A common rebuttal Protestants give to Catholics when accused of engaging in "Private Interpretation" of Scripture is that Catholics engage in "Private Interpretation" as of Scripture as well, particularly when it comes to a Catholic deciding for themself that the Catholic Church is the church to join. The Protestant envisions that he and the Catholic both are fallibly interpreting Scripture and each are coming to their own fallible conclusions. Given this, the Protestant sees any arguments given for submitting to Rome as not only unnecessary, but even engaging in the same fallible private judgment that Catholics clobber Protestants for doing. In short, the Protestant sees the Catholic engaging in circular reasoning and special pleading.
When I encountered this for the zillionth time, here is the response I gave to one Protestant Blogger (slightly modified for this blog post):
The problem with that claim is there is a misunderstanding (even equivocation) going on with the term "interpret". Really, there are two distinct things going on:(1) Studying the Evidence and coming to a fallible but plausible conclusion.
(2) Authoritatively teaching a binding doctrine, including authoritatively interpreting a text of Scripture.Everyone must engage in category #1. That's not the issue. The issue is category #2. When it comes to addressing category #2, one must see that there either is an authoritative teaching body ("Magisterium") or there is not. If there is no Magisterium, then there are no definitive doctrines, only fallible but plausible opinions. That's basically the state of Protestantism and why fewer and fewer doctrines are seen as "essential". If there is a Magisterium, one must engage in #1 to locate and eventually submit to which Magisterium is the most credible.
Let me give an example of the problem with Protestantism. Let's say that St Paul came down from Heaven into your denomination and told your pastor that your pastor was teaching incorrect doctrines and rather your pastor should be teaching these other doctrines. In the Protestant view, your pastor could theoretically disagree with St Paul if your pastor felt Paul's comments did not align with your pastor's interpretation of Scripture. In the Protestant mind, both your pastor and St Paul were in the category #1 above: they were both fallible men doing their best to discern what the Spirit was telling them through Scripture. Neither could or were teaching authoritatively.
The problem with the above example is obviously that we know St Paul is not on par with your pastor, and in fact St Paul was entrusted by God with the role of #2 above. This means your pastor and his congregation, who are all in category #1, are not free to overturn Paul's teaching should they come to a different interpretation of the Bible. They'd be in the wrong and Paul would be in the right.
What you and other Protestants do is think that a Christian in category #1 has the (optional) duty of locating a denomination and pastor also in category #1. And since everyone is in category #1, then it's possible there could come a time when you disagree with your pastor's fallible but plausible interpretation of Scripture on a doctrine you plausibly but fallibly believe is important, and at that point you could leave to find another denomination or start your own. All the Protestant is doing is shifting between denominations of category #1, completely oblivious to or denying the existence of someone of category #2.
Unless Catholics and Protestants can differentiate and understand these two categories, they will continue to talk past eachother. The good folks at Called to Communion have written extensively about this, but I thought it should be repeated in a more concise form.
255 comments:
«Oldest ‹Older 201 – 255 of 255You can use the word justification all you want, that doesn't mean it was used as forensic. Nick has proven the original Greek never meant forensic and yet you make a new definition out of thin air and claim everyone used your definition.
Where's someone in history asserting that justification was forensic? I just want you to follow your own epistemological standards that you try to impose on Catholics. Only fair!
When Clement wrote--"that faith by which almighty God has justified all men from the very beginning" would mean its forensic since men are not justified in the sight of God by their works or that they have it in their nature as being without sin. When God justifies a man it is not on the basis of what man has done but one the basis of Christ. That's why it is forensic as Rom 3:24 tells us.
The word for justify in Rom 3:24 "In the NT, dikaióō in the act. voice means to recognize, to set forth as righteous, to declare righteous, to justify as a judicial act.
Zodhiates, Spiros: The Complete Word Study Dictionary : New Testament. electronic ed. Chattanooga, TN : AMG Publishers, 2000, c1992, c1993, S. G1344
Here is how "justified" is used in Rom 3:24. This is what Clement would have meant since there is no other way to understand it correctly.
