolls to codices.
Well, guess how many Septuagint books had taken place at the time of Esdras? 24. (It's unclear whether the Wisdom of Solomon was; recombining Jeremiah and Lamentations allows for its inclusion in this list; it's plain that 1 & 2 Maccabees, Sirach and Tobit are much later.)
Inclusion of this table again makes it quite obvious that you could care less about the truth, but merely trying to make a point, even if it involves ignoring the points I have already pointed out to you two weeks ago. I gave you a detailed refutation of this site on Origen's view of Scriptures with QUOTES!
That is why it is pointless to argue with someone like you on this matter. You don't really care about the "truth", only with "proving" Catholics wrong. Thus, you go elsewhere and stir the pot hoping that no one will notice your pet site's errors. Thus, Scripture tells us about such men...
"A man that is a heretic, after the first and second admonition, avoid: Knowing that he, that is such an one, is subverted, and sinneth, being condemned by his own judgment." Titus 3:10,11
You provided nothing to me that refuted the information from this site.
1] In the Eastern Church:
"The Peshitta, or Syriac version, dating from circa 150 AD, omits Chronicles; Justin Martyr (164 AD) held to a canon identical with that of the Jews; the Canon of Melito, bishop of Sardis, who (circa 170 AD) made a journey to Palestine in order carefully to investigate the matter, omits Est. His list, which is the first Christian list we have, has been preserved to us by Eusebius in his Eccl. Hist., IV, 26; Origen (died 254 AD), who was educated in Alexandria, and was one of the most learned of the Greek Fathers, also set himself the task of knowing the "Hebrew verity" of the Old Testament text, and gives us a list (also preserved to us by Eusebius, Eccl. Hist., VI, 5) in which he reckons the number of books as 22 (thus agreeing with Josephus). Inadvertently he omits the Twelve Minor Prophets, but this is manifestly an oversight on the part of either a scribe or of Eusebius, as he states the number of books is 22 and then names but 21. The so-called Canon of Laodicea (circa 363 AD) included the canonical books only, rejecting the Apocrypha. Athanasius (died 365 AD) gives a list in which Esther is classed as among the non-canonical books, but he elsewhere admits that "Esther is considered canonical by the Hebrews." However, he included Baruch and the Epistle of Jeremiah with Jeremiah. Amphilochius, bishop of Iconium (circa 380 AD), speaks of Esther as received by some only. Cyril, bishop of Jerusalem (died 386 AD), gives a list corresponding with the Hebrew canon, except that he includes Baruch and the Epistle of Jeremiah. Gregory of Nazianzus in Cappadocia (died 390 AD) omits Esther. But Anastasius, patriarch of Antioch (560 AD), and Leontius of Byzantium (580 AD) both held to the strict Jewish canon of 22 books. The Nestorians generally doubted Esther. This was due doubtless to the influence of Theodore of Mopsuestia (circa 390-457 AD) who disputed the authority of Chronicles, Ezra, Nehemiah, Esther and Job. The oriental churches as a whole, however, never canonized the Apocrypha."
2. In the Western Church:
"Between 100 and 400 AD, the New Testament writings became canonical, occupying in the Christian church a place of authority and sacredness equal to those of the Old Testament. The tendency of the period was to receive everything which had been traditionally read in the churches. But the transference of this principle to the Old Testament writings produced great confusion. Usage and theory were often in conflict. A church Father might declare that the Apocryphal books were uninspired and yet quote them as "Scripture," and even introduce them with the accepted formula, "As the Holy Ghost saith." Theologically, they held to a strict canon, homiletically they used a larger one. But even usage was not uniform. 3 and 4 Esdras and the Book of Enoch are sometimes quoted as "Holy Writ," yet the western church never received these books as canonical. The criterion of usage, therefore, is too broad. The theory of the Fathers was gradually forgotten, and the prevalent use of the Septuagint and other versions led to the obliteration of the distinction between the undisputed books of the Hebrew canon and the most popular Apocryphal books; and being often publicly read in the churches they finally received a quasi-canonization.
