Protecting God’s Word From “Bible Christians”

“Stand firm and hold fast to the traditions that you were taught,
either by an oral statement or by a letter of ours.”
~ St. Paul to the Thessalonians

A former student of mine is thinking of becoming a Catholic, and she had a question for me. “I don’t understand the deuterocanonical books,” she ventured. “If the Catholic faith is supposed to be a fulfillment of the Jewish faith, why do Catholics accept those books and the Jews don’t?” She’d done her homework, and was troubled that the seven books and other writings of the deuterocanon had been preserved only in Greek instead of Hebrew like the rest of the Jewish scriptures—which is part of the reason why they were classified, even by Catholics, as a “second” (deutero) canon.

My student went on. “I’m just struggling because there are a lot of references to those books in Church doctrine, but they aren’t considered inspired Scripture. Why did Luther feel those books needed to be taken out?” she asked. “And why are Protestants so against them?”

The short answer sounds petty and mean, but it’s true nonetheless: Luther jettisoned those “extra” Old Testament books—Tobit, Sirach, 1 and 2 Maccabees, and the like—because they were inconvenient. The Apocrypha (or, “false writings”), as they came to be known, supported pesky Catholic doctrines that Luther and other reformers wanted to suppress—praying for the dead, for instance, and the intercession of the saints. Here’s John Calvin on the subject:

Add to this, that they provide themselves with new supports when they give full authority to the Apocryphal books. Out of the second of the Maccabees they will prove Purgatory and the worship of saints; out of Tobit satisfactions, exorcisms, and what not. From Ecclesiasticus they will borrow not a little. For from whence could they better draw their dregs?

However, the deuterocanonical literature was (and is) prominent in the liturgy and very familiar to that first generation of Protestant converts, so Luther and company couldn’t very well ignore it altogether. Consequently, those seven “apocryphal” books, along with the Greek portions of Esther and Daniel, were relegated to an appendix in early Protestant translations of the Bible.

Eventually, in the nineteenth century sometime, many Protestant Bible publishers starting dropping the appendix altogether, and the modern translations used by most evangelicals today don’t even reference the Apocrypha at all. Thus, the myth is perpetuated that nefarious popes and bishops have gotten away with brazenly foisting a bunch of bogus scripture on the ignorant Catholic masses.

Nothing could be further from the truth.

To begin with, it was Luther and Calvin and the other reformers who did all the foisting. The Old Testament that Christians had been using for 1,500 years had always included the so-called Apocrypha, and there was never a question as to its canonicity. Thus, by selectively editing and streamlining their own versions of the Bible according to their sectarian biases (including, in Luther’s case, both Testaments, Old and New), the reformers engaged in a theological con game. To make matters worse, they covered their tracks by pointing fingers at the Catholic Church for “adding” phony texts to the closed canon of Hebrew Sacred Writ.

In this sense, the reformers were anticipating what I call the Twain-Jefferson approach to canonical revisionism. It involves two simple steps.

Step one: Identify the parts of Scripture that you find especially onerous or troublesome. Generally, these will be straightforward biblical references that don’t quite square with the doctrine one is championing or the practices one has already embraced. Mark Twain is the modern herald of this half of creative textual reconstruction: “It ain’t those parts of the Bible that I can’t understand that bother me,” Twain wrote, “it is the parts that I do understand.”

Step two: Yank the vexing parts out. It’s what Thomas Jefferson literally did when he took his own Bible and cut out the passages he found offensive—a kind of “scripture by subtraction” in the words of religion professor Stephen Prothero.

The reformers justified their Twain-Jefferson humbug by pointing to the canon of scriptures in use by European Jews during that time, and it did not include those extra Catholic books—case closed! Still unconvinced? Today’s defenders of the reformers’ biblical reshaping will then proceed to throw around historical precedent and references to the first-century Council of Jamnia, but it’s all really smoke and mirrors.

The fact is that the first-century Jewish canon was pretty mutable and there was no universal definitive list of sacred texts. On the other hand, it is indisputable that the version being used by Jesus and the Apostles during that time was the Septuagint—the Greek version of the Hebrew scriptures that included Luther’s rejected apocryphal books. SCORE: Deuterocanon – 1; Twain-Jefferson Revisionism – 0.

But this is all beside the point. It’s like an argument about creationism vs. evolution that gets funneled in the direction of whether dinosaurs could’ve been on board Noah’s Ark. Once you’re arguing about that, you’re no longer arguing about the bigger issue of the historicity of those early chapters in Genesis. The parallel red herring here is arguing over the content of the Christian Old Testament canon instead of considering the nature of authority itself and how it’s supposed to work in the Church, especially with regards to the Bible.