"In the NT, dikaióō in the act. voice means to recognize, to set forth as righteous, to declare righteous, to justify as a judicial act."
Zodhiates, Spiros: The Complete Word Study Dictionary : New Testament. electronic ed. Chattanooga, TN : AMG Publishers, 2000, c1992, c1993, S. G1344
Below is what the word "justified" means in Rom 3:24:
"In the NT, dikaióō in the act. voice means to recognize, to set forth as righteous, to declare righteous, to justify as a judicial act."
Zodhiates, Spiros: The Complete Word Study Dictionary : New Testament. electronic ed. Chattanooga, TN : AMG Publishers,2000, c1992, c1993, S. G1344
This is how Clement would have understood about justification "by that faith by which almighty God has justified all men from the very beginning. Men are not justified before God by their their deeds since by works of the law no man would be justified in the sight of God. To do that man would have to be perfect. That's why its forensic. It is something that God declares.
So where is someone in history outside of scripture teaching justification is forensic? Where and whom? Those two words being used together? I posted a Protestant quote demonstrating the exact date when the definition changed. You have yet to present any evidence of an earlier date.
1,500 of a false gospel?
You got me. All I know is that if someone was teaching that justification was not forensic then they were a false teacher.
I already gave you the original meaning of "justified" in Rom 3:24 from a Greek NT lexicon. Definitions don't change. It has always meant this since Paul penned these words.
On the canon, it should be self evident -though certain fools miss the obvious- that if one of the deuterocanonical books is cited as scripture then they consider it scripture BUT if they DON'T cite it, it doesn't mean anything either way on canon. I believe Ester is canonical but I've never cited it for anything for example.
John's disciple Polycarp uses Tobit.
Clement who knew Peter and would eventually be bishop of Rome after the short reign of Linus and Cletus, uses Judith and Wisdom.
The Didache uses Sirach.
That's 4 of the 7 before the death of the last apostle.
Do you really want to play this game?
Daniel,
Many problems with the Old Testament apochpyra. None were written by a prophet and they contain errors.
Daniel,
None of the deuterocanonicals claim to be written by a prophet and they contain errors. The Didache is not scripture.
Deuterocannon contains errors?
Please show me a complete Bible in history that did not contain the Deuterocannon? Let me guess, another 1,500 years of error and it took the Reformers to remove these 7 books from the OT that everyone else used for 1,500 years.
The Jews reject the Deuterocannon because it was too Catholic. The Protestants because it's too Catholic. You are in over your head again with history drowning your position.
Deuterocannon explained BOOK BY BOOK:
http://catholicdefense.blogspot.com/2012/06/defending-deuterocanon-book-by-book.html
http://catholicdefense.blogspot.com/2012/06/defending-deuterocanon-book-by-book_28.html
Another great article:
http://catholicdefense.blogspot.com/2012/08/the-deuterocanon-and-communion-of-saints.html
Were they written by prophet?
Depends how the word prophet it used. For instance Jews don't call Daniel a prophet, but Jesus does. To Jews making prophecy was not enough to be considered a prophet typically. However, there still seems to be debate among Jews what a prophet is. The issue of prophets may simply be in what sense was the word used.
Ralph
you: "they contain errors"
me: Does the holy writer teach the errors? And if so are they really errors? There are a number of "errors" in your canon too, but I doubt you wouldn't bend over backwards to defend problems even the Orthodox Jews think are errors in the Tanakh such as the sacrificial regulations Ezekiel 46:6 "six lambs" whereas Numbers 28:11 has "seven" and several more.... such as who killed Goliath? What day was the temple destroyed by the Babylonians? Who did Judas die? Many of these things require explanations that the Bible does not provide whether they be tradition or speculation. Either way, some effort is made to explain the "errors" (unless your some of those Jews that just say part of the bible DO have errors)
You've really stepped in it by this seemingly innocuous post in two ways:
1) If canonicity is in part determined by who wrote the alleged Scripture (Prophet? Apostle? Etc...), and if authorship is sometimes ONLY known because of tradition, then some parts of the canon ARE CONTINGENT on tradition.
