Posted on 06/15/2009 10:19:28 AM PDT by bdeaner
Problem for this tale is the Temple had replaced the tabernacle hundreds years earlier and the ark was there.
It's interesting, the footnote I have for that particular passage (up to verse 8). It reads, This legendary account of how Jeremiah hid the sacred tent (which was not mentioned after the time of Solomon!), the ark, and the altar is given for the purpose of explaining why the postexilic temple was the legitimate place of worship even without these sacred objects.
IOW, this account is actually a piece of history regarding what happened to the Ark after it went missing from the Temple. Modern day treasure hunters may want to take it more seriously, if searching for the Ark.
Jeremiah was under the Mosiac Law and had no authority to move the ark anywhere, a task that only the Levites had performed.
I don't see any mention of that in the footnotes, of course that doesn't mean it's not a point to consider. My only question would be, "How do you know this is true, and, how do you know it isn't possible Jeremiah wasn't given permission to do these things by God, either directly (God revealing to Jeremiah directly) or indirectly (God telling a Levite to allow Jeremiah to take the Ark, etc)? IOW, I'd say it would be important to show that only Levites could touch and move the ark.
However, that seems to be an irrelevant point. Verse 4 of 2 Macc says, "The same document also tells how the prophet, following a divine revelation, ordered that the tent and the ark should accompany him..." This doesn't necessarily mean that Jeremiah himself moved the ark. It only says that he "ordered" it be moved; this still obviously means that when he ordered it moved, Levites could have done the actual moving.
Maybe Baruch will do better as in chapter one verses one and two Baruch is said to write from Babylon but Jeremiah 42:6,7 says Baruch and Jeremiah went to Egypt and therefore there is no evidence Baruch was ever in Babylon.
I don't see how in any of Jer 42 we see Baruch and Jeremiah going to Egypt. In fact, in my translation, in verses 10-20, it seems God is warning His people, through Jeremiah, to remain in Babylon and to *not* go to Egypt!
Perhaps you could explain better what you mean here? I don't mean this sarcastically; I've never heard any criticism of the so-called "Apocryphal" writings that stand up to scrutiny, but that doesn't mean there doesn't exist any. Perhaps you have some I haven't heard; this one I haven't heard. But it doesn't appear to be correct based on the text provided.
Neither Jesus nor any Bible writer quote from the Apocrypha.
This statement is, with all due respect, simply flat out wrong. See post #13 that bdeaner posted.
I could go on to the false teachings of the Apocrypha too but the obvious errors I pointed out should be enough to show that the Apocrypha is not and never was part of the Inspired Canon.
Again, I'd like a reply to what I've posted here, or other "obvious errors" you may have to share. I don't think there are such though; by my experience, any "errors" are based on eisegetical hermeneutics.
I wonder if it comes with the jumbo selection of crayons, or only the weasly 8-pack.
“That is your take on the matter.”
Was that not also Jerome’s take on the matter although he did include these books. Did hold them on a par with the Gospels or letters of Paul or did he view them simply as good reading material?
And what of Athanasious take on the matter? “Athanasius on the Canon From his Thirty-Ninth Festal Epistle, A.D. 367. The English translation is based upon the version published in A Select Library of the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church, Second Series, vol. 4 (New York: 1892), pp. 550-5, slightly revised. 4. There are, then, of the Old Testament, twenty-two books in number; for, as I have heard, it is handed down that this is the number of the letters among the Hebrews; their respective order and names being as follows. The first is Genesis, then Exodus, next Leviticus, after that Numbers, and then Deuteronomy. Following these there is Joshua the son of Nun, then Judges, then Ruth. And again, after these four books of Kings, the first and second 1 being reckoned as one book, and so likewise the third and fourth 2 as one book. And again, the first and second of the Chronicles are reckoned as one book. Again Ezra, the first and second 3 are similarly one book. After these there is the book of Psalms, then the Proverbs, next Ecclesiastes, and the Song of Songs. Job follows, then the Prophets, the Twelve [minor prophets] being reckoned as one book. Then Isaiah, one book, then Jeremiah with Baruch, Lamentations and the Epistle, one book; afterwards Ezekiel and Daniel, each one book. Thus far constitutes the Old Testament. Τὰ . 5. Again, it is not tedious to speak of the books of the New Testament. These are: the four Gospels, according to Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. After these, The Acts of the Apostles, and the seven epistles called Catholic: of James, one; of Peter, two, of John, three; after these, one of Jude. In addition, there are fourteen epistles of Paul the apostle, written in this order: the first, to the Romans; then, two to the Corinthians; after these, to the Galatians; next, to the Ephesians, then, to the Philippians; then, to the Colossians; after these, two of the Thessalonians; and that to the Hebrews; and again, two to Timothy; one to Titus; and lastly, that to Philemon. And besides, the Revelation of John.”
