|
|
Post by Michael Lofton on Jan 9, 2015 20:58:26 GMT
What are the Deuterocanonical Books? The deuterocanonical books are books that Catholics consider to be Scripture and Protestants consider to be “apocryphal”. These books include Baruch, 1 and 2 Maccabees, Tobit, Judith, Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, and also portions of Esther and Daniel. As stated in the Catholic Encyclopedia, “The deuterocanonical (deuteros, “second”) are those whose Scriptural character was contested in some quarters, but which long ago gained a secure footing in the Bible of the Catholic Church, though those of the Old Testament are classed by Protestants as the ‘Apocrypha’.”1 Did the New Testament Writers Quote from the Deuterocanonicals? The New Testament writers often quoted from the deuterocanonicals with the clearest case being Hebrews 11:35 “Women received their dead by resurrection. Some were tortured, refusing to accept release, that they might rise again to a better life.” This is a clear reference to 2 Maccabees 7:1-9 which is about seven Jewish brothers and their mother who were tortured and then martyred, though with hope because “the King of the universe will raise us up to an everlasting renewal of life” (verse 9). There is no question this was what the author of Hebrews had in mind in Hebrews 11:35. More of the New Testament’s use of the deuterocanonicals can be found here: www.scripturecatholic.com/deuterocanon.htmlDid the Jews Contemporary to Christ Accept the Deuterocanonicals as Scripture? Nearly two centuries before the coming of Christ, the Jews translated their Scriptures into Greek and this translation is known as the Septuagint. This translation enabled the Hellenistic Jews (Greek speaking Jews) and Greeks to be able to read the Jewish Scriptures. Included in this translation were the deuterocanonicals and for this reason the canon of the Hellenist or Alexandrian Jews included the Apocrypha. However, there were other Jews, such as the Palestinian Jews, whose canon excluded the deuterocanonicals. It has long been the belief that towards the end of the first century, a number of rabbis gathered in the city of Jamnia in order to determine once and for all which books would be considered canonical among Jews. The council determined that the deuterocanonicals were excluded; most likely for the reason that the deuterocanonical books were used by Christians in order to prove that Jesus is the Messiah. However, some scholars dispute the council in Jamnia had such an authoritative role and the canon among Jews had already been settled prior to Jamnia.2 Contrary to this view, the Catholic Encyclopedia notes “It is an incontestable fact that the sacredness of certain parts of the Palestinian Bible (Esther,Ecclesiastes, Canticle of Canticles) was disputed by some rabbis as late as the second century of the Christian Era (Mishna, Yadaim, III, 5; Babylonian Talmud, Megilla, fol. 7).”3 Either way, since Christianity’s arrival on the scene of history, it would seem that most Jews, including present day Jews, do not consider the deuterocanonical books to be Scripture, with the exception of Ethiopian Jews whose canon is the same as the Catholic Old Testament canon. Did the Earliest Christians believe the Deuterocanonicals were Scripture? Though the unbelieving Jews eventually rejected the deuterocanonical books as Scripture, the earliest Christians did not. Protestant historian J N D Kelly writes: “It should be observed that the Old Testament thus admitted as authoritative in the Church was somewhat bulkier and more comprehensive than the twenty-two, or twenty-four, books of the Hebrew Bible of Palestinian Judaism. It always included though with varying degrees of recognition, the so-called Apocrypha, or deuterocanonical books. For the great majority, however, the deuterocanonical writings ranked as Scripture in the fullest sense.”4 Quotations of the deuterocanonical books can be found in Ante-Nicene Fathers such as Polycarp, 1 Clement, Barnabas, Tertullian, Hippolytus, Clement of Alexandria and Cyprian.5 Various Church Fathers, such as Melito of Sardis, Origen (technically not a church father but an ecclesiastical writer), Jerome, Cyril of Alexandria, and Athanasius, either had doubts about the authority of the deuterocanonicals or outright rejected them as not part of the canon of Scripture. Eventually, it was necessary and possible for the early church to determine which books were canonical and this was done towards the end of the fourth century. Catholic Theologian, Jimmy Akin, writes: “The canon of Scripture, Old and New Testament, was finally settled at the Council of Rome in 382, under the authority of Pope Damasus I. It was soon reaffirmed on numerous occasions. The same canon was affirmed at the Council of Hippo in 393 and at the Council of Carthage in 397. In 405 Pope Innocent I reaffirmed the canon in a letter to Bishop Exuperius of Toulouse. Another council