2) If canonicity is determined in part by the presence of heretical doctrines, that's well and good. However it precludes you from using what is in the canon to determine heresy.
The reason?
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circular_reasoning
You can appeal to the authority of everything in the canon to define a heresy. You can use heresy as a test to determine your canon. But you can't do both without commiting a fallacy of circular reasoning.
So you have two options now: retract those two objections against the Catholic deuterocannon, or abandon sola scriptura.
Your move.
Daniel,
The canon of the OT was already determined by the OT Jews before the time of Christ. The OT deuterocannon was not considered by the OT Jews. Another reason they were not considered Scripture is because these books contain no prophecy. Also there is no canonic list or council of the church in the first 4 centuries that accepted these books as inspired.
It was not until Trent that the RCC elated these books to full canon status. Even this was not done without controversy. There were some who were against it.
Anonymous:
The Jews never established a uniform canon the post New Testament era. Before that the canon varied by sect and school. Even if we were to limit ourselves to the Talmudic Jews, they did not even agree on canon, a number of Rabbis in the Talmud undeniably call Sirach scriptures, other wanted to REMOVE Ezekiel from the canon for reasons I mentioned about (it contradicts the Torah on a number of points), likewise some rejected Ecclesiates as a Epicurean work. BTW some of the early Church canons in the first few centuries OMIT books even you accept in the canon today like Esther, which is not even quoted by the NT either. BTW it does seem the Essenes may have accepted a number of books Catholics accept in the Canon. But in any case to say the Canon was already established before the NT simply is not true! And this is not even taking into account the Hellenistic Jew's bible, which Jesus' seems to agree with by the fact his Palestinian synagogue quotes a verse from Isaiah that is lacking in the Hebrew Masoretic text. As far as the Church Fathers go there are a number of varying canons it was not until the 4th century that they started to be more uniform. But even before that we have Fathers quoting the Deuteros as SCRIPTURE. BTW a number of the early Christian canons lacked the NT books Luther had a low opinion of too, like 2 Peter, James, Jude, etc, why don't you reject these books too? Afterall, they were not in a number of early Church canons, rarely quoted in the early centuries, and contain heretical doctrine like justification by work!
Ralph:
you said: Another reason they were not considered Scripture is because these books contain no prophecy.
me: A number of books in the bible contain no prophecy, like Paul's epistles. But this claim on the Deuteros is not even completely true, Baruch was written by a prophet, Baruch and Jeremiah. Wisdom likewise has a prophecies of Jesus' death in Wisdom 2, and Wisdom "being seen on earth and conversing with men" which is extremely beautiful! Though some of the deutros lack prophecy, does not make them all so! In either case the presences of prophecies do not determine the canon, or the bible would be less than 66 books.
BTW I don't know who you directed your last comment to.
Another reason they were not considered Scripture is because these books contain no prophecy.
Wisdom 2:
12 Where is he, the just man? We must plot to be rid of him; he will not lend himself to our purposes. Ever he must be thwarting our plans; transgress we the law, he is all reproof, depart we from the traditions of our race, he denounces us. 13 What, would he claim knowledge of divine secrets, give himself out as the son of God? 14 The touchstone, he, of our inmost thoughts; 15 we cannot bear the very sight of him, his life so different from other men’s, the path he takes, so far removed from theirs! 16 No better than false coin he counts us, holds aloof from our doings as though they would defile him; envies the just their future happiness, boasts of a divine parentage. 17 Put we his claims, then, to the proof; let experience shew what his lot shall be, and what end awaits him. 18 If to be just is to be God’s son indeed, then God will take up his cause, will save him from the power of his enemies.[1] 19 Outrage and torment, let these be the tests we use; let us see that gentleness of his in its true colours, find out what his patience is worth. 20 Sentenced let him be to a shameful death; by his own way of it, he shall find deliverance.
