|
Users viewing this topic:
none
|
|
Login  | |
|
Catholic Vs. Protestant Bible - 4/11/2005 1:43:55 PM
|
|
|
Fritzpw_Admin
Posts: 7679
Joined: 2/28/2005
From: New Jersey
Status: offline
|
Discuss the differences between the Catholic version of the Bible and the protestant version.
_____________________________
Fritz
Senior Manager of Social Media
fritz@salemwebnetwork.com
Want to see my latest online project? Check out http://budurl.com/CWonFacebook
|
|
|
|
RE: Catholic Vs. Protestant Bible - 4/11/2005 9:08:18 PM
|
|
|
Jb_Ca
Posts: 36
Joined: 4/11/2005
Status: offline
|
God gave us the 27 book Canon - not man. Man cannot possibly determine what the Word of God is.
Did you know that by 100 AD, NT books were already in circulation? All but a few books, including James/Revelations were universally accepted.
All of these elements -the notation of the nomina sacra, the codex form, the uniform arrangement and number of writings in the manuscript tradition, the formulation of the titles, and the evidence indicating that the collection was called "New Testament" from the very beginning- are evidence of a careful final redaction. These editorial features did not originate with the authors of the individual writings. They serve to combine disparate material into a collection and to create the impression of a cohesive literary unit for readers of the work. Furthermore, these elements are so idiosyncratic that they cannot be credited to several independently operating editors but must be the work of a single editorial entity." (The first edition of the New Testament, David Trobisch, p 44, 2000)
But this question, like most over which Christians disagree, is not the cutting edge of what Christianity is all about...there was division everywhere in the church on the books that might be called the 'fringe,' but there was very little disagreement over what was at the core of the matter...The division of opinion...was not over the core, but over the 'fringe.'" (The Formation of the Christian Biblical Canon, Lee M. MacDonald, 1995, p 132)
Are you familiar with Basilides? He was a heretic who lived many years before 150 AD. He quoted from 1 Corinthians in a work of his.Thus it is entirely possible to possess scriptures without having a canon, and this was in fact the situation in the first few centuries of the Christian church. (Lee Martin McDonald, James A. Sanders, Editors: The Canon Debate; Geoffrey Mark Hahneman, The Muratorian Fragment and the Origins of the New Testament Canon, 2002, p 380)
There is no need to use such a document to reconstruct the New Testament when we have manuscripts from the same time period, the close of the second century, that nicely document each collection unit. There is no need to speculate about whether the Letter to the Hebrews was part of a collection of the Letters of Paul in the second century, because a second-century exemplar of the Pauline letter collection, P46, containing the letter at issue, actually exists. Are we not forced by the evidence to interpret the discussion in the early church about the authenticity of certain biblical writings as a reaction to an already published book? From this perspective, the same documented debates that are usually evaluated to demonstrate a gradual growth process of the canon serve instead as proof that the Canonical Edition of the Christian Bible was finished, published, and widely used. (The first edition of the New Testament, David Trobisch, 2000, p 37)
If the RCC gave the world the Bible by it's God given power and authority, than why didn't it get it right the first time? Why did it take over 1500 years to add the Apocrypha to the Canon - in the Council of Trent?
Why didn't God provide an inspired and infallible list of Old Testament books to Israel? Why would God suddenly provide such a list after Israel was destroyed in 70 AD?
Please provide a single example of where Apostolic 'oral tradition' differed from 'written scripture'.
|
|
|
|
RE: Catholic Vs. Protestant Bible - 4/11/2005 9:24:23 PM
|
|
|
sdaw
Posts: 877
Joined: 4/11/2005
Status: offline
|
Dear Jb_Ca,
As it has been pointed out before, Trent formally defined what had always been considered the canon in order to defend it against those who denied it. Christians had been using the Deuterocanonical books since the beginning of Christianity.
Eternal rest grant unto him, O Lord!
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Catholic Vs. Protestant Bible - 4/11/2005 9:28:18 PM
|
|
|
Jb_Ca
Posts: 36
Joined: 4/11/2005
Status: offline
|
Sdaw, I am happy that you have posted here.
Hopefully soon the many Catholics who posted at Christianity.com will review this thread, and we can come to a consensus on the fact that the RCC did not give the world the Bible in 360 AD.
God bless
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Catholic Vs. Protestant Bible - 4/11/2005 9:43:04 PM
|
|
|
Jb_Ca
Posts: 36
Joined: 4/11/2005
Status: offline
|
And to further clarify, sdaw; you are not arguing that the Catholic church gave the world the Bible, right?
Was it God who gave us the Bible?
If yes - can any specific church make a claim that they gave us the Bible?
If no, than why did the Roman Catholic Church add books to the Bible? Why did the Church first question the inspiration of James/Hebrews?
God bless
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Catholic Vs. Protestant Bible - 4/11/2005 9:51:01 PM
|
|
|
JaredMeister
Posts: 183
Joined: 4/11/2005
From: Indiana
Status: offline
|
quote:
Hopefully soon the many Catholics who posted at Christianity.com will review this thread
*chuckles* I have a feeling you will have NO worries.  At least the Crosswalk Catholics will be here.
I'm not sure how to feel at the thought of fighting off more from Christianity.com.
_____________________________
~ Jared
"I find your lack of faith disturbing."
-- Darth Vader
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Catholic Vs. Protestant Bible - 4/11/2005 10:06:35 PM
|
|
|
sdaw
Posts: 877
Joined: 4/11/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Jb_Ca
Sdaw, I am happy that you have posted here.
Hopefully soon the many Catholics who posted at Christianity.com will review this thread, and we can come to a consensus on the fact that the RCC did not give the world the Bible in 360 AD.
God bless
Dear Jb_CA,
Glad to be here.
As far as I am concerned, we have a consensus that the Catholic Church did not give the world the Bible in 360 AD.
We were finished by about 100.
Just kidding. The Church enabled God's people to know what Scriptures, which were given by God, were to be used for public teaching, preaching and worship in His Church.
Eternal rest grant unto him, O Lord!
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Catholic Vs. Protestant Bible - 4/11/2005 10:10:43 PM
|
|
|
Jb_Ca
Posts: 36
Joined: 4/11/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
The Church enabled God's people to know what Scriptures, which were given by God, were to be used for public teaching, preaching and worship in His Church.
What church? The Catholic church? When