Only Baruch is mentioned in his listing of the Hebrew Scriptures. But this from The Jewish Encyclopedia contradicts even that one example of Baruch being included:
“Canonicity. The Book of Baruch was never accepted as canonical by the Palestinian Jews (Baba Batra 14b). According to the “Apostolical Constitutions,” it was read in public worship on the tenth day of the month Gorpiaios (probably Ab). This statement, however, can hardly be considered authoritative; and even if it be correct, it can refer only to the usage of some group of Hellenistic Jews. If, as is probable, the first part of the book was written in Hebrew, its exclusion from the Palestinian canon must have been owing to its supposed lack of prophetic authority. It was, however, accepted by the Alexandrian Jews as a work of edification; and through the medium of the Septuagint it passed into the hands of the Christians, among whom it speedily became popular, being often quoted by Athenagoras, Clement of Alexandria, and many others as a work of Jeremiah and as sacred Scripture. In a number of early Christian canonical lists the work was included in Jeremiah, and together with the other Apocryphal books was pronounced canonical (deuterocanonical) by the Council of Trent (1545-63).”
So what is your “take on the matter”?
Given the tenor of discourse on this thread (particularly among Protestants, I’m afraid), I probably ought to but out, but St. Jerome, in the Preface to Samuel and Chronicles (usually known as the “Helmeted Prologueâ€) appears to be the first to have referred to the Deuteorcanonical books as being Apocryphal.
My typo, 43:6,7. 43:6,7
Neither Jesus nor any Bible writer quote from the Apocrypha.
“This statement is, with all due respect, simply flat out wrong. See post #13 that bdeaner posted.
“Matt. 2:16 - Herod's decree of slaying innocent children was prophesied in Wis. 11:7 - slaying the holy innocents.”
Matthew applied Jeremiah's prophecy to Herod's decree, Jeremiah, who wrote at least four hundred years before Wisdom of Solomon was written. As with other pseudo-Scriptural writings the author likely borrowed from the Bible.
“It's interesting, the footnote I have for that particular passage (up to verse 8). It reads, This legendary account of how Jeremiah hid the sacred tent (which was not mentioned after the time of Solomon!), the ark, and the altar is given for the purpose of explaining why the postexilic temple was the legitimate place of worship even without these sacred objects.”
“IOW, this account is actually a piece of history regarding what happened to the Ark after it went missing from the Temple. Modern day treasure hunters may want to take it more seriously, if searching for the Ark.”
There is no support whatever in Scripture for this “legendary” story and much that argues against it.
Another altar would need to be constructed to carry on the High Priest's duties..no mention of that happening.
No authorization given to Jeremiah or any Levites to move the ark and altar. Remember Uzzah’s lack of permission to touch the ark and David's mistaken effort.
Evidently that material Temple and contents was not something God choose to preserve when the nation broke the covenant.
As I have time I'll look at the rest of the citations in post #13, but I don't expect them to be better that the first.
Saint Jerome quoted them as inspired along with the Gospels
Here are some examples...