at Carthage, this one in the year 419, reaffirmed the canon of its predecessors and asked Pope Boniface to “confirm this canon, for these are the things which we have received from our fathers to be read in church.” All of these canons were identical to the modern Catholic Bible, and all of them included the deuterocanonicals.”6 Why Did the Reformers Remove the Deuterocanonicals from the Canon of Scripture? The Reformers removed the deuterocanonicals from the canon of Scripture because they believed only those books which were revealed to the Jews in Hebrew were to be considered canonical, following the example of unbelieving Jews. Additionally, the Reformers rejected the deuterocanonicals because they teach Catholic doctrine. Just to name a couple of examples, Tobit 12:12 is a prooftext for the Catholic doctrine of the intercession of the saints in heaven and, in fact, the best prooftext for purgatory is found in 2 Maccabees 12:46. Who Has the Authority to Determine Whether or not the Deuterocanonicals Belong in the Old Testament Canon? The fact that the Catholic Church, from the earliest days of Christianity until the present, has accepted the deuterocanonicals as Scripture and the fact that the reformers rejected the deuterocanonicals as Scripture gives rise to the question: who has the authority to determine whether or not the deuterocanonicals are Scripture and belong in the Old Testament canon? For an excellent critique of the various Protestant positions on the canon of Scripture read this article written by Tom Brown at Called to Communion. Citations: 1 Reid, George. “Canon of the Old Testament.” The Catholic Encyclopedia. Vol. 3. New York: Robert Appleton Company, 1908. 9 Jun. 2012 <http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03267a.htm>. 2 Allison, Gregg, R. Historical Theology, p. 38. 3 Reid, George. “Canon of the Old Testament.” The Catholic Encyclopedia. Vol. 3. New York: Robert Appleton Company, 1908. 9 Jun. 2012 <http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03267a.htm>. 4 Kelly, J. N. Early Christian Doctrines, pp 53-55. 5 Ibid, p. 54. 6 Akin, Jimmy. “Defending the Deuterocanonicals.” <http://www.ewtn.com/library/answers/deuteros.htm> |
|
|
|
Post by Jay on Jan 10, 2015 3:05:51 GMT
Why were these books considered Deuterocanonicals while the rest of the 66 books were not? Why did Jerome write: "As, then, the Church reads Judith, Tobit, and the books of Maccabes, but does not admit them among the canonical Scriptures, so let it also read these two Volumes (Wisdom of Solomon and Ecclesiasticus) for the edification of the people, not to give authority to doctrines of the Church." "The stories of Susanna and of Bel and the Dragon are non contained in the Hebrew…For this same reason when I was translating Daniel many years ago, I noted these visions with a critical symbol, showing that they were not included in the Hebrew…After all, both Origen, Eusebius, and Appolinarius, and other outstanding churchmen and teachers of Greece acknowledge that, as I have said, these visions are not found amongst the Hebrews, and therefore they are not obliged to answer to Porphyry for these portions which exhibit no authority as Holy Scripture."  ? |
|
|
|
Post by Michael Lofton on Jan 10, 2015 16:28:03 GMT
Jay,
Jerome retracted his view on the deuterocanonicals later on after the councils of Hippo, Carthage and Rome decided in favor of them, as he says:
“The churches choose to read Daniel in the version of Theodotion [that is the version with the deuterocanonical parts]. What sin have I committed in following the judgment of the churches? But when I repeat what the Jews say against the Story of Susanna and the Hymn of the Three Children, and the fables of Bel and the Dragon, which are not contained in the Hebrew Bible, the man who makes this a charge against me proves himself to be a fool and a slanderer; for I explained not what I thought but what they commonly say against us. I did not reply to their opinion in the Preface, because I was studying brevity, and feared that I should seem to he writing not a Preface but a book. I said therefore, “As to which this is not the time to enter into discussion.” (Jerome’s Apology for Himself Against the Books of Rufinus, Book II, 33)
|
|
|
|
Post by Jay on Jan 10, 2015 19:39:50 GMT