The canon of the OT was already determined by the OT Jews before the time of Christ...
This is plainly, clearly, on no uncertain terms false.
Samaritans definately only used the five Torah books as Scripture. And the Sadducees probably did as well:
With the destruction of the Temple and the state the Sadducees as a party no longer had an object for which to live. They disappear from history, though their views are partly maintained and echoed by the Samaritans, with whom they are frequently identified (see Hippolytus, "Refutatio Hæresium," ix. 29; Epiphanius, l.c. xiv.; and other Church Fathers, who ascribe to the Sadducees the rejection of the Prophets and the Hagiographa... --Jewish Encylopedia
Then there is the canon of the diaspora Jews that included Baruch, Sirach, Wisdom, 1 Maccabees, 2 Maccabees, Tobit, and Judith.
Those in some or in all combinations is found the earliest extant Septuagint transcripts.
Even some Jews of the Diaspora today use this broader canon (See the wikipedia page for Beta Israel in Ethiopia). Theirs goes beyond the Catholic OT canon.
Within 5 minutes of good research on the internet, you can show that whoever told you that the Jewish canon was settled at the time of Christ is an idiot.
Also there is no canonic list or council of the church in the first 4 centuries that accepted these books as inspired.
It was not until Trent that the RCC elated these books to full canon status.
There is no canonical list from any Christian Church that used the Protestant Canon for 1500 years.
The first canonical list that is what the Catholics use that is extant to us is from Carthage. Carthage's list exactly matches Trent's list.
Whoever is saying they weren't elevated until Trent is lying to you and I wouldn't listen to them.
The council of Hippo in 393, and the third (according to another reckoning the sixth) council of Carthage in 397, under the influence of Augustine, who attended both, fixed the catholic canon of the Holy Scriptures, including the Apocrypha of the Old Testament.... The New Testament canon is the same as ours. This decision of the transmarine church however, was subject to ratification; and the concurrence of the Roman see it received when Innocent I and Gelasius I a.d. 414) repeated the same index of biblical books. This canon remained undisturbed till the sixteenth century, and was sanctioned by the council of Trent at its fourth session." (Schaff, Philip, History of the Christian Church, Vol. III, Ch 9)
Philip Shaff is the biggest of Protestant heavy hitters when it comes to Scholarship. The dude wrote the friggin Shaff-Herzog encylopedia.
Anonymous,
Just a quick review: Whoever told you that the Deuterocanon didn't include any prophecies is wrong, whoever told you the canon was settled for Jews at the time of Christ is an idiot and whoever said that the Deuterocanon wasn't received by the Church until Trent is a liar.
So why are you using sources that are so deceitful and uninformed?
Daniel,
Why were these books referred to a Deuterocanonical i.e. second canon status until Trent?
The reason is that these books were disputed.
Why do you think Trent "elevated" these books to full canon status during the Reformation?
Athanasius, Cyril of Jerusalem, Origen all were opposed to these books being Scripture. No Greek manuscripts has the same list of books as Trent.
You do agree that the none of these books were written by a prophet and the Jews of Jesus time did not consider these books to be Scripture because God had not spoken for 400 years.
Ralph:
you:Why were these books referred to a Deuterocanonical i.e. second canon status until Trent? The reason is that these books were disputed. Why do you think Trent "elevated" these books to full canon status during the Reformation?
