Posted on 06/16/2013 3:15:37 PM PDT by Salvation
|
|
|
Protestants, Catholics, and most Orthodox agree now 1 that the New Testament should consist at least of the 27 Books (Matthew through Revelation/Apocalypse) that the Catholic Church determined were canonical, but the Protestant Old Testament is lacking 7 entire books 2 (Tobias, Judith, Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus/Sirach, Baruch, I Maccabees, and II Maccabees), 3 chapters of Daniel and 6 chapters of Esther, leaving them with 66 incomplete books while Catholic Bibles have 73 books. How did this come to be?
|
Do you think that authoritative and approved for use in the liturgy are pretty close? I do.
If it weren’t authoritative — ir would have never been approved, would it?
“AD
51-125 The New Testament books are written”
The latter date on this should be doubted, as it most likely based on estimates by liberal scholars. The New Testament was assembled within the first century, almost all of it before the destruction of the Jewish temple, with only John’s works being written afterwards. Ignatius, Polycarp, Irenaeus, Papias, between them, either quote or reference almost every book in the New Testament, save 2 Peter and a couple of others. (Though their silence on it does not mean it was not there, as they discussed or quoted from particular works as the need arised.) Ignatius, Polycarp and Papias lived within the 1st century and were said to have discourse with each other and the apostle John. Irenaeus was a disciple of Polycarp. All of this points to an early composition of the New Testament, exactly as the scripture itself testifies.
And isn’t what is read in the liturgy — check out a Daily or Sunday Readings thread — indeed Scripture?
You really do sound like a Catholic to me.....Are you sure you aren’t an inactive Catholic...just away for awhile?
I think most of the new Testament was written by the year 100. I haven’t checked in the introductions to the books you mention, though.
“If it weren’t authoritative — ir would have never been approved, would it?”
Yet up until the Council of Trent, a significant part of the Roman Catholic Church REJECTED the Apocrypha as authoritative. It was just good for reading. And actually, the Council of Trent left it that way - possibly. It refused to decide if the Apocrypha was good for doctrine, or just nice stories to read.
“The majority agreed with the opinion of the general of the Servites, that controverted theological questions, which had already been the subject of discussion between Augustine and Jerome, should not be decided by the Council but should be allowed to remain open questions. The result of the above-mentioned vote of the general congregation of 15 February committed the Council to the wider canon, but inasmuch as it abstained from a theological discussion, the question of differences between books within the canon was left as it had been.” — History of the Council of Trent, pgs 56-57
Writing prior to the canon decision at the Council of Trent, Cajetan wrote:
“Here we close our commentaries on the historical books of the Old Testament. For the rest (that is, Judith, Tobit, and the books of Maccabees) are counted by St Jerome out of the canonical books, and are placed amongst the Apocrypha, along with Wisdom and Ecclesiasticus, as is plain from the Prologus Galeatus. Nor be thou disturbed, like a raw scholar, if thou shouldest find anywhere, either in the sacred councils or the sacred doctors, these books reckoned as canonical. For the words as well of councils as of doctors are to be reduced to the correction of Jerome. Now, according to his judgment, in the epistle to the bishops Chromatius and Heliodorus, these books (and any other like books in the canon of the bible) are not canonical, that is, not in the nature of a rule for confirming matters of faith. Yet, they may be called canonical, that is, in the nature of a rule for the edification of the faithful, as being received and authorised in the canon of the bible for that purpose. By the help of this distinction thou mayest see thy way clearly through that which Augustine says, and what is written in the provincial council of Carthage.”
http://thesearewritten.blogspot.com/2007/08/cardinal-cajetan-on-biblical-canon.html
Doesn’t Rabbinical Judaism have a 3-part “descending” view of the Canon? Torah, Neviim and Ketubim (Books of Law, Prophets and Writings) are not held in the same esteem. Torah is preeminent, the Prophets less significant, and Writings a further step down.
Correct me if I am wrong.
“You really do sound like a Catholic to me....”
I’m not sure you know what a Catholic is, then.
LOL!
That I haven’t heard. I do get the impression that the Torah is the primary teaching source in Rabbinic Judaism, so it seems to have pride of place in this regard.
