bbas 64 said:
Good Day, William
The dout was not mine but rather a doubt of the stance once held by Rome.
http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congr ... co_en.html
Did you read that document closely, sir?
Let me quote fragments from it for discussion:
(I. The Sacred Scriptures of the Jewish People are a Fundamental Part of the Christian Bible, paragraph 2.)
A perennial manifestation of this link to their beginnings is the acceptance by Christians of the Sacred Scriptures of the Jewish people as the Word of God addressed to themselves as well. Indeed, the Church has accepted as inspired by God all the writings contained in the Hebrew Bible as well as those in the Greek Bible. The title "Old Testament" given to this collection of writings is an expression coined by the apostle Paul to designate the writings attributed to Moses (cf. 2 Co 3:14-15). Its scope has been extended, since the end of the second century, to include other Jewish writings in Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek. The title "New Testament" takes its origin from a message in the Book of Jeremiah which announced a "new covenant" (Jr 31:31), the expression is translated in the Greek of the Septuagint as "new dispensation", "new testament" (kain diathk). The message announced that God intended to establish a new covenant. The Christian faith sees this promise fulfilled in the mystery of Christ Jesus with the institution of the Eucharist (cf. 1 Co 11:25; Heb 9:15). Consequently, that collection of writings which expresses the Church's faith in all its novelty is called the "New Testament". The title itself points towards a relationship with the "Old Testament". (Underlining emphasis mine.)
So for, I see no "doubt" in the original "stance once held by Rome," a "stance" I will be most interested to see and ponder. We move on:
(I. The Sacred Scriptures of the Jewish People are a Fundamental Part of the Christian Bible, paragraph 4.)
1. Implicit recognition of authority
Beginning from the less explicit, which nevertheless is revealing, we notice that the same language is used. The Greek of the New Testament is closely dependent on the Greek of the Septuagint, in grammatical turns of phrase which were influenced by the Hebrew, or in the vocabulary, of a religious nature in particular. Without a knowledge of Septuagint Greek, it is impossible to ascertain the exact meaning of many important New Testament terms.5 (Underlining emphasis mine.)
Again, I see no refutation that the Septuagint was the accepted Old Testament "Canon" as recognized by the early Christians. We continue:
(E. The Extension of the Canon of Scripture.)
1. In Judaism
There are differences between the Jewish canon of Scripture30 "Law", Nebi'im, "Prophets", and Ketubim, other "Writings". The number 24 was often reduced to 22, the number of letters in the Hebrew alphabet. In the Christian canon, to these 2422 books correspond 39 books, called "protocanonical". The numerical difference is explained by the fact that the Jews regarded as one book several writings that are distinct in the Christian canon, the writings of the Twelve Prophets, for example.] and the Christian canon of the Old Testament.31 To explain these differences, it was generally thought that at the beginning of the Christian era, there existed two canons within Judaism: a Hebrew or Palestinian canon, and an extended Alexandrian canon in Greek - called the Septuagint - which was adopted by Christians.(Again, underlining my emphasis.)
Again, I see no so called "doubt" being expressed as to the stance of the church from those early times, but indeed, a reaffermation of that the Church has declared all along!
Now, we get to where I think you misunderstood the document:
Recent research and discoveries, however, have cast doubt on this opinion. It now seems more probable that at the time of Christianity's birth, closed collections of the Law and the Prophets existed in a textual form substantially identical with the Old Testament. The collection of "Writings", on the other hand, was not as well defined either in Palestine or in the Jewish diaspora, with regard to the number of books and their textual form. Towards the end of the first century A.D., it seems that 2422 books were generally accepted by Jews as sacred,32 but it is only much later that the list became exclusive.33 When the limits of the Hebrew canon were fixed, the deuterocanonical books were not included.
What "opinion"? The only thing that I see as a doubt here is the original assumption that there were "two (distinct) canons within Judaism: a Hebrew or Palestinan Canon, and an extended Alexandrian canon" (the Septuagint.) In other words, the "The collection of writings" were not "well defined in Palestine" or as the document continues, neither was it so defined in the diaspora of the Jews.
This does not at all speak to or otherwise effected the decision of early Christians to favor the Septuagint! It changes nothing about what the Church taught and decreed about the Christian canon at all! Note that the document alludes to the time when the Jews did indeed, have the "list become exclusive," the so called "Council of Jamnia," shortly after the destruction of the Temple in Jerusalem after about A.D. 70. By that time, why would the Christian Church now accede to a Jewish rabbi get-together that now excludes all books that were not originally written in Hebrew!