Me: Actually, you will see the councils even before Trent never made this distinction. The council of Florence set these books before the REfromation, you will see a similar canon at Carthage around 417ish that we also consider binding on the matter.
you:Athanasius, Cyril of Jerusalem, Origen all were opposed to these books being Scripture. No Greek manuscripts has the same list of books as Trent.
me: This is an argument from Webster, its only partly true. A number of Fathers at one point said these books were of lesser status, then later called them scripture. This issue was already addressed here http://matt1618.freeyellow.com/deut.html
Take for example St Athanasius:
"And where the sacred writers say, Who exists before the ages,' and 'By whom He made the ages,’ [Heb 1:2] they thereby as clearly preach the eternal and everlasting being of the Son, even while they are designating God Himself. Thus, if Isaiah says, 'The Everlasting God, the Creator of the ends of the earth;’ [Is 40:28] and Susanna said, 'O Everlasting God;' [Daniel 13:42-Susanna] and Baruch wrote, 'I will cry unto the Everlasting in my days,' and shortly after, 'My hope is in the Everlasting, that He will save you, and joy is come unto me from the Holy One;' [Baruch 4:20,22]" Athanasius the Great: Discourses Against the Arians, 1:4 (A.D. 362), in NPNF2, IV:313
you:You do agree that the none of these books were written by a prophet and the Jews of Jesus time did not consider these books to be Scripture because God had not spoken for 400 years
me: Already addressed the "prophet" stuff. And already address the claim that the Jews did not consider these books scripture, because some did, even afterwards.
Anonymous, I don't think you've demonstrated your assertions on canon at all.
Between Polycarp, Clement of Rome, and the Didache, I can find a reference to four of the seven books we are disputing. [Tobit, Judith, Sirach, Wisdom]
There is NO CHRISTIAN CHURCH IN THE HISTORICAL RECORD FROM 33AD UNTIL 1500AD THAT USED THE EXACT 66 BOOKS CANON. That should scare the shit of you. (Yes, you can find individuals that follow the exact Protestant canon: Jerome until hechanged his mind
, Rufinus of Aquila, Strabo, Cardinal Cajetan--though he said they were canonical, he distinguished two kinds of canonical)
The early canon was debated until the 4th century.
We know this because of the Muratorian Fragment that (from c. 170AD) skips 1 and 2 Peter, James, and Hebrews, and includes Wisdom.
Your line about Origin is suchbullshit
it painedme to write a response. [A quick scroll will show that at one link Origin (as quoted by Eusebius) cites the books of Maccabees as Scripture and in the other the books of Tobit and Judith]
Athanasius includes Baruch and leaves out Esther. And so on and so on until it came to a head at Carthage in 397.
I've already quoted Phillip Schaff to you that says that Carthage and Trent are identical canon.
If those books were added at Trent, how do you explain that Copts use them when they split from the Catholics in 451? Or that the Orthodox use them in 1054?
Or that Catholics were using them in the Ecumenical Council of Florence in 1442?
"Aside from the absence of Maccabees from the Codex Vaticanus (probably the very oldest copy of the Greek Old Testament), all the entire manuscripts contain all the deuterocanon; where the manuscript Septuagints differ from one another, with the exception noted, it is in a certain excess above the deuterocanonical books."
Daniel: you don't gotta start cussin just because someone makes a bad claim
I know, I know, I said I wasn't going to comment any more, but Anon/Ralph/Meyu's last entry demands that I point something out...
I'm not going to point out all the inaccurate statements (other people are doing that). What I'm going to point out is that they're the same inaccurate statements which were corrected earlier elsewhere.
Anon, in the above post you asked "Why were these books referred to a Deuterocanonical i.e. second canon status until Trent?"
The problem is that you said something very similar on another website and were given the following response: "Deuterocanonical” doesn’t mean what you think it means. We still call those Books Deuterocanonical, and it means about the same thing as Antilegomena. It doesn’t suggest that they’re of any less Divine authority."
So.....why are you reasserting something you've been told is incorrect? I can only think of two possible reasons:
(a) You think that we're lying when we say that we still refer to those books as the Deuterocanon.
(b) You're not really paying attention to our responses.
So which is it?
But why have I come back to point this out? Well, I left because I felt you weren't reading our responses nor attempting to answer our questions. It is my hope that this post will encourage you to read our responses a little more carefully.