Does not the SCRIPTURE say: ‘Burden not thyself above thy power’ [SIRACH 13:2] Jerome, To Eustochium, Epistle 108 (A.D. 404), in NPNF2, VI:207
Do not, my dearest brother, estimate my worth by the number of my years. Gray hairs are not wisdom; it is wisdom which is as good as gray hairs At least that is what Solomon says: “wisdom is the gray hair unto men.’ [Wisdom 4:9]” Moses too in choosing the seventy elders is told to take those whom he knows to be elders indeed, and to select them not for their years but for their discretion (Num. 11:16)? And, as a boy, Daniel judges old men and in the flower of youth condemns the incontinence of age (Daniel 13:55-59, or Story of Susannah 55-59, only found in the Catholic Bibles) Jerome, To Paulinus, Epistle 58 (A.D. 395), in NPNF2, VI:119
Here St. Jerome mixes use of the Book of Wisdom with Moses’ writing. In the midst of referring to Moses, he also refers to the Story of Susanna to establish a point. He makes no distinction in practice from the writing of Moses, from the two Deuterocanonical books
“I would cite the words of the psalmist: ‘the sacrifices of God are a broken spirit,’ [Ps 51:17] and those of Ezekiel ‘I prefer the repentance of a sinner rather than his death,’ [Ez 18:23] AND THOSE OF BARUCH,’Arise, arise, O Jerusalem,’ [Baruch 5:5] AND MANY OTHER PROCLAMATIONS MADE BY THE TRUMPETS OF THE PROPHETS.” Jerome, To Oceanus, Epistle 77:4 (A.D. 399), in NPNF2, VI:159
Notice how Jerome makes no distinction at all between the Psalmist, Ezekiel, and Baruch. They are all Scripture, God's Word. Also, contrary to Rhodes’ assertion that the Deuterocanonicals had no prophets, Jerome himself calls Baruch a prophet, thus according his writing Scriptural status. According to Jerome, Baruch thus authoritatively spoke God's Word. He uses Baruch in tandem with these prophets to prove David in Psalm 51 correct.
As in good works it is God who brings them to perfection, for it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that pitieth and gives us help that we may be able to reach the goal: so in things wicked and sinful, the seeds within us give the impulse, and these are brought to maturity by the devil. When he sees that we are building upon the foundation of Christ, hay, wood, stubble, then he applies the match. Let us then build gold, silver, costly stones, and he will not venture to tempt us: although even thus there is not sure and safe possession. For the lion lurks in ambush to slay the innocent. [Sir. 27:5] “Potters’ vessels are proved by the furnace, and just men by the trial of tribulation.” And in another place it is written: [Sir. 2:1] “My son, when thou comest to serve the Lord, prepare thyself for temptation.” Again, the same James says: [James 3:22]”Be ye doers of the word, and not hearers only. For if any one is a hearer of the word, and not a doer, he is like unto a man beholding his natural face in a mirror: for he beholdeth himself, and goeth away, and straightway forgetteth what manner of man he was.” It was useless to warn them to add works to faith, if they could not sin after baptism. Jerome, Against Jovinianus,, Book 2, 3 NPNF2, VI:390
As we have seen, “It is written” is a phrase that both the authors of Scripture, and the Church Fathers use only in reference to Scripture. Jerome uses the phrase identifying the quote to come as Scripture. The quote he uses comes from the book of Sirach. Thus, Sirach is Scripture. He then quotes James interchangeably as just another Scripture as of the same level of authority as Sirach.
The Old Testament ark is fulfilled in the New Testament in the virgin Mary -who is the new ark if you understand typology along with the early Church fathers
Here is examples of typology along with the writings of the Early Church fathers from an older post of mine...
Old Testament Ark “verses”(typology) New Testament Mary who is the
“Immaculate” Ark of the NEW COVENANT
A cloud of glory covered the Tabernacle and Ark (Exodus 40:34-35; Numbers 9:15) = Type is...
“And the angel said to her: “The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you’” (Luke 1:35)
Ark spent three months in the house of Obededom the Gittite (2 Samuel 6:11) = Type is...
Mary spent three months in the house of Zechariah and Elizabeth (Luke 1:26, 40)
King David asked “How can the ark of the Lord come to me?” (2 Samuel 6:9) = Type is...
Elizabeth asked Mary, “Why is this granted to me, that the mother of my Lord should come to me?” (Luke 1:43)
David Leaped and danced before the Lord when the Ark arrived in Jerusalem (2 Samuel 6:14 - 16) = Type is...