"Tertullian of Carthage (circa 150-230 AD) is the first of the Latin Fathers whose writings have been preserved. He gives the number of Old Testament books as 24, the same as in the Talmud Hilary, bishop of Poitiers in France (350-368 AD), gives a catalogue in which he speaks of "Jeremiah and his epistle," yet his list numbers only 22. Rufinus of Aquileia in Italy (died 410 AD) likewise gives a complete list of 22 books. Jerome also, the learned monk of Bethlehem (died 420 AD), gives the number of canonical books as 22, corresponding to the 22 letters of the Hebrew alphabet, and explains that the five double books (1 and 2 Samuel, 1 and 2 Kings, 1 and 2 Chronicles, Ezra-Nehemiah, Jeremiah-Lamentations) correspond to the five final letters of the Hebrew alphabet. In his famous Prologus Galeatus or "Helmed Preface" to the books of Samuel and Kings, he declares himself for the strict canon of the Jews; rejecting the authority of the deutero-canonical books in the most outspoken manner, even distinguishing carefully the apocryphal additions to Esther and to Daniel. As the celebrated Catholic writer, Dr. Gigot, very frankly allows, "Time and again this illustrious doctor (Jerome) of the Latin church rejects the authority of the deutero-canonical books in the most explicit manner" (General Intro, 56)."
Interesting thing about the Book of Esther.....the name of God is never mentioned. Only book in scripture with that distinction.
As the celebrated Catholic writer, Dr. Gigot, very frankly allows, "Time and again this illustrious doctor (Jerome) of the Latin church rejects the authority of the deutero-canonical books in the most explicit manner" (General Intro, 56).
I've always thought that Jerome's lack of confidence in the "Deuts" should have made bigger headlines......but..... who am I?
"In making the transition from the Jewish to the Christian church, we find the same canon cherished by all. Christians of all sects have always been disposed to accept without question the canon of the Jews. For centuries all branches of the Christian church were practically agreed on the limits set by the Jews, but eventually the western church became divided, some alleging that Christ sanctioned the "larger" canon of Alexandria, including the Apocrypha, while others adhered, as the Jews have always done, to the canon of the Jews in Palestine taking the eastern or oriental church first, the evidence they furnish is as follows:"
A 22 book OT canon was the accepted TRADITION of the church until the end of the 4th century when the Pope told Jerome to put the Deuterocanonicals into his bible --- a decision that went against his better judgment as a scholar. Jerome stated quite clearly that the church does not accept the deuterocanonicals. He was stating a well known fact. The RCC yaps about how holy its Tradition is, but clearly in this case it wasn't very holy.
You lamely responded... "You provided nothing to me that refuted the information from this site
Perhaps this will jog your memory...
Someone once listed your source as authoritative, and I still have problems with it...
Namely, the key is incorrect and misleading.
...S indicates that the author does not mention the book in his catalog, which implies its rejection.
That is faulty logic. Jesus Himself doesn't mention all the books of the Old Testament as we know them. Would anyone suggest that He was rejecting Chronicles or Nehemiah?
Secondly, the listing is NOT accurate. For example, Origen DOES discuss some of the Deuterocannonical writings that your list supposedly says he didn't.
"You begin by saying, that when, in my discussion with our friend Bassus, I used the Scripture which contains the prophecy of Daniel when yet a young man in the affair of Susanna, I did this as if it had escaped me that this part of the book was spurious. You say that you praise this passage as elegantly written, but find fault with it as a more modern composition, and a forgery; and you add that the forger has had recourse to something which not even Philistion the play-writer would have used in his puns between prinos and prisein, schinos and schisis, which words as they sound in Greek can be used in this way, but not in Hebrew. In answer to this, I have to tell you what it behoves us to do in the cases not only of the History of Susanna, which is found in every Church of Christ in that Greek copy which the Greeks use, but is not in the Hebrew, or of the two other passages you mention at the end of the book containing the history of Bel and the Dragon.Origen,To Africanus, 5
Origen is defending the Greek version of Daniel (which the Protestant reformers of the 1500's removed), as well as the story of Bel and the Dragon. Later, Origen writes:
"Wherefore I think no other supposition is possible, than that they who had the reputation of wisdom, and the rulers and elders, took away from the people every passage which might bring them into discredit among the people. We need not wonder, then, if this history of the evil device of the licentious elders against Susanna is true, but was concealed and removed from the Scriptures by men themselves not very far removed from the counsel of these elders." Origen,To Africanus,9
Origen gives his explanation to why the Greek version of Daniel was removed from the Hebrew Bible. Origen definetely considers it Scriptures.