(And with regards to prophecy in the Deuterocanon, I'd invite you to read Wisdom 2:12–22 and see if it reminds you of any New Testament event...)
Berhane,
My point about the "No Greek manuscripts has the same list of books as Trent." is not about the fathers. That is a separate issue.
If the Jews say Daniel is not a prophet and Jesus says he is who do you believe?
The Jews believed that God had stopped speaking after Malachi. The Deuterocanonical books were after this.
Again, why did the church call these books Deuterocanonical until Trent?
Here are some scholarly views on the Deuterocanonical books:
"F. F. Bruce states there is no evidence that the Jews (neither Hebrew nor Greek speaking) ever accepted a wider canon than the twenty-two books of the Hebrew OT. He argues that when the Christian community took over the Greek OT they added the Apocrypha to it and "gave some measure of scriptural status to them also."{2}
Gleason Archer makes the point that other Jewish translations of the OT did not include the Apocryphal books. The Targums, the Aramaic translation of the OT, did not include them; neither did the earliest versions of the Syriac translation called the Peshitta. Only one Jewish translation, the Greek (Septuagint), and those translations later derived from it (the Italia, the Coptic, Ethiopic, and later Syriac) contained the Apocrypha.{3}
Even the respected Greek Jewish scholar Philo of Alexandria never quotes from the Apocrypha. One would think that if the Greek Jews had accepted the additional books, they would have used them as part of the canon. Josephus, who used the Septuagint and made references to 1 Esdras and 1 Maccabees writing about 90 A.D. states that the canon was closed in the time of Artaxerxes I whose reign ended in 423 B.C.{4} It is also important to note that Aquila's Greek version of the OT made about 128 A.D., which was adopted by the Alexandrian Jews, did not include the Apocrypha."
http://www.probe.org/site/c.fdKEIMNsEoG/b.4225141/k.D79C/The_Old_Testament_Apocrypha_Controversy__The_Canon_of_Scripture.htm
Bruce is wrong, as I've demonstrated from the quote from the Jewish Encyclopedia.
You want further evidence?
http://halakhah.com/babakamma/babakamma_92.html.
Footnote 27 in the bottom half shows they were calling Sirach (ecclesiasticus is its other title) hagiographa, a synonym for the ketuvim or writings like the psalms and proverbs.
As far as the claim of the Peshitta, I don't understand where that assumption came from. Despite the Greek pun in Lxx and Theodotion Daniel, peshitta daniel has a Semitic linguistic origin (I'll have to dig up the source). Sirach aka Ecclesiasticus also was translated from a Semitic original. Every major peshitta OT manuscript that I am aware of contains or exceeds the deuterocanon except for 5b1.
Philo not only didn't use any of the 7 books of the deuterocanon in his writing, the Jewish Encyclopedia says this: Philo, in his extant works, makes no mention of Ezekiel, Daniel, or the Five Rolls. What are the Five Rolls? Song of Solomon, Ruth, Lamentations, Ecclesiastes, and Esther. So not only did he not use 7 books of our canon, he also didn't use 7 books of yours.
And I should add that when Jesus quotes from Daniel, he places him in with the prophets which Pharisees don't do, and he quotes from Theodotion's Daniel.
By the way, if Bruce's claims were true, then Polycarp and Clement would be deliberately using forgeries. That's not a serious nor credible claim.
And re: Aquila of Sinope, when he converted from Christianity to Judaism he became a Pharisee under Rabbi Akiba so of course he follows the Pharisee canon.
Now can you say that your sources are either not credible?
Daniel,
I didn't see anything in your references about the other books (1,2 Macc,etc) you accept.
How could FF Bruce who was an expert in this be wrong? How could DA Archer who also was an expert?
Why would it be shocking that Clement or Polycarp could have used forgeries?
How can 1,400 years of history be wrong? 1,400 YEARS! You deny the authority of Rome to set the cannon so it's not surprising you pick and choose what books you like to support your position. Luther tried with his version of the bible.