I mean, even if we can settle what the canon should include, we don’t have the autographs (original documents) from any biblical books anyway. While we affirm the Church’s teaching that all Scripture is inspired and teaches “solidly, faithfully and without error that truth which God wanted put into sacred writings” (DV 11), there are no absolutes when it comes to the precise content of the Bible.

Can there be any doubt that this is by God’s design? Without the autographs, we are much less tempted to worship a static book instead of the One it reveals to us. Even so, it’s true that we are still encouraged to venerate the Scriptures, but we worship the incarnate Word—and we ought not confuse the two. John the Baptist said as much when he painstakingly distinguished between himself, the announcer, and the actual Christ he was announcing. The Catechism, quoting St. Bernard, offers a further helpful distinction:

The Christian faith is not a “religion of the book.” Christianity is the religion of the “Word” of God, a word which is “not a written and mute word, but the Word is incarnate and living.”

Anyway, with regards to authority and the canon of Scripture, Mark Shea couldn’t have put it more succinctly than his recent response to a request for a summary of why the deuterocanon should be included in the Bible:

Because the Church in union with Peter, the pillar and ground of the truth (1 Timothy 3:15) granted authority by Christ to loose and bind (Matthew 16:19), says they should be.

Right. The Church says so, and that’s good enough.

For it’s the Church who gives us the Scriptures. It’s the Church who preserves the Scriptures and tells us to turn to them. It’s the Church who bathes us in the Scriptures with the liturgy, day in and day out, constantly watering our souls with God’s Word. Isn’t it a bit bizarre to be challenging the Church with regards to which Scriptures she’s feeding us with? “No, mother,” the infant cries, “not breast milk! I want Ovaltine! Better yet, how about some Sprite!”

Think of it this way. My daughter Margaret and I share an intense devotion to Betty Smith’s remarkable novel, A Tree Grows in Brooklyn. It’s a bittersweet family tale of impoverishment, tragedy, and perseverance, and we often remark how curious it is that Smith’s epic story receives so little attention.

I was rooting around the sale shelf at the public library one day, and I happened upon a paperback with the name “Betty Smith” on the spine. I took a closer look: Joy in the Morning, a 1963 novel of romance and the struggles of newlyweds, and it was indeed by the same Smith of Tree fame. I snatched it up for Meg.

The other day, Meg thanked me for the book, and asked me to be on the lookout for others by Smith. “It wasn’t nearly as good as Tree,” she said, “and I don’t expect any of her others to be as good. But I want to read everything she wrote because Tree was so wonderful.”

See, she wants to get to know Betty Smith because of what she encountered in A Tree Grows in Brooklyn. And all we have are her books and other writings; Betty Smith herself is gone.

But Jesus isn’t like that. We have the book, yes, but we have more. We still have the Word himself.

No, definitely not. If it is accurate, how can it be over any line?

Perhaps this is a better illustration as to how your post appeared based upon your behavior and actions (no “mind-reading” involved)...

Mark 12:13-27

Later, the Jewish leaders sent some Pharisees and some men from the group called Herodians to Jesus. They wanted to catch him saying something wrong. They went to Jesus and said, “Teacher, we know that you are an honest man. You are not afraid of what others think about you. All people are the same to you. And you teach the truth about God’s way. Tell us, is it right to pay taxes to Caesar? Should we pay them or not?”

But Jesus knew that these men were really trying to trick him. He said, “Why are you trying to catch me saying something wrong? Bring me a silver coin. Let me see it.” They gave Jesus a coin and he asked, “Whose picture is on the coin? And whose name is written on it?” They answered, “It is Caesar’s picture and Caesar’s name.”

Then Jesus said to them, “Give to Caesar what belongs to Caesar, and give to God what belongs to God.” The men were amazed at what Jesus said.

Then some Sadducees came to Jesus. (Sadducees believe that no one will rise from death.) They asked him a question: “Teacher, Moses wrote that if a married man dies and had no children, his brother must marry the woman. Then they will have children for the dead brother. There were seven brothers. The first brother married but died. He had no children. So the second brother married the woman. But he also died and had no children. The same thing happened with the third brother. All seven brothers married the woman and died. None of the brothers had any children with her. And she was the last to die. But all seven brothers had married her. So at the time when people rise from death, whose wife will she be?”