John the Baptist leaped for joy in Elizabeth’s womb when Mary arrived (Luke 1:44)
Even the Early Christians saw this.
Some examples....
Athanasius of Alexandria (c. 296–373) was the main defender of the deity of Christ against the second-century heretics. He wrote: “O noble Virgin, truly you are greater than any other greatness. For who is your equal in greatness, O dwelling place of God the Word? To whom among all creatures shall I compare you, O Virgin? You are greater than them all O [Ark of the] Covenant, clothed with purity instead of gold! You are the ark in which is found the golden vessel containing the true manna, that is, the flesh in which divinity resides” (Homily of the Papyrus of Turin).
Gregory the Wonder Worker (c. 213–c. 270) wrote: “Let us chant the melody that has been taught us by the inspired harp of David, and say, ‘Arise, O Lord, into thy rest; thou, and the ark of thy sanctuary.’ For the Holy Virgin is in truth an ark, wrought with gold both within and without, that has received the whole treasury of the sanctuary” (Homily on the Annunciation to the Holy Virgin Mary).
“This preface to the Scriptures may serve as a “ helmeted “ introduction
to all the books which we turn from Hebrew into Latin, so that we may be
assured that what is not found in our list must be placed amongst the
Apocryphal writings. Wisdom, therefore, which generally bears the name of
Solomon, and the book of Jesus, the Son of Sirach, and Judith, and Tobias,
and the Shepherd are not in the canon.”
Jerome’s preface to Samuel and Kings.
He names the spocryphal books as “not in the canon”
There is plenty more that Our Lady fulfills in the New Testament
some examples....
Mary is the Daughter of Zion-The new Israel,Mother of the Church
The important thing point out is that in the OT (esp. Isiah, Zephaniah, Zechariah, etc..) there are Messianic prophecies known as the Daughter Zion prophecies which tend to have a similar form. They begin with something like, “rejoice, O Daughter of Zion, for the Lord your God is in your midst..” and continue on with Messianic prophecy. The form of Gabriel’s Annuniciation to Mary matches the form of the Daughter Zion prophecies. This indicates on the one hand that these prophesies are fulfilled with the words of Gabriel which announce the Messianic expectation as being fulfilled at that time.
The prophets words were a foreshadowing of the Annuniciation. Gabriel called Mary Kecharitomene, which I believe captures the essence of Daughter of Zion and points beyond it. Basically Mary is being presented in Luke I & II as representing not just the perfect embodiment of the virtues of what it means to be Israel, she is presented as a certain personification of Israel. She stands in as Israel proper, and the language used throughout the narrative suggests the concept of “corporate personality” which is part of Hebrew thought. There are allusions and types in Luke I & II which further support this (themes and structure in the Magnificat, allusions to Abraham to which this concept of corporate personality applies, Simeon, Judith, etc..). Also, this understanding of what Luke I & II presents about Our Lady is an interpretive key to understanding certain passages in a deeper way (for example Simeon’s prophecy).
It also ties in with themes in John’s writings and sheds light upon them. The thematic parallels between John-Rev & Luke-Acts are many so it’s no surprise that this aspect of Luke I & II would mesh well with John.