Luther's was not the first nor was it even close to the best.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bible_translations_into_German
There is ample evidence for the general use of the entire vernacular German Bible in the fifteenth century.[2] In 1466, before Martin Luther was even born, Johannes Mentelin printed the Mentel Bible, a High German vernacular Bible, at Strasbourg. This edition was based on a no-longer-existing fourteenth-century manuscript translation of the Vulgate from the area of Nuremberg.
Until 1518, it was reprinted at least 13 times. In 1478-1479, two Low German Bible editions were published in Cologne, one in the Low Rhenish dialect and another in the Low Saxon dialect.
In 1494, another Low German Bible was published in the dialect of Lübeck, and in 1522, the last pre-Lutheran Bible, the Low Saxon Halberstadt Bible was published.
In total, there were at least eighteen complete German Bible editions, ninety editions in the vernacular of the Gospels and the readings of the Sundays and Holy Days, and some fourteen German Psalters by the time Luther first published his own New Testament translation. If you have an on-line account for the Encyclopedia Britannica you can also verify this information.
Many, including Luther’s accuser, kept the Apocrypha separate in authority, saying it was NOT useful for doctrine
What is your definition of Many? and please keep in mind that "many" people voted for Obozo, that doesn't mean it was the right choice.
Even the Council of Trent refused to address THAT question.
Because the matter had been settled.
Three problems:
Jews have historically carried on hypothetical arguments long after final decisions were accepted. This still happens today.
The Dead Sea Scrolls prove nothing, in that many of them may have been seen to be heretical texts containing the written Hebrew name of God. Their burial or hiding may have been to keep them out of public hands.
The term ‘canon’ doesn’t really mean the same thing to Jews as it does Christians. The Five Books of Moses with the explanations received at the same time have absolute primacy. That’s the opposite of the Christian view, which views all scripture through the New Testament.
You are incorrect. Luther was not the first, but it was undoubtedly the best and most accessible. IIRC, the High German vernacular version you cite was an edition produced for the rich. And the translation made by Luther exploded among the commoners, with over 100,000 printed and sold by the 1570s. Like Tyndale, he helped shaped the future of the language because his translation won such wide acceptance - and was sold at a price that made it possible for average people to own it.
The Catholic Church often allowed the wealthy vernacular translations, because their money kept them controllable.
As the challenge of the Reformation grew, so did the opposition by the Catholic Church against vernacular translations. The Catholic Church admitted it was because they did not trust commoners to read and understand scripture!
“What is your definition of Many?...Because the matter had been settled.”
From what I’ve read, a majority of scholars may have sided with the Apocrypha being unacceptable for doctrine. And the Council of Trent, as I’ve already pointed out, decided to pass on making a decision. They left the dispute between Jerome & Augustine in dispute, which means the official position of the Roman Catholic Church remains that it is up to the individual to decide if they agree with Jerome, or with Augustine. The Apocrypha has NEVER been declared to be acceptable for determining doctrine.
There is also a difference between the Apocrypha and the Deuterocanonical books. The Council of Trent screwed up. They said the canon inlcuded the old Vulgate books, but then gave a list that didn’t include all the old vulgate books...and in the end, the Catholic Church decided to accept the list as authoritative. Thus for a thousand years, three small part of the Apocrypha had been accepted with all the rest, but the Council of Trent unknowingly rejected them. “Deuterocanonical” was invented to describe the abridged version of the Apocrypha left by the Council of Trent.
So which list was right - the list used for a thousand years before Trent, or the list after Trent?
From my post # 51: Until 1518, it was reprinted at least 13 times. In 1478-1479, two Low German Bible editions were published in Cologne, one in the Low Rhenish dialect and another in the Low Saxon dialect. In 1494, another Low German Bible was published in the dialect of Lübeck, and in 1522, the last pre-Lutheran Bible, the Low Saxon Halberstadt Bible was published.
OOOOpsy.
From what I have read.... Many scholars....Majority of scholars......
I am sorry unless you are willing to actually cite sources than all you are expressing is opinions.
Does this mean that in the future both wiki and the Encyclopedia Britannica will be accepted as sources, or will that be yet another one of those unequally applied standards?
(there are so many, it is difficult to keep up with them all).
No oops on my part. Reprinted means nothing without knowing the numbers produced in each run. And cost also plays a part. It has been several years since I ready up on German translations, but IIRC, the Mendel Bible was produced as an expensive edition.