Jesus answered, “How could you be so wrong? It’s because you don’t know what the Scriptures say. And you don’t know anything about God’s power. When people rise from death, there will be no marriage. People will not be married to each other. All people will be like angels in heaven. Surely you have read what God said about people rising from death. In the book where Moses wrote about the burning bush, it says that God told Moses this: ‘I am the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob.’ So they were not still dead, because he is the God only of living people. You Sadducees are so wrong!”

"The Deuterocanon was a part of the Christian Scripture at the time of St. Paul’s writing..."

That is both misleading and erroneous assertion.

What we were discussing here pertained to what was Hebrew Scripture at that time --- which would be what Paul himself was referring to when he made mention of Scripture.

The abundance of evidence points against the Maccabean books and all the rest of the so-called deuterocanon having been inclusive of the corpus of writings known to Paul himself as Scripture.

There are too many witnesses arrayed against your own assumptions to the contrary.

I don’t respond to attempts at vague irony.

There was nothing vague in what I said to you, but it was your own vague assumptions and broad generalizations which were under investigation.

If you have a direct and plain question, I’ll answer.

If there are any "questions" those are for you to discover the answers for. I already know the correct answers...

Previously, as has been shown and discussed, Josephus witnessed directly as to what the corpus of Jewish Holy Writ was composed of. His testimony did not include the written works in dispute here.

Melito of Sardis, upon purposeful investigation of his own found the same corpus of writings as Josephus wrote of were still regarded by the Israelite Jews to be their own "Scripture" -- which is powerful evidence that the Apostle Paul when himself wrote of that same was NOT referring to those written works which you refer to as deuterocanon.

Previously, you had wrote;

"...the parts of the scripture unconverted Jews half a century later decided to like"

Suggesting as you have that the "unconverted Jews" retained only what they "half a century" [after Christ] "decided to like" -- means you are accusing those Jews of having redacted their own sacred writings.

Continuing along in the conversation, it appeared to me that allegation was based upon nothing more than what you imagine the Greek writings somewhat erroneously, misleadingly labeled Septuagint to have been precisely synonymous/matching to what Paul would have from his own perspective considered to be Scripture.

There is no logical room for assumptions such as you made [as in the immediate above highlighted] which again -- for the second time has been brought to your attention.

"...at the time of St. Paul’s writing, and he said “all scripture” is inspired."

At the time of Paul's writings, he did say all scripture was inspired -- but he did not say all Hebrew/Jewish religious writings were inspired -- thus those also "scripture".

Writings such as the Wisdom of Ben Sira (or The Wisdom of Jesus son of Sirach or merely Sirach), also called Ecclesiasticus (not to be confused with Ecclesiastes) as the names for that writing indicate -- are but a preaching and collection of allegedly "wise" sayings, and as such were as Targum -- as I have already pointed out to you, although previously when doing so I was less explicit, not previously having singled out this one as Targum-like, early rabbinical period commentary.

That *some* Hellenized Jews who scarcely knew their own religion may have mistaken that writing (and possible others) as belonging to corpus of Hebrew Scripture most certainly does not equate with the Apostle Paul having held that same view.

Again -- the evidence is against those sort of assumptions, leaving it here to be that when Paul wrote of Scripture he was writing of that collection of writings identified by Josephus, and again identified in Targum dating to the 1st century.

That corresponds/agrees with what is now in content (as to 'books' themselves) what is known as Masoretic text -- which as to books the modern "Protestant" OT canon aligns with also.

If the Jews were to have as you previously insinuated -- redacted their own canon --- then you must show that to having occurred rather than merely assert that it did so on strength of further assumption as to the contents of Greek Septuagint circulating at the time of Christ, Paul, the rest of the Apostles, and early Hebrew/Jewish converts in Israel, with it there being also needed to to be established (by yourself, other than on strength of mere assertion) that any Greek inclusion of what Jerome termed Apocrypha was viewed by Paul as "Scripture".

Which is why I set before you twice, and now for a third time;

lacked concept of what their own Holy Writ consisted of

OR changed what that consisted of some time soon after the overthrow of the Temple.

to which I may as well [again] add Paul to those whom you must show was of the list of those Jews who didn't know their own Scripture, mistaking various spurious writings and Targum-like rabbinical writings for being capital "S" Scripture.

In other words --- lean on something more than concept or notion of what Greek Septuagint may have been composed of, while including consideration that such writings were at the time of Christ written upon scrolls --- not bound in codex or 'book' form.