The Importance of Kecharitomene
Kecharitomene (Luke 1:28), is Mary,s purpose ,it is Her essence and being in the divine supernatural order, the virgin from Nazareth is the “woman” of the Father. As the spouse of the Holy Spirit (Matthew 1:20), in the divine supernatural order, the virgin from Nazareth is the “woman” of the Holy Spirit. As the mother of the Son (Luke 1:31), in the divine supernatural order, the virgin from Nazareth is the ‘woman’ of the Son. The virgin from Nazareth, clearly then, is “woman” to all the three divine Persons who is GOD. She is aptly the ‘blessed among women’ (Luke 1:42). The Blessed Virgin Mary is the “woman” of GOD. The Son of Man never called her “mother”, not even once while He interacted with humans, because it will not be in keeping with His divinity or with the Oneness and Indivisibility of the Holy Trinity. The virgin from Nazareth is not the mother of the Holy Spirit and she, obviously, is not the mother of the Father
Luke 1:28 Uses the word “Kecharitomene: to describe Mary,s function,essence and being
The original Greek was kecharitomene, the perfect passive participle of charis, grace. St. Jerome translated it into Latin as gratia plena, “full of grace.” In Greek the perfect stem denotes a completed action with a permanent result. Kecharitomene means completely, perfectly, enduringly endowed with grace. The Protestant Revised Standard Version translates Lk 1:28 as “highly favored daughter.” This is no mere difference of opinion but a conscious effort to distort St. Luke’s original Greek text. Had Mary been no more than “highly favored,” she would have been indistinguishable from Sarah the wife of Abraham, Anna the mother of Samuel, or Elizabeth the mother of John the Baptist, all of whom were long childless and “highly favored” because God acceded to their pleas to bear children. But neither Sarah nor Anna is described as kecharitomene in the Septuagint, a translation by Jewish scholars of the Hebrew Scriptures for Greek-speaking Jews in Egypt. Nor does Luke use it to describe Elizabeth. Kecharitomene in this usage is reserved for Mary of Nazareth.
The word “kecharitomene” is a perfect passive participle of the verb “charitoo.”
Some have argued that this says nothing unique about Mary since Saint Stephen, just before he is martyred for the faith, is said to be full of grace in Acts 6:8. However a different word form is used to describe Saint Stephen. In the Greek the conjugated form of “charitoo” that is used to describe him is “charitos” not “kecharitomene” that is used in reference to Mary,but Saint Luke does not use Mary as her name in Luke 1:28 heChanges it to “Kecharitomene” this is a new name , and we all know that name changes in Scripture are significant - Abram (Hebrew “father”) to Abraham (”father of multitudes), Jacob to Israel, Saul to Paul, Simon to Peter, etc.
This describes her very essence and being.
Mary, is named “kecharitomene” - because she is full of grace-full of perfection
Mary was chosen to be the Mother of God, because she was perfect in obeying the will of God. She would not betray her divine husband for the sake of a man. The marriage between Joseph and Mary took place in the divine plan in order to protect the publicity of the holy virgin announced in the Holy Scriptures who would give birth to Emanuel, God with us (Isaiah 7:14)
Mary is the New Eve -more typology
Old Testament Eve- Verses New Testament Mary
Created without original sin, Gen 2:22-25 = Created without original sin, Luke 1:28,42
There was a virgin, Gen 2:22-25 = There is a virgin, Luke 1:27-34
There was a tree, Gen 2:16-17 = There was a cross made from a tree, Matt 27:31-35
There was a fallen angel, Gen 3:1-13 = There was a loyal angel, Luke 1:26-38
A satanic serpent tempted her, Gen 3:4-6 = A satanic dragon threatened her, Rev 12:4-6,13-17
There was pride, Gen 3:4-7 = There was humility, Luke 1:38
There was disobedience, Gen 3:4-7 = There was obedience, Luke 1:38
There was a fall, Gen 3:16-20 = There was redemption, John 19:34
Death came through Eve, Gen 3:17-19 = Life Himself came through Mary, John 10:28
She was mentioned in Genesis 3:2-22 = She was mentioned in Genesis 3:15
Could not approach the tree of life Gen 3:24 = Approached the “Tree of Life”, John 19:25
An angel kept her out of Eden, Gen 3:24 = An angel protected her, Rev 12:7-9
Prophecy of the coming of Christ, Gen 3:15 = The Incarnation of Christ, Luke 2:7
Firstborn was a man child, Gen 4:1 = Firstborn was a man child, Luke 2:7, Rev 12:5
Firstborn became a sinner, Gen 4:1-8 = Firstborn was the Savior, Luke 2:34
The mother of all the living, Gen 3:20 = The spiritual mother of all the living, John 19:27
The Early Christians saw this very clear...