If Jerome retracted his view on the deuterocanonicals then that means he was lying when he wrote--" showing that they were not included in the Hebrew…After all, both Origen, Eusebius, and Appolinarius, and other outstanding churchmen and teachers of Greece acknowledge that, as I have said, these visions are not found amongst the Hebrews.." "The stories of Susanna and of Bel and the Dragon are non contained in the Hebrew…For this same reason when I was translating Daniel many years ago, I noted these visions with a critical symbol, showing that they were not included in the Hebrew…After all, both Origen, Eusebius, and Appolinarius, and other outstanding churchmen and teachers of Greece acknowledge that, as I have said, these visions are not found amongst the Hebrews, and therefore they are not obliged to answer to Porphyry for these portions which exhibit no authority as Holy Scripture." Also how could Cardinal Cajetan who was an important figure because he was Martin Luther’s theological opponent during the Protestant Reformation wrote a commentary on every canonical book of the Old Testament and dedicated it to the pope in which he writes "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." ? How could Cardinal Cajetan write such a thing if the church believed the deuterocanonicals was inspired-inerrant Scripture? If he believed this, why didn't the pope rebuke him? |
|
|
|
Post by Michael Lofton on Jan 12, 2015 1:06:03 GMT
As to Jerome, can you prove that he went back on his retraction? In other words, can you demonstrate that the quotes you provided are later than the one I provided? As to Cajetan, this is very easily explained. He is not using the term "canonical" in the way we are using it today. When we use the term "canon" today, we are referring to those books that are inspired by God. The early Church, even until the time of Cajetan, often used the term "canon" to refer to those books that are to be read during the liturgy. In other words, to say something was not "canonical" was not to say it wasn't inspired, but was to say it wasn't to be read in the liturgy. That is why you read people like St. Athanasius saying that the deuterocanonical books are not part of the canon, and then they quote them with the same authority as the protocanonicals, even calling them "Scripture". See this debate where I addressed this issue in a little more depth: consolamini.org/resources/ask-an-apologist/protestants-removed-certain-books-which-belong-to-the-canon-established-by-the-early-church/ It is a good question that you raised but one that is often misunderstood due to importing modern definitions into words that had different meanings in previous centuries. |
|
|
|
Post by Jay on Jan 12, 2015 2:21:09 GMT
You said Jerome retracted his view on the deuterocanonicals. If this is true then Jerome lied when he said what I quoted above. Jerome was a biblical scholar of first rank, knowing both Hebrew and Greek, and he clearly teaches that the Apocrypha should be excluded from the canon. Regarding the number of books in the Hebrew canon, he stated,
"And thus altogether there come to be 22 books of the old Law, that is, five of Moses, eight of the Prophets, and nine of the Hagiographa…so that we may know that whatever is not included in these is to be placed among the apocrypha…"
If he later accepts these books as Scripture then he lied. He is clear here what he considered the canon to be. To retract this without would mean he lied.
Notice also that Cajetan maintains the same distinction as Jerome between canonical books (useful in determining doctrine) and ecclesiastical books (useful in edification). Notice what he says:
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 authorized 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."
He clearly shows that these books were not at the same level as the other 66 books.
|
|
|
|
Post by Michael Lofton on Jan 12, 2015 15:19:36 GMT
It simply does not follow that if Jerome retracted his view then he originally lied since it is possible, and much more probable, he believed they weren't canonical at first, and then when the local councils decided on the matter, he changed his mind to be in accord with the Church. This is much more likely and consisten with the quote I provided than asserting he lied without any real reason to believe so.
As to Cajetan, he did say they were not canonical in the sense that they ought not to be used to prove matters of the faith. On this matter, he was wrong and his position was the minority at the time anyway.
As far as whether the Deuterocanonicals are on the same level as the protocanonicals, this isn't a big deal. I think we can all recognize that some of the protocanonical books are not on the same level as some of the other protocanonical books. For example, I don't think anyone would argue that the Book of Obadiah (which I love by the way) is on the same level as the Gospel of John. Both are infallible and inspired, but I think we know there is a difference. Likewise, this may be the case with some of the deuterocanonicals. However, I think the Wisdom of Solomon is on a higher level than some protocanonical OT books. It has, in chapter two, an amazing prophecy of Christ's crucifixion and the exact words that the Pharisees said when He was on the cross (this is an example where the Gospels have a clear reference to a deuterocanonical book, by the way).
|
|
|
|
Post by Jay on Jan 12, 2015 16:07:45 GMT
What facts did the church at the time present to showed Jerome was wrong about the deuterocanonicals not being inspired-inerrant Scripture?