Rome did not choose OT or the NT canons. It chose to elevate to the the Deuterocanonical books in the 16th century to the same level as the other 66 books.
Anonymous,
Why do the Copts who schismed in 451AD have them? Why do Eastern Orthodox have them?
Why can't you admit that Phillip Schaff was right, and the rest are liars?
Are there any manuscripts of the vulgate that have only 66 books before Trent? If what you say is true, EVERY VULGATE MANUSCRIPT will have 66 books. Name 2 and I'll concede.
Fair enough?
>Again, why did the church call these books Deuterocanonical until Trent?
Anon, do you need to be disabused of this false notion a third time?!
*sigh*
you:My point about the "No Greek manuscripts has the same list of books as Trent." is not about the fathers. That is a separate issue.
me: I have not looked at all the Greek manuscripts, I doubt you have either. They did not always throw all the books together like modern bibles do. If you were to look at the Sinaiticus for example, it contains most of the "deuteros" and lacks some of the rest of the OT, and contains some books no one has in their canon. The bibles were made on what manuscript they could get their hands on, and there were a number of books some of them evidently never got their hands on, even in the NT. Why are you appealing to the "manuscripts" and ignoring the Fathers, who do you think HAD the manuscripts MADE?
you:If the Jews say Daniel is not a prophet and Jesus says he is who do you believe?
me: I notice in the comment below you appeal to what Jews believe, and here you reject it. Again, as I mention the word prophet means different things in different contexts and to different people, people can use different terms like prophet and apostle and still believe the SAME thing. In fact as I already mentioned with Luke--he uses the term apostle in different ways.
you:"The Jews believed that God had stopped speaking after Malachi. The Deuterocanonical books were after this."
me: Why do you pretend to care what the Jews believed, even then if it were true, its true of SOME Jews. Some Jews did not believe there would be a messiah AT ALL, MOST Jews believed Bar Kohkba was their messiah, most JEws rejected Jesus, and the Talmud does show that SOME Jews did accept the book of Sira(ch).
you:Again, why did the church call these books Deuterocanonical until Trent?
me: Show me where the Church herself uses these terms, please read the Council of Florence show me where they are called "deuteros", or in the Council of Carthage, why is it they are not called "deuteros."
ralph:
you:How could FF Bruce who was an expert in this be wrong? How could DA Archer who also was an expert?
me: Well obviously since we do have evidence there canons were more the "protocanonicals" FF Bruce was wrong, either showing he had bad, incomplete information, or that he was dishonest and not really the "expert" you paint him out be.
Good point. I haven't addressed Maccabees yet. And it's one of the best cases that the Protestant canon is wrong.
Before we even start: if you read somewhere that the New Testament never quotes from the 'apocrypha' they are LYING.
This is from the Nestle Aland critical apparatus that is THE standard reference on the Greek New Testament.
http://i.imgur.com/zDMm9l8.png?1
That's Hebrews 11:35 using 2 Maccabees.
So again, if you hear someone that's a phD in theology say that the NT doesn't use the 'apocrypha', they are LYING!
So what other evidence is there? Tertullian c. 197 AD: "Also, in the times of the Maccabees, they bravely fought on the Sabbaths and routed their foreign enemies..."
Cyprian c 250 AD quotes Maccabees as Scripture over and over, cf http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf05.iv.v.xii.iv.xix.html
Origin in De Principiis: "But that we may believe on the authority of holy Scripture that such is the case, hear how in the book of Maccabees, where the mother of seven martyrs exhorts her son to endure torture, this truth is confirmed;..."
And even Jesus Christ Himself celebrated Hanukkah in John 10:22-23.
What's the origin of Hanukkah? Let's check the Jewish Encyclopedia:
http://i.imgur.com/Y4d4Y7K.png?1
You asked how scholars like FF Bruce can screw this stuff up. I honestly have no idea. But sometimes some real junk gets thrown out there. For example, Archibald Alexander...