But I’m not finished:
2. In the Early Church
17. Since the first Christians were for the most part Palestinian Jews, either "Hebrew" or "Hellenistic" (cf. Ac 6:1), their views on Scripture would have reflected those of their environment, but we are poorly informed on the subject. Nevertheless, the writings of the New Testament suggest that a sacred literature wider than the Hebrew canon circulated in Christian communities. Generally, the authors of the New Testament manifest a knowledge of the deuterocanonical books and other non-canonical ones since the number of books cited in the New Testament exceeds not only the Hebrew canon, but also the so-called Alexandrian canon.34 When Christianity spread into the Greek world, it continued to use sacred books received from Hellenistic Judaism.35 Although Hellenistic Christians received their Scriptures from the Jews in the form of the Septuagint, we do not know the precise form, because the Septuagint has come down to us only in Christian writings. What the Church seems to have received was a body of Sacred Scripture which, within Judaism, was in the process of becoming canonical. When Judaism came to close its own canon, the Christian Church was sufficiently independent from Judaism not to be immediately affected. It was only at a later period that a closed Hebrew canon began to exert influence on how Christians viewed it.
I think this speaks for itself. It is a good history of exactly what the early Christians did, and it appears that the Septuagint was the "Old Testament of choice," (for those who could read, and coincidentally, they could also read in Greek) that the Septuagint was favored. Note how the document alludes to the "influence" that was brought forth in later times, the "Johnny-come_ Lately’s" I have been talking about all this time!
There is more in that document I could quote, but when you read down to what I have given already, and then continue down in that same chapter (Chapter I), there are other statements that simply affirms the decisions the early Church and the early Christians made concerning what was to eventually become the Christian Old Testament, including the deuterocanonicals for the first 1500 years of Church history, to be challenged by…by…(you know who.)
I do not denty the existance of the Greek OT, at the time of the apostles, nor is there any reason to believe that the Apocropha was held in the same reguard as the "Cannon of the Jews".
I think the very document you gave to me in a link disproves that assertion, since the Septuagint was favored by the early Christians, which included the deuterocanonicals, and thus the "regard" for them seems to be exactly as we consider them now - Divinely inspired "God breathed" scriptures.
…<snip>…
Jerome was not the 'church... not sure what to make of that. Lets look at Jeromes doubts, it is true that they were included in the Vulgate whith a major distiction.
What I mean is, as all good priests and bishops, their opinions are only that - opinions - when the Church decides on issues, and that includes all of the Church fathers and even popes (speaking privately and as a personal opinion, not officially in "ex cathedra" decrees and dogmatic promulgations.) Again, please note that Jerome’s Vulgate included the deuterocanonicals.
As the Church reads the books of Judith and Tobit and Maccabees but does not receive them among the canonical Scriptures, so also it reads Wisdom and Ecclesiasticus for the edification of the people, not for the authoritative confirmation of doctrine."
Jerome
Jerome's preface to the books of Solomon
Again, the Church wanted otherwise, and in obedience, Jerome included those works, which the Church, in several synods in the early 4th century (Carthage, Hippo and Rome) that began the determination of the canon of the Bible, including the Old Testament which included the deuterocanonicals.
There is no question that Jerome's view carried the weight of historical presidance thought out time .. that is up to Trent.
There is no doubt that St. Jerome was quite influencial within the Church, as was St. Augustine and others, but again, individually, it is the Church who decides doctrine, not these individual post-apostolic early church fathers whose writings are
not considered as divinely inspired.
Cardinal Cajetan, the cardinal who opposed Martin Luther at the Diet of Worms and who was one of the most ardent supporters of the absolutist form of papal authority that had developed by the 16th century and that is still argued for today by Roman Catholics. (In other words, no Protestant sympathizer, he.)
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.
In the view of this Cardinal, the councils were to be corrected by Jerome.
But who prevailed in the end? Apparently the council of Carthage did, (A synod really, whose finding were approved by the Holy See.) When you read this to the end, it is apparent that St. Jerome did not have his way, did he?
[quote:0de0f][quote:0de0f]Our analysis has shown that the vast weight of historical evidence falls on the side of excluding the Apocrypha from the category of canonical Scripture. It is interesting to note that the only two Fathers of the early Church who are considered to be true biblical scholars, Jerome and Origen (and who both spent time in the area of Palestine and were therefore familiar with the Hebrew canon), rejected the Apocrypha. And the near unanimous opinion of the Church followed this view. And coupled with this historical evidence is the fact that these writings have serious internal difficulties in that they are characterized by heresies, inconsistencies and historical inaccuracies which invalidate their being given the status of Scripture. New Catholic Encyclopedia, vol. I (Washington D.C.: Catholic University, 1967), p. 390.