It is a big deal that the Deuterocanonicals are not one the same level as the other 66 books are. It means that they are not inspired-inerrant.
How could Cajetan be wrong when there are facts to support his position and there is no record of a pope or council rebuking him for his error in this matter?
A number of church fathers and theologians throughout the centuries separated the Apocrypha from canonical Scripture. Many recognized the Hebrew canon as consisting of only twenty-two books, including Origen, Hilary of Poitiers, Cyril of Jerusalem, Athanasius, Epiphanius, Gregory of Nazianzus, Basil the Great, and Rufinus.
|
|
|
|
Post by Michael Lofton on Jan 12, 2015 16:27:58 GMT
Jerome states the reason for changing his mind as follows: "The churches choose to read Daniel in the version of Theodotion [that is the version with the deuterocanonical parts]. What sin have I committed in following the judgment of the churches?" Simply put, the Church spoke on the matter and this made him change his mind since he recognized that "he who listens to you, listens to me", as Jesus said. For more on Jerome and the deuterocanonicals, see this article matt1618.freeyellow.com/jerome.htmlWhen Cajetan raised his point, it was still an open debate if you could use the deuterocanonicals for disputes in the faith. Once Trent decided on the matter, that was no longer an option. As to the others you raised in objection to the deuterocanonicals, see here where these same Fathers speak of them as "Scripture": matt1618.freeyellow.com/deut.html |
|
|
|
Post by Jay on Jan 12, 2015 16:57:27 GMT
There are no facts by your church that Jerome was wrong because Jerome spoke the truth about the deuterocanonicals not being Scripture. It was at Trent that this issue was settled for RC's but that did not change the fact that the church officially did not consider these books to be inspired-inerrant Scripture before then.
|
|
|
|
Post by Michael Lofton on Jan 12, 2015 17:34:47 GMT
Jay,
Your claim is simply not true. The deuterocanonicals were considered Scripture well before Trent. Here are just some examples:
Council of Rome
“Now indeed we must treat of the divine scriptures, what the universal Catholic Church accepts and what she ought to shun. The order of the Old Testament begins here: Genesis, one book; Exodus, one book; Leviticus, one book; Numbers, one book; Deuteronomy, one book; Joshua [Son of] Nave, one book; Judges, one book; Ruth, one book; Kings, four books [that is, 1 and 2 Samuel and 1 and 2 Kings]; Paralipomenon [Chronicles], two books; Psalms, one book; Solomon, three books: Proverbs, one book, Ecclesiastes, one book, [and] Canticle of Canticles [Song of Songs], one book; likewise Wisdom, one book; Ecclesiasticus [Sirach], one book . . . . Likewise the order of the historical [books]: Job, one book; Tobit, one book; Esdras, two books [Ezra and Nehemiah]; Esther, one book; Judith, one book; Maccabees, two books” (Decree of Pope Damasus [A.D. 382]).
Council of Hippo
“[It has been decided] that besides the canonical scriptures nothing be read in church under the name of divine Scripture. But the canonical scriptures are as follows: Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, Joshua the Son of Nun, Judges, Ruth, the Kings, four books, the Chronicles, two books, Job, the Psalter, the five books of Solomon [Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Song of Songs, Wisdom, and a portion of the Psalms], the twelve books of the prophets, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Daniel, Ezekiel, Tobit, Judith, Esther, Ezra, two books, Maccabees, two books . . .” (Canon 36 [A.D. 393]).
Council of Carthage III
“[It has been decided] that nothing except the canonical scriptures should be read in the Church under the name of the divine scriptures. But the canonical scriptures are: Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, Joshua, Judges, Ruth, four books of Kings, Paralipomenon, two books, Job, the Psalter of David, five books of Solomon, twelve books of the prophets, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Daniel, Ezekiel, Tobit, Judith, Esther, two books of Esdras, two books of the Maccabees . . .” (Canon 47 [A.D. 397]).