The scrolls were typically organized after the following manner;
Torah ("Teaching", also known as the Five Books of Moses), Nevi'im ("Prophets") and Ketuvim ("Writings")

This last category, "writings", was widely perceived to have been closed according to Josephus, as daniel1212 in comment #121 on this thread presented

limits his books to those written between the time of Moses and Artaxerxes, thus eliminating some apocryphal books, observing that "(Jewish) history hath been written since Artaxerxes very particularly but hath not been esteemed of the like authority with the former by our forefathers, because there hath not been an exact succession of prophets since that time."

[snip]
While other have different opinions, in the Tosfeta (supplement to the Mishnah) it states, "...the Holy Spirit departed after the death of Haggai, Zecharaiah, and Malachi. Thus Judaism defined the limits of the canon that was and still is accepted within the Jewish community." Once that limit was defined, there was little controversy. Some discussion was held over Ecclesiastes and Song of Songs, but the core and bulk of the OT was never disputed. (Tosfeta Sota 13.2, quoted by German theologian Leonhard Rost [1896-1979], Judaism Outside the Hebrew Canon. Nashville: Abingdon, 1971; http://www.tektonics.org/lp/otcanon.html)

If other scrolls came to be associated in the minds of some Hellenized Jews with those which previously had been their own Holy Writ -- that does not make those additional writings any more to be what Christ Himself came to fulfill, and include what He himself was referring to when He spoke of prophets having prophesied of Himself -- or in other words --- contents of Tanakh.

Some Christians, those in the know of such aspects and significant shadings of consideration towards various Jewish- origin texts which early on circulated with Christianity, later referred some of what you refer to as deuterocanon as "ecclesiastical", fit for reading in church setting, but not inspired and inerrant Scripture.

Previously you had said the Holy Ghost was author of the Septuagint.

One question was posed to you;

Who is it you think created the Septuagint

You answered;

The Holy Ghost.

yet you by-passed the others as she wrote;

"...and why did they? And then, to what version of it are you referring? Do you know the actual history of it?

There are several questions there, all of them inconvenient to the contention that can be more or less boiled down to a simple minded -- "if it was in the Greek Septuagint -- it was Hebrew Holy Writ".

Not only does that argument not fly, but upon critical examination, it no longer even rolls along the ground either.

I would suggest abandoning the little truckload of mix-and-match Catholic apologetic you have been engaging in on this thread, for the arguments won't stand up to scrutiny, despite all the wriggling and wiggling of wording to attempt to retain usage of that same pitiful argumentation.

This guy circles 'round all the usual (or typical) Catholic attempts to use the Apocrypha/deuterocanon as form of RC apologetic weapon and blasts it all smithereens.

I wonder if he ever manned a Vulcan cannon or flew one of these things? hehehh...

Were you ever taught that Mary was God or even god? Were you ever taught that she was divine? Were you ever taught that she was due worship or taught to worship her?

Simple yes or no answers

This sort of question doesn't lend itself to simple yes or no answers. What is a god? It can be as blatant as Ashteroth, Queen of Heaven. It can be as subtle as wanting a nice car, too much. I don't think you'll ever get a black and white answer because technically, from what I've seen of it, the formal teaching stops short of identifying Mary with the essence of the divine being. So if you're looking for that, so you can deny it, don't hold your breath.

But that doesn't mean there isn't a problem.

I was never a Catholic. All I had to work with were Catholics I knew personally. I have Catholic relatives who, IMHO, do cross that line, who have elevated Mary to the status of divine being, co-redemptrix, truly coequal with Christ in the redemptive process. They appear to have arrived at this based on their feminist distrust of the inherent patriarchy (Father-rule) of the Trinity, synthesized with the power of the false-ish "Mother of God" syllogism to further confuse matters.

Yes, I know that the "Mother of God" formula does not technically express deity for Mary in the sense of being very God. Theotokos is better understood as God-bearer, or as one person puts it, Mary was the mother of the one who was always God. Not so good as sound-bite theology, but it does a slightly better job of avoiding the category confusion of the oversimplified "Mother of God" formulation. But it still leaves a lot of important details unstated.

But my relatives, AFAIK, never heard of Theotokos, or Chalcedon, or Nestorius, etc. Without that intensive background, when you say "Mother of God," you trigger biological models of understanding based on practical human experience. "Mother" is the First Cause of the child. If the child has the essence of absolute deity, "Mother" becomes First Cause even to that. Yes, I know the councils and the teaching don't say that. The focus at Chalcedon was preserving the seamless, hypostatic union of both human and divine natures in Christ, despite having acquired His human nature by birth to Mary. And yes, I am aware there are debates even about the exact timing and origin of His human nature (preexistence of souls question etc.).