How about this?
"But he ought to know that those who wish to live according to the teaching of Sacred Scripture understand the saying, 'The knowledge of the unwise is as talk without sense,' [Sirach 21:18] and have learnt 'to be ready always to give an answer to everyone that asketh us a reason for the hope that is in us.’ [1 Pt 3:15] " Origen, Against Celsus, 7:12
Can we agree that Origen considered Sirach as Scripture? "Tobias (as also Judith), we ought to notice, the Jews do not use. They are not even found in the Hebrew Apocrypha, as I learned from the Jews themselves." However, since the Churches use Tobias, you must know that even in the captivity some of the captives were rich and well to do. Tobias himself says, "Because I remembered God with all my heart; and the Most High gave me grace and beauty in the eyes of Nemessarus, and I was his purveyor; and I went into Media, and left in trust with Gabael, the brother of Gabrias, at Ragi, a city of Media, ten talents of silver" (Tobias, 1:12-14). Origen, To Africanus, 13
Origen speaks highly of Tobit. Elsewhere, he says "And it is written..." the formula used to describe a Scriptural passage.
"But that we may believe on the authority of holy Scripture that such is the case, hear how in the book of Maccabees, where the mother of seven martyrs exhorts her son to endure torture, this truth is confirmed; for she says, ' ask of thee, my son, to look at the heaven and the earth, and at all things which are in them, and beholding these, to know that God made all these things when they did not exist.'" [2 Maccabees 7:28]" Origen, Fundamental Principles, 2:2
2 Maccabees is SCRIPTURE! Boy, Martin Luther would not be happy to hear this quote from Origen...
He also writes similarly about Wisdom as well. Thus, just in Origen, the website you post is woefully inadequate for those in search of the truth...
10,895 posted on 02/20/2007 6:57:04 AM PST by jo kus
DOES THIS RING A BELL? Can you still say I have shown you NOTHING to refute your website? Your re-posting this garbage makes it pretty clear where you stand regarding the truth...
Not the Septuagint version. Thus, the Catholic OT has the Greek version of Esther.
Regards
Either way we are left with a dilemma over whether to believe Origen there or believe about Origen here:
"Origen ... set himself the task of knowing the "Hebrew verity" of the Old Testament text, and gives us a list (also preserved to us by Eusebius, Eccl. Hist., VI, 5) in which he reckons the number of books as 22 (thus agreeing with Josephus). Inadvertently he omits the Twelve Minor Prophets, but this is manifestly an oversight on the part of either a scribe or of Eusebius, as he states the number of books is 22 and then names but 21." [International Standard Bible Encyclopedia]
So what did Origen really believe about the canon? What did Eusebius believe Origen believed? Origen has made a fool out of a lot of people, and if you want to base your beliefs on his rhetorical writings, you can join his club.
But you are still left with lot of other church fathers who accepted the Jewish canon of 22 books. So how do you dismiss all of these patriarchs of holy Tradition?
Nice job; I see you also quoted to demonstrate that Athanasius and Gregory Nazanean also accepted the "deuts," and that Origen forcefully and specifically argued for their inclusion.
It is the only book in the Hebrew Bible not represented among the Dead Sea Scrolls. Indeed, the revised and expanded Greek version of Esther was most likely produced to make the book more acceptable." (Invitation to the Apocrypha, p. 53
Found here ....last paragraph.
How are you Joe? Haven't seen you for a while.
Yes. I would imagine that this (and what you wrote earlier) was the reasoning behind why Esther didn't make the Jewish "Canon" until well into the third century. The Greek "additions" added some interesting comments and made the writing more relevant to religious use.
How are you Joe? Haven't seen you for a while.
Thanks for asking. I have been fine. I have withdrawn from many of these discussions, as they don't seem to go anywhere rather quickly. So rather than arguing back and forth, I have decided to just drop out on some of these discussions.
Enjoying the beautiful Arizona weather - and now I have a ton of yard work to do!
I hope all is well with you, as well.
Brother in Christ
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.