Also, the Ecumenical Council of Florence, before Trent, defined the deuterocanonicals as Scripture:
“In 1442, during the life, and with the approval, of this Council, Eugenius IV issued several Bulls, or decrees, with a view to restore the Oriental schismatic bodies to communion with Rome, and according to the common teaching of theologians these documents are infallible statements of doctrine The “Decretum pro Jacobitis” contains a complete list of the books received by the Church as inspired, but omits, perhaps advisedly, the terms canon and canonical. The Council of Florence therefore taught the inspiration of all the Scriptures, but did not formally pass on their canonicity.“
|
|
|
|
Post by Jay on Jan 12, 2015 20:09:01 GMT
How could Jerome who lived from 347 – 30 September 420 write "As, then, the Church reads Judith, Tobit, and the books of Maccabes, but does not admit them among the canonical Scriptures, so let it also read these two Volumes (Wisdom of Solomon and Ecclesiasticus) for the edification of the people, not to give authority to doctrines of the Church" if these books were considered inspired-inerrant?
Were the councils of Hippo and Rome ecumenical councils? Did they have universal authority?
Even the Glossa Ordinaria which was the for many generations the standard commentary on the Scriptures during the middle ages states that there are twenty-two books of the Old Testament, citing the testimonies of Origen, Jerome and Rufinus as support. When commenting on the Apocryphal books, it prefixes an introduction to them saying: ‘Here begins the book of Tobit which is not in the canon; here begins the book of Judith which is not in the canon’ and so forth for Ecclesiasticus, Wisdom, and Maccabees etc. These prologues to the Old Testament and Apocryphal books repeated the words of Jerome".
If these books were accepted as inspired-inerrant Scripture as Atkin claims at the Council of Rome in 382 then these others throughout the centuries and the Glossa Ordinaria in middle ages clearly show that they were not considered inspired-inerrant Scripture. This is why these books were disputed and Trent tried to settle the matter by proclaiming them Scripture.
An authority on the Apocrypha, Roger Beckwith, observes,
"When one examines the passages in the early Fathers which are supposed to establish the canonicity of the Apocrypha, one finds that some of them are taken from the alternative Greek text of Ezra (1 Esdras) or from additions or appendices to Daniel, Jeremiah or some other canonical book, which . . . are not really relevant; that others of them are not quotations from the Apocrypha at all; and that, of those which are, many do not give any indication that the book is regarded as Scripture. [Beckwith, 387]
Epistle of Barnabas 6.7 and Tertullian, Against Marcion 3.22.5, are not quoting Wisd. 2.12 but Isa. 3:10 LXX, and Tertullian, On the Soul 15, is not quoting Wisd. 1.6 but Ps. 139.23, as a comparison of the passages shows. Similarly, Justin Martyr, Dialogue with Trypho 129, is quite clearly not quoting Wisdom but Prov. 8.21–5 LXX. The fact that he calls Proverbs “Wisdom” is in accordance with the common nomenclature of the earlier Fathers. [Beckwith, 427]
|
|
|
|
Post by Michael Lofton on Jan 12, 2015 21:51:31 GMT
Jay,
You wrote "How could Jerome who lived from 347 – 30 September 420 write "As, then, the Church reads Judith, Tobit, and the books of Maccabes, but does not admit them among the canonical Scriptures, so let it also read these two Volumes (Wisdom of Solomon and Ecclesiasticus) for the edification of the people, not to give authority to doctrines of the Church" if these books were considered inspired-inerrant?"
He wrote that before Rome made the decision in the Council of Rome that I cited. After Rome made the decision, he retracted his view to be in accord with the Church's decision.
You ask "Were the councils of Hippo and Rome ecumenical councils? Did they have universal authority?"
Here is where you seem to have a deficient understanding of Catholicism. Catholics abide by local councils until such time as it is necessary for an ecumenical Council to address the matter. Local councils are not infallible, but they are authoritative for those in their jurisdiction. Rome has universal jurisdiction, so, though the Council of Rome was not infallible, it did have jurisdiction over the rest of the world and thus it is authoritative.