“He became man by the Virgin, in order that the disobedience which proceeded from the serpent might receive its destruction in the same manner in which it derived its origin. For Eve, who was a virgin and undefiled, having conceived the word of the serpent, brought forth disobedience and death. But the Virgin Mary received faith and joy, when the angel Gabriel announced the good tidings to her that the Spirit of the Lord would come upon her, and the power of the Highest would overshadow her: wherefore also the Holy Thing begotten of her is the Son of God; and she replied, ‘Be it unto me according to thy word.’ And by her has He been born, to whom we have proved so many Scriptures refer, and by whom God destroys both the serpent and those angels and men who are like him; but works deliverance from death to those who repent of their wickedness and believe upon Him.” Justin Martyr, Dialogue with Trypho, 100 (A.D. 155)
“In accordance with this design, Mary the Virgin is found obedient, saying, ‘Behold the handmaid of the Lord; be it unto me according to thy word.’ But Eve was disobedient; for she did not obey when as yet she was a virgin. And even as she, having indeed a husband, Adam, but being nevertheless as yet a virgin (for in Paradise ‘they were both naked, and were not ashamed,’ inasmuch as they, having been created a short time previously, had no understanding of the procreation of children: for it was necessary that they should first come to adult age, and then multiply from that time onward), having become disobedient, was made the cause of death, both to herself and to the entire human race; so also did Mary, having a man betrothed [to her], and being nevertheless a virgin, by yielding obedience, become the cause of salvation, both to herself and the whole human race. And on this account does the law term a woman betrothed to a man, the wife of him who had betrothed her, although she was as yet a virgin; thus indicating the back-reference from Mary to Eve, because what is joined together could not otherwise be put asunder than by inversion of the process by which these bonds of union had arisen; s so that the former ties be cancelled by the latter, that the latter may set the former again at liberty Wherefore also Luke, commencing the genealogy with the Lord, carried it back to Adam, indicating that it was He who regenerated them into the Gospel of life, and not they Him. And thus also it was that the knot of Eve’s disobedience was loosed by the obedience of Mary. For what the virgin Eve had bound fast through unbelief, this did the virgin Mary set free through faith.” Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 3:22 (A.D. 180).
“For as Eve was seduced by the word of an angel to flee from God, having rebelled against His Word, so Mary by the word of an angel received the glad tidings that she would bear God by obeying his Word. The former was seduced to disobey God, but the latter was persuaded to obey
I can give you quotes from even Saint Athanasius,St.Cyril of Jerusalem,St. Hilary of Poitiers,St. Basil the Great,St. Gregory Nazianzen,St. Gregory the Great,St. John Damascene and many other who quote the Deuts as inspired.
If you start questioning certain saints who gave you Bible canon ,you're going to end up questioning whether they got the other Gospels right since we don't have signatures from what we believe are from the original authors,
We must trust these early Church fathers when they quote the Deuts as inspired by God,like it or not
The Septuagint version used by the early Christians (presumably inspired by the Holy Spirit on this matter) was the acknowledged translation for all the “Jews of the Dispersion” in Asia, as well as in Egypt,
Not for the Jews of Babylon- the biggest diaspora community
Since the Bible is God's Word to my thinking, it wasn't the saints that gave it to us but God who saw to it's preservation. So who are the “certain saints”?
No, I don't have to trust these “Church fathers”.