Which by the way, if you want to continue your argument I would start by making an argument against what Joe presents at his blog.
Follow up:
So you asked how people like FF Bruce and DA Archer get it wrong.
I'll use an example from FF Bruce's contemporary Norman Geisler (indeed, Josh McDowell in Evidence that Demands a Verdict quotes Geisler-Nix and FF Bruce all the friggin time in that book).
Geisler said, "None of the great Greek manuscripts (Aleph, A, and B) contain all of the apocryphal books"
Now this is plainly false.
Manuscript A (Alexandrinus) indeed has Tobit, Judith, Wisdom, Sirach, Baruch, 1 Macc, and 2 Macc.
This chart even has their names as given in Manuscript A
The dude is a FRAUD.
Daniel,
Since you seem to be an expert on the OT Apocrypha then can you tell me if the Hebrew OT (Palestinian Canon) also had the the Apocrypha?
Wow! Great posts Berhane! Most people know when they're in over their head if they meet posts like yours. What do these guts do? Keep stating the same falsehoods and hoping the world changes. Keep up the good work. Only progressives can keep trying to change history this much.
Berhane,
It matters what the OT Jews said about the OT because they were entrusted with the oracles of God:
"Then what advantage has the Jew? Or what is the benefit of circumcision? 2 Great in every respect. First of all, that they were entrusted with the oracles of God." Rom 3
This does not mean they were right about everything.
Bruce and Archer are experts in the field. To claim they were dishonest is to show your ignorance of the issue since their peers would have challenged them. The fact is we don't have a copy of the OT from the 1st century. The earliest copy is from around the 4th century. We do know that the Palestinian Canon-Hebrew canon did not contain them.
What RC scholar has written on the canon of the OT?
Here is how the term Deuterocanonical is used:
"Deuterocanonical books is a term used since the 16th century in the Catholic Church and Eastern Christianity to describe certain books and passages of the Christian Old Testament that are not part of the Hebrew Bible. The term is used in contrast to the protocanonical books, which are contained in the Hebrew Bible. This distinction had previously contributed to debate in the early Church about whether they should be classified as canonical texts. The term is used as a matter of convenience by the Ethiopian Orthodox Tewahedo Church and other Churches to refer to books of their Old Testament which are not part of the Masoretic Text.
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deuterocanonical_books
Daniel,
The chart you linked to does not prove that "This chart even has their names as given in Manuscript A". Its a recreation of something.
Keep in mind that if you make a mistake that you are a fraud to.
Anonymous -
Why can't you produce a Protestant Bible until the 1,400s????
cwdlaw,
There has been a "Protestant" Bible since the Palestinian-Hebrew Canon which does not contain the Deuterocanonical books. This what most likely the OT that Jesus used.
A Bible means OT and NT. Where is your version of the Bible (66 books) on the scene in history? Give me your earliest date. I didn't ask for "most likely." Early Christianity is most likely Roman Catholic (but I'm sure you don't want to hear that).
Your error is in lumping all Jews together. The Jews reject the seven as too Christian. The Ps as too Catholic.
Where is the Protestant Bible?
http://catholicdefense.blogspot.com/2009/10/protestantism-and-early-church-fathers.html?m=1
The Protestant bible would be the Palestinian-Hebrew OT Canon which did not contain the Deuterocanonical books and the NT. 66 books in all.
Wait wait wait...
Did ANY Christian community from 33AD to 1500AD use the exact canon that's in your Bible?
>Here is how the term Deuterocanonical is used: "Deuterocanonical books is a term used since the 16th century..." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deuterocanonical_books
Fine, but you do realize that you've said the complete opposite of this several times, right?
1. Why were these books referred to a Deuterocanonical i.e. second canon status until Trent?
2. Again, why did the church call these books Deuterocanonical until Trent?
3. Remember: they were considered deuterocanonical up to this time [Trent].
Restless,
I wonder if this post got missed by Anonymous, or if it is being ignored?
Post a Comment