Ecumenical councils are pretty rare and are not the ordinary way the Church excercises her magisterium, but that doesn't mean the church doesn't have an ordainary way of excercising her magisterium. There is something known as the ordinary and universal magisterium of the Church, which is authoritative and infallible, but it is not produced by an Ecumenical Council nor is it produced by an Ex Cathedra statement of the Pope.
You used Dr. Whites argument as follows "Even the Glossa Ordinaria which was the for many generations the standard commentary on the Scriptures during the middle ages states that there are twenty-two books of the Old Testament, citing the testimonies of Origen, Jerome and Rufinus as support. When commenting on the Apocryphal books, it prefixes an introduction to them saying: ‘Here begins the book of Tobit which is not in the canon; here begins the book of Judith which is not in the canon’ and so forth for Ecclesiasticus, Wisdom, and Maccabees etc. These prologues to the Old Testament and Apocryphal books repeated the words of Jerome."
Right, remember when I said that the term "canon" doesn't always mean "non inspired" but may simply mean "not to be read during the liturgy" or as Cajetan noted as you poited out not to be used in disuptes of doctrine. Thus the Gloss Ordinaria point doesn't refute my claim that they were Scripture before the Council of Trent. By the way, my favorite book is the Glossa Ordinaria on Ruth.
As to Beckwith, another Protestant authority of the early Church said:
“It should be observed that the Old Testament thus admitted as authoritative in the Church was somewhat bulkier and more comprehensive than the [Protestant Old Testament] . . . It always included, though with varying degrees of recognition, the so-called Apocrypha or deuterocanonical books. The reason for this is that the Old Testament which passed in the first instance into the hands of Christians was . . . the Greek translation known as the Septuagint. . . . most of the Scriptural quotations found in the New Testament are based upon it rather than the Hebrew.. . . In the first two centuries . . . the Church seems to have accept all, or most of, these additional books as inspired and to have treated them without question as Scripture. Quotations from Wisdom, for example, occur in 1 Clement and Barnabas. . . Polycarp cites Tobit, and the Didache [cites] Ecclesiasticus. Irenaeus refers to Wisdom, the History of Susannah, Bel and the Dragon [i.e., the deuterocanonical portions of Daniel], and Baruch. The use made of the Apocrypha by Tertullian, Hippolytus, Cyprian and Clement of Alexandria is too frequent for detailed references to be necessary” (Early Christian Doctrines, 53-54).
So, without having to get into a "my scholar beats up your scholar" argument, if you have two educated Protestants making two different claims, that should go to tell you even more that we need a Magisterium to authoritatively decide the matter. Without a magisterium, Jesus simply left us with such ambiguities that even these two scholars can't agree (and if they can't agree on what is the truth of the matter, what chance do we have?) Surely, the Lord has given us a better way of knowing the truth.
|
|
|
|
Post by Jay on Jan 12, 2015 23:13:37 GMT
Why would Jerome and others say about the deuterocanonical books that they are not to be used as a basis for doctrine and not to be to be given authority to doctrines of the Church?
BTW- we don't know if the Bible of the 1st 3 centuries contained the deuterocanonical books because we don't have a copy of it from this period.
You can have a magisterium. That does not mean they are always correct. This is where the doctrine of Sola Scriptura is so vitally important. It holds men accountable to the truth of what the Scriptures teach. By it, Christians can make the distinction between what Christ and His apostles taught what men teach. You cannot hold your church accountable to its errors because you have put your trust in men and the not Scripture. You must go by what your church says even though it contradicts the Scripture and history at times.
|
|
|
|
Post by Michael Lofton on Jan 13, 2015 16:14:46 GMT
You say "BTW- we don't know if the Bible of the 1st 3 centuries contained the deuterocanonical books because we don't have a copy of it from this period."
This is a very weak point and it demonstrates you lack a knowledge of textual criticism. We do not have original copies of ANY book of Scripture, including the protocanonicals. Thus, this is an argument that backfires on you.
You say that Sola Scriptura holds men accountable to what the Scriptures teach. What you have failed to discern is that there are many different interpretations of Scripture, as the two scholars we have quoted testify. Without a Magisterium, you cannot know authoritatively who understands Scripture correctly and must resort to mere opinion.
|
|
?