Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

To: verga

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.


56 posted on 06/17/2013 8:38:18 AM PDT by Mr Rogers (Liberals are like locusts...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 54 | View Replies ]


To: Mr Rogers
It is incredibly easy to quote things out of context and I have noticed over these many years that there are quite a few protestant that make a habit of it. Especially when they are “playing games” I am not saying this is what you are doing but I won't take anything seriously unless they provide a source or I am already and familiar with the work.
58 posted on 06/17/2013 8:48:11 AM PDT by verga (A nation divided by Zero!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 56 | View Replies ]

To: Mr Rogers
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.

59 posted on 06/17/2013 8:49:59 AM PDT by verga (A nation divided by Zero!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 56 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson