Posted on 07/20/2013 5:38:15 PM PDT by narses
Last week, my friend who is a Baptist was visiting and came with me to Mass. The first reading was from the second Book of Maccabees. She had never heard of that book. I said, "It is in the Bible." She said, "It is not in my Bible." Is there a difference?
Yes, there is a difference between Catholic and Protestant editions of the Bible. However, to appreciate this question and its answer, one must first remember that almighty God never handed anyone a complete Bible and said, "Here it is." Rather, over the centuries of salvation history, the Holy Spirit inspired the authors of Sacred Scripture to write down God's revelation to us. As time went on, the Church compiled these books to form a Canon — an authoritative set of Sacred Scripture — and declared it "God's Word." The books of the Old Testament were written probably between 1000 and 100 BC, and are usually distinguished as four sets: The Law (or Torah, our first five books of the Old Testament), the Historical Books, the Prophets, and the Writings. (The books of I & II Maccabees belong to the historical set, being written between 150 - 100 BC.) Even in the New Testament itself, we find references to the reading of the Law and the Prophets in synagogue services (e.g. Luke 4:16-19, Acts 13:15). After the Fall of Jerusalem in AD 70, the Jewish rabbis convened the Council of Jamnia (90-100), at which time they established what books would be considered their Sacred Scripture. At this time, some controversy still existed over what are called the seven "deuterocanonical books" — Tobit, Judith, Wisdom, Sirach, Baruch, and I & II Maccabees — although they had been incorporated in their entirety or at least partially in versions of the Septuagint, the official Greek translation of the Old Testament (c. 100 BC). Part of the reason for the controversy was because these were the latest writings of the Old Testament and were written in Greek rather than Hebrew; the other books of the Old Testament — the "protocanonical books"-- were older and originally written in Hebrew. Modern scholars note that Jamnia did not exclude any books definitively; a rigid fixing of the Jewish canon does not occur until at least 100 years later, and even then other books-- including the deuterocanonical books-- were read and honored. Many Scripture scholars, however, have no doubt that the apostolic Church accepted the deuterocanonical books as part of its canon of Sacred Scriptures. For instance, Origen (d. 245) affirmed the use of these books among Christians even though some of the Jewish leaders did not officially accept them.
Meanwhile, the writing of the New Testament books occurred between the time of our Lord's death and the end of the first century. (Recent studies of the Dead Sea Scrolls by some scholars suggest a date of the earliest writings closer to the time of our Lord's death, whereas much scholarship seems to place the writings between 50 and 100 AD). After the legalization of Christianity in 313, we find the Church striving to formalize what writings of the New Testament were truly considered inspired and authentic to the teachings of our Lord. St. Athanasius in his Paschal Epistle (367) presented the complete list of 27 books of the New Testament saying, "These are the sources of salvation, for the thirsty may drink deeply of the words to be found here. In these alone is the doctrine of piety recorded. Let no one add to them or take anything away from them." This list of 27 books along with the 46 books of the Old Testament (including the deuterocanonical ones) was affirmed as the official canon of Sacred Scripture for the Catholic Church by the synods of Hippo (393), Carthage I & II (397 and 419). The letter of Pope St. Innocent I in 405 also officially listed these books.
Although some discussion arose over the inclusion of other books into the Church's canon of Sacred Scripture after this time, the Council of Florence (1442) definitively established the official list of 46 books of the Old Testament and 27 of the New Testament.
With this background, we can now address why the Protestant versions of the Bible have less books than the Catholic versions. In 1534, Martin Luther translated the Bible into German. He grouped the seven deuterocanonical books (Tobit, Judith, Wisdom, Sirach, Baruch, and I & II Maccabees) of the Old Testament under the title "Apocrypha," declaring, "These are books which are not held equal to the Sacred Scriptures and yet are useful and good for reading." Luther also categorized the New Testament books: those of God's work of salvation (John, Romans, Galatians, Ephesians, I Peter, and I John); other canonical books (Matthew, Mark, Luke, Acts, rest of Pauline epistles, II Peter, and II John); and non-canonical books (Hebrews, James, Jude, Revelation, and books of the Old Testament). Many Church historians speculate that Luther was prepared to drop what he called the "non-canonical books" of the New Testament but refrained from doing so because of possible political fall-out. Why Luther took this course of action is hard to say. Some scholars believe Luther wanted to return to the "primitive faith," and therefore accepted only those Old Testament books written in Hebrew originally; others speculate he wanted to remove anything which disagreed with his own theology. Nevertheless, his action had the permanent consequence of omitting the seven deuterocanonical books of the Old Testament in Protestant versions of the Bible.
The 39 Articles of Religion (1563) of the Church of England asserted that these deuterocanonical books may be read for "example of life and instruction of manners," although they should not be used "to establish any doctrine" (Article VI). Consequently, the King James Bible (1611) printed the books between the New Testament and Old Testaments. John Lightfoot (1643) criticized this arrangement because he thought the "wretched Apocrypha" may be seen as a bridge between the two. The Westminster Confession (1647) decreed that these books, "not being of divine inspiration, are no part of the canon of Scripture, and therefore are of no authority of the Church of God; nor to be in any otherwise approved, or made use of than other human writings." The British and Foreign Bible Society decided in 1827 to remove these books from further publications and labeled these books "apocryphal." However, many Protestant versions of the Bible today will state, "King James version with Apocrypha."
The Council of Trent, reacting to the Protestant Reformers, repeated the canon of Florence in the Decree on Sacred Books and on Traditions to be Received (1546) and decreed that these books were to be treated "with equal devotion and reverence." The Catechism repeats this same list of books and again affirms the apostolic Tradition of the canon of Sacred Scripture.
“...aside from the empty authority of some church tradition, there is no internal or truly historical reason to accept them.”
This is ahistorical nonsense. I’ll leave aside the snarkiness about tradition, except to say “see 2 Thess 2:15.”
As for no reasons... Surely you mean aside from the reason that “the Scriptures” referred to in the Gospels reference the only set of scriptures that were available to Jews of the day, i.e., the Septuagint, which includes all the books mentioned in the article.
-yudan, adult convert to Holy Orthodoxy
“And if you read the early Church Fathers you will see the history......they attended the synagogue on the Sabbath. Then they would meet in home churches and celebrate the Eucharist. So go a little deeper into Church History.”
“Justin Martyr describes the early Mass that they celebrated as being very similar to the one we celebrate today.”
I don’t see how this supports your claim that Paul ceased being a Jew when he was called by Christ. Or any of the disciples, for that matter.
“Where does Scripture say it is for the confirmation of doctrine? Or that Scripture alone confirms doctrine?”
In the verse you quoted, though for some reason you quoted it improperly. It’s missing words.
2Ti 3:16-17 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: (17) That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.
That the “man of God may be perfect” is incredibly important, since it demonstrates the suffieciency of scripture.
Now as to “historical and geographical errors.” If these exist in “God-Breathed” scripture as you put it, then this essentially affirms that the Holy Spirit is capable of giving error in His inspirations. This is an attack that damages the credibility of the entire Christian religion.
Christ founded the Catholic Church on the Apostles to carry on his work.
When did your church start?
Placemark to read.
“This is ahistorical nonsense”
How, exactly, is that ahistorical nonsense? Is there any proof that Jerome, Pope Gregory, and many many others were wrong in their rejection of these works? And supposing you’re an Eastern Orthodox, is there any real logical reason why I should pick and choose which early church Fathers to believe? Unless there is a majority consensus going back to antiquity, there’s no reason to value their opinions. More importantly, however, if there is no internal consensus (that is, within the scripture as compared with the scripture), then we cannot consider your position correct.
“As for no reasons... Surely you mean aside from the reason that “the Scriptures” referred to in the Gospels reference the only set of scriptures that were available to Jews of the day, i.e., the Septuagint, which includes all the books mentioned in the article.”
Actually, there was no monolithic group of books called the Septuagint in those days. Nor did every book that was translated in Greek automatically considered divine scripture. Only the Books of Moses were translated by the Jews and made up the LXX originally, supposedly translated by the “70” translators under divine inspiration. At least, so goes the legend, and that’s all it really is. No one knows when the rest of the Old Testament was translated into Greek, or by who, or by whose authority. The same goes for the Apocrypha, some of which was originally written in Greek in the first place, and some of which were translated, and retranslated, multiple times. Josephus himself, in giving the Jewish understanding of the canon, ruled out those books since they were all produced during that period in time where there was no Prophet. Furthermore, none of the copies of the LXX we have today actually possess all of the same books, and some even have extra books which you don’t believe are scripture anyway. Furthermore, as I showed with my previous quotes, the existence of these books in a codex to begin with don’t imply that the people who used them believed they were inspired scripture either, since they included just about any book they thought was useful to read.
Thus all your arguments are irrelevant.
“Thus all your arguments are irrelevant.”
ROTFLMAO!!!!
"One man's theology is another man's belly laugh."
---Robert A. Heinlein, "Time Enough For Love"
I did not quote improperly. Only the KJV uses the word doctrine rather than teaching. It is also one of the only ones to use the word perfect rather than equipped, prepared, furnished, competent etc.....
So, not missing words. And the KJV had an agenda regarding the use of some words and is not one I trust as being entirely accurate in its interpretation.
The errors are no reflection on the perfection of God, but instead profoundly confirm humanity of its authors. There is no reason Judith as fiction cannot be canonical. Jesus used parables all the time to teach.
“I did not quote improperly. Only the KJV uses the word doctrine rather than teaching. It is also one of the only ones to use the word perfect rather than equipped, prepared, furnished, competent etc.....”
The Vulgate and Webster translate it the same way (well, though the vulgate says “perfectus” lol), which I immediately have on my computer. I’m pretty sure others have it that way too.
As for the difference between teaching and doctrine... ummm. I can’t think of any.
BfL
‘Last week, my friend who is a Baptist was visiting and came with me to Mass. The first reading was from the second Book of Maccabees. She had never heard of that book.’
.................................................
Did she tell you that after she woke up?
You have said anything worth replying to.
True ecumenism is not pandering to the heretical beliefs of protestants, it is pointing out their errors, demonstrating the truth of the Catholic Church, and bringing them into full communion with her.
Because that would not have been the complete truth.
No, I’m saying these particular books are not inspired by the holy spirit.
Which is why they were removed from the Bible.
“When did your church start?”
When Christ was born. Did he ever use the word Catholic?
What you have posted here indicates a lot of consideration on your part. Good for you.
But, with all due personal deference, my (admittedly individual, so forgive me) observation is that there are a lot of inferences to personal/individual conclusions, whether individual historical luminaries of Western Christendom or yourself.
This is one of the foundational differences in Eastern and Western Christian philosophies. In the Greek East (and originally the Latin West) there was/is dependence on conciliar thought and a rejection of doctrinal declarations of individuals who do or had/have done their thinking and made their declarations on their own. Luther, Alexander Campbell, etc...
Aside from the obvious large historical schisms (Arius, Nestorius, Monphysites), and (admittedly silly) disagreements on the calendar, the Greek East remains theologically one Church.
This can’t be said of of the West, where individual men start new movements whenever their feelings get hurt. And many of whose approaches to faith are HIGHLY legalistic.
I’m sure you and I have plenty we will agree to disagree upon.
Good day to you. Warm regards.
the Bible
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.