But my relatives don't process any of that. They look at you funny if you don't get that, because she is God's Mother, she deserves similar respect, which we evangelicals would characterize as idolatry, when directed at Mary. This is a difficult to avoid side-effect of the expression "Mother of God," as it plays out in the minds of rank-and-file Catholics, such that no amount of improvement in catechism can rectify the impulse to ontological errors, because they are forced on the mind by the language itself.

Add to that mix all the activities associated with Marian devotion, not to mention using some of those grandiose titles associated with well-known false deities, and you end up sending a message that unmistakably conveys "god" if not "God" to many an honest mind, though the formal teaching may try to come artfully short of such a declaration. But having a pope actually call her Queen of Heaven? Is not the queen coequal regent with the king? And if equal in rank, under monotheistic principles, how do we see her as not some way entangled with the Trinity as a peer? But the formal teaching doesn't say it is so. We just have Pope Pius XII sending a message via labeling that is nigh impossible to read any other way:

From the earliest ages of the catholic church a Christian people, whether in time of triumph or more especially in time of crisis, has addressed prayers of petition and hymns of praise and veneration to the Queen of Heaven. And never has that hope wavered which they placed in the Mother of the Divine King, Jesus Christ; nor has that faith ever failed by which we are taught that Mary, the Virgin Mother of God, reigns with a mother's solicitude over the entire world, just as she is crowned in heavenly blessedness with the glory of a Queen.

See: http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/pius_xii/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-xii_enc_11101954_ad-caeli-reginam_en.html

It's like common law marriage. There doesn't have to be a piece of paper saying its official for it to be real. All you need are the elements. The evangelical heart cannot give prayer or hymns of praise or titles of heavenly monarchy to any but God, Father, Son and Holy Spirit, and no one else. He will not give His glory to another. So we won't either, either formally, or materially.

Peace,

SR

“This sort of question doesn’t lend itself to simple yes or no answers.”

Sure it does. God is God. Mary is NOT God. See?

My soul magnifies the Lord,
And my spirit rejoices in God my Savior.
For He has regarded the low estate of His handmaiden,
For behold, henceforth all generations shall call me blessed.
For He who is mighty has done great things for me, and holy is His name. And His mercy is on those who fear Him from generation to generation.
He has shown strength with His arm:
He has scattered the proud in the imagination of their hearts.
He has put down the mighty from their thrones,
and exalted those of low degree.
He has filled the hungry with good things;
and the rich He has sent empty away.
He has helped His servant Israel, in remembrance of His mercy;
As He spoke to our fathers, to Abraham and to His posterity forever.

Glory be to the Father and to the Son and to the Holy Spirit.
As it was in the beginning, is now and ever shall be, world without end. Amen

Magníficat ánima mea Dóminum,
et exsultávit spíritus meus
in Deo salvatóre meo,
quia respéxit humilitátem
ancíllæ suæ.

Ecce enim ex hoc beátam
me dicent omnes generatiónes,
quia fecit mihi magna,
qui potens est,
et sanctum nomen eius,
et misericórdia eius in progénies
et progénies timéntibus eum.
Fecit poténtiam in bráchio suo,
dispérsit supérbos mente cordis sui;
depósuit poténtes de sede
et exaltávit húmiles.
Esuriéntes implévit bonis
et dívites dimísit inánes.
Suscépit Ísrael púerum suum,
recordátus misericórdiæ,
sicut locútus est ad patres nostros,
Ábraham et sémini eius in sæcula.

Glória Patri et Fílio
et Spirítui Sancto.
Sicut erat in princípio,
et nunc et semper,
et in sæcula sæculórum.

Amen.

She became the Mother of God, in which work so many and such great good things are bestowed on her as pass man’s understanding. For on this there follows all honor, all blessedness, and her unique place in the whole of mankind, among which she has no equal, namely, that she had a child by the Father in heaven, and such a Child . . . Hence men have crowded all her glory into a single word, calling her the Mother of God . . . None can say of her nor announce to her greater things, even though he had as many tongues as the earth possesses flowers and blades of grass: the sky, stars; and the sea, grains of sand. It needs to be pondered in the heart what it means to be the Mother of God.

(Commentary on the Magnificat, 1521; in Luther’s Works, Pelikan et al, vol. 21, 326)

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.