"The fathers agree that the apocrypha is non-canonical and should not be included in the canon. Melito of Sardis, (Eusebius – Lib. IV. Cap. 26.) testifies he knew the OT canon. He took great pains in research, as we are told by Eusebius, and comes to the exact number of books as the protestants and Jews do. Origen (Eus. Lib. VI c. 25) acknowledges the same books as the protestants as canonical, and says that the number of them are two and twenty according to the Hebrew alphabet. (Remembering the combination of 1-2 Samuel, 1-2 Kings, etc.) Athanasius says “Our whole scripture is divinely inspired and hath books not infinite in number, but finite and comprehended in a certain canon.” There was, therefore a certain canon by the late 300’s. He then enumerates this, “The canonical books of the OT are two and twenty. Equal to the number as the Hebrew alphabet.” Then he says, “But besides these, there are also other non canonical books of the OT which are only read to the catechumens.” Then he lists the Wisdom of Solomon, Sirach, the fragments of Esther, Judith, Tobit and the like. “These” he says “are the non-canonical books of the OT.” (Athanas. Opp. Ii. 126. sqq. Ed. Bened.) Hilary, bishop of Poitiers, says, “The law of the OT is considered as divided into twenty-two books, so as to correspond to the number of letters.” Nazianzen fixes the same number. Cyril of Jerusalem, in his 4th catechetical discourse says much, “Do thou learn carefully from the church what are the books of the OT, Read the divine Scriptures, the two and twenty books. (Cyril. Hiersol. Catech. IV. 33. p. 67. ed Tuttei.) Epiphanius counts twenty seven, or by the Hebrew doubling, twenty two, “delivered by God to the Jews.” And he says of the apocryphal books, “They are indeed useful books, but are not included in the canon, and were not deposited in the ark of the covenant.” Ruffinus, in his exposition of the Apostle’s Creed, says “But I should be known that there are other books also, which were called by the ancients not canonical but ecclesiastical, the Wisdom of Solomon and of Sirach, the book of Tobit, Judith, Macabees. These they would have to be read in the churches, but that nothing should be advanced from them for the confirming the authority of faith.” (Symb. Apost. In Appendix ad Cyprian. Ed. Fell. P. 26). (As with any good book.) Jerome plainly rejects all the apocryphal books from the canon. In his Prologus Galeatus he says “As there are twenty and two letters, so there are counted twenty and two books. Therefore the Wisdom of Solomon, and Jesus, and Judith, and Tobit, are not in the canon.” (See the introduction to the Vulgate in his own hand.) Gregory the Great, in his commentaries on Job, (Lib. XIX. Cap. 16.) expressly writes that the books of Macabees is not canonical, as well as the rest. Josephus also agrees. In his first book against Apion the grammaritan “We have not innumerable books, inconsistent and conflicting with each other, but two and twenty books alone, containing the series of our whole history, and justly deemed worthy of our highest credit.” (Contra Apion. L. I. C. 8.)
In that one paragraph you have a dozen "church fathers" agreeing that the Hebrew canon of 22 books makes up the Old Testament, used by Protestants and rejected by the RCC, and specifically does not include the apocryphal books. The excellent and succinct five-part study above illustrates beyond a doubt that the Roman Catholic church is guilty of a very grave error. As Dr. McMahon reminds us...
Since now God has spoken through His Son in these last days, the danger of adding or subtracting to the Scriptures entails the eternal condemnation of God upon a soul. If the Roman Catholics be right, then the Protestants are all damned for taking away the Scriptures. If the Protestants are right, the all the Roman Catholics are damned for adding to the Scriptures. In either case, whoever is right, the other is necessarily damned since they overthrow the office of Christ as Prophet – He alone who has the right to teach His church the truth. It is a very grave and sober subject I am dealing with. Though it is not WW III, it may as well be since the eternal plight of never-dying souls are at stake depending on where we land concerning the addition or subtraction of the Apocrypha to the canon of God’s revealed, or perceptive will, to man. Even if some were to disagree with my view in the above paragraph, the Scriptures abound with warnings and exhortations not to take away nor add to the revelation of God, which is only allowable by those who are prophets of God – The Son being the Prophet, Priest King sent by God for all time; which will be the view I hold most earnestly, He being the foundation on which I stand...For once the apocryphal books are proven to be noncanonical in the strict sense, the authority and reliability of the RCC church falls to the ground.
And so it does.
Without trust in Athanasius, Jerome etc.. you're saying they were not guided by the Holy Spirit during the Bible canon as well.
Why trust them to decide Bible canon? Without them there is no canonized Bible,there is hundreds of gnostic books.
What was the Bible canon was pretty clearly understood before the end of the second century and didn't depend on Athanasius, Jerome, etc. None after the Apostles can claim inspiration as the Apostles had.
I read to this bizarre question. Jesus was the only Begotten Son of the Heavenly Father and some mere mortal deems to ask the question which canon of Scriptures was known to Jesus? Christ read the minds of those he encountered and said I have foretold you all things...
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.