“I am sorry unless you are willing to actually cite sources than all you are expressing is opinions.”
I’ve already cited instruction given to one of your Popes. And I’ve already pointed out that the Council of Trent left the question open, since it involved a dispute between Jerome and Augustine.
“The importance of the Glossa ordinaria relative to the issue of the Apocrypha is seen from the statements in the Preface to the overall work. It repeats the judgment of Jerome that the Church permits the reading of the Apocryphal books only for devotion and instruction in manners, but that they have no authority for concluding controversies in matters of faith. It states that there are twenty-two books of the Old Testament, citing the testimonies of Origen, Jerome and Rufinus as support. When commenting on the Apocryphal books, it prefixes an introduction to them saying: ‘Here begins the book of Tobit which is not in the canon; here begins the book of Judith which is not in the canon’ and so forth for Ecclesiasticus, Wisdom, and Maccabees etc. These prologues to the Old Testament and Apocryphal books repeated the words of Jerome. For example, the following is an excerpt from the Prologue to the Glossa ordinaria written in AD 1498, also found in a work attributed to Walafrid Strabo in the tenth century, under the title of canonical and non-canonical books. It begins by explaining the distinctions that should be maintained between the canonical and non-canonical or Apocryphal books:
Many people, who do not give much attention to the holy scriptures, think that all the books contained in the Bible should be honored and adored with equal veneration, not knowing how to distinguish among the canonical and non-canonical books, the latter of which the Jews number among the apocrypha. Therefore they often appear ridiculous before the learned; and they are disturbed and scandalized when they hear that someone does not honor something read in the Bible with equal veneration as all the rest. Here, then, we distinguish and number distinctly first the canonical books and then the non-canonical, among which we further distinguish between the certain and the doubtful.
The canonical books have been brought about through the dictation of the Holy Spirit. It is not known, however, at which time or by which authors the non-canonical or apocryphal books were produced. Since, nevertheless, they are very good and useful, and nothing is found in them which contradicts the canonical books, the church reads them and permits them to be read by the faithful for devotion and edification. Their authority, however, is not considered adequate for proving those things which come into doubt or contention, or for confirming the authority of ecclesiastical dogma, as blessed Jerome states in his prologue to Judith and to the books of Solomon. But the canonical books are of such authority that whatever is contained therein is held to be true firmly and indisputably, and likewise that which is clearly demonstrated from them. For just as in philosophy a truth is known through reduction to self-evident first principles, so too, in the writings handed down from holy teachers, the truth is known, as far as those things that must be held by faith, through reduction to the canonical scriptures that have been produced by divine revelation, which can contain nothing false. Hence, concerning them Augustine says to Jerome: To those writers alone who are called canonical I have learned to offer this reverence and honor: I hold most firmly that none of them has made an error in writing. Thus if I encounter something in them which seems contrary to the truth, I simply think that the manuscript is incorrect, or I wonder whether the translator has discovered what the word means, or whether I have understood it at all. But I read other writers in this way: however much they abound in sanctity or teaching, I do not consider what they say true because they have judged it so, but rather because they have been able to convince me from those canonical authors, or from probable arguments, that it agrees with the truth.124
The Prologue then catalogues the precise books which make up the Old Testament canon,125 and those of the non-canonical Apocrypha,126 all in accordance with the teaching of Jerome. Again, the significance of this is that the Glossa ordinaria was the official Biblical commentary used during the Middle Ages in all the theological centers for the training of theologians. Therefore, it represents the overall view of the Church as a whole, demonstrating the emptiness of the claims of Roman apologists that the decrees of Hippo and Carthage officially settled the canon for the universal Church. We come back again to the New Catholic Encyclopedia which states that the canon was not officially settled for the Roman Catholic Church until the sixteenth century with the Council of Trent.”
http://christiantruth.com/articles/Apocrypha3.html
However, as I’ve pointed out, Trent did NOT decide on what the Apocrypha, soon to be “Deuterocanonical”, meant in terms of teaching doctrine.
As I have said in the past (perhaps not on this thread); There is not need to rehash what has already been accepted.
I provided you with the source. Read it for yourself. Or, provide YOUR sources contradicting what I’ve provided.
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.