You got that from that Encyclopedia?
Here is what the old 1913
Catholic Encyclopedia has to say about it:
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03267a.htm
Finally, another good link for you to read:
http://matt1618.freeyellow.com/cloud.html
For the first 1500 years, it seems, there was never any doubt as to the inclusion of the deuterocanonicals as seen in the Septuagint Old Testament used by the early Christians. Then in the 16th century, the "Johnny come lately's" saw fit to exclude them...
Pardon me if I will rely on the ancient old Church that has come down to us from the times of Christ, the oldest church, and the only church given the power to "bind and loose" per Matthew 16:19.[/quote:0de0f]
From the same work of the Vatican.
Based on a time-honoured tradition,
the Councils of Florence in 1442 and Trent in 1564 resolved for Catholics any doubts and uncertainties. Their list comprises 73 books, which were accepted as sacred and canonical because they were inspired by the Holy Spirit, 46 for the Old Testament, 27 for the New.36 In this way the Catholic Church received its definitive canon. To determine this canon, it based itself on the Church's constant usage. In adopting this canon, which is larger than the Hebrew, it has preserved an authentic memory of Christian origins, since, as we have seen, the more restricted Hebrew canon is later than the formation of the New Testament.[/quote:0de0f]
Yes, I recognize that from the same document we have been discussing…it was one I considered quoting!
So, if there was not doubt and uncertainties what did Trent and Florence resolve? Why did the Church adopt a larger cannon then that of the Jews? Not that I beleive they do not have that right to do so, but error in so doing IMO.
Simple answer: Because the deuterocanonicals were included in the Septuagint which was favored by the early Christians!
The cannon of inspired writtings should be contained the the Hebrew cannon, That is not to say the other writtings have no vaule for they do in that they serve as historical writtings of the Jews and help us to understand thier history.
Well, the "inspired writings" are indeed, contained in the Hebrew canon! But that is not to say that they are not also contained in the greater scope by 7 books, the "inspired writings in the Greek Septuagint! And I believe this because the Church says so! Notice that the document we have been discussing does not discount the canonicity of the Hebrew canon, but rather sees it as a sub-set of the whole, as expressed in the Septuagint.
I also write, by way of remembrance, of matters with which you are acquainted, influenced by the need and advantage of the Church. In proceeding to make mention of these things, I shall adopt, to commend my undertaking, the pattern of Luke the Evangelist, saying on my own account: 'Forasmuch as some have taken in hand,' to reduce into order for themselves the books termed apocryphal, and to mix them up with the divinely inspired Scripture, concerning which we have been fully persuaded, as they who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and ministers of the Word, delivered to the fathers; it seemed good to me also, having been urged thereto by true brethren, and having learned from the beginning, to set before you the books included in the Canon, and handed down, and accredited as Divine...There are, then, of the Old Testament, twenty-two books in number; for, as I have heard, it is handed down that this is the number of the letters among the Hebrews...there are other books besides these not indeed included in the Canon, but appointed by the Fathers to be read by those who newly join us, and who wish for instruction in the word of godliness. The Wisdom of Solomon, and the Wisdom of Sirach, and Esther, and Judith, and Tobit" (Athanasius, Festal Letter 39:2-4, 39:7)
St. Athanasius lived in the times when the canon of scripture was certainly in flux, and where there was diverse opinions, including those who would have the New Testament quite a bit larger then it is (or smaller by the exclusion of others.) Like St. Jerone, St, Athanasius, a great saint and defender of Holy Church, are not in and of themselves, "The Church."
Finally, did you read any of the links I gave? Please be advised that I took the time to print out and read that Vatican document you seemed to think makes your case, which it certainly does not. In fact, it is a wonderful read I recommend all to print-out and read, and see how the early church came to canonize the scriptures the way they did.
God bless,
PAX
Bill+†+
Christ has no body now but yours;
No hands, no feet on earth but yours,
Yours are the eyes with which he looks
Compassion on this world.
Yours are the feet with which he walks to do good.
Yours are the hands with which
he blesses all the world.
Christ has no body now on earth but yours.
- St. Therese of Avila -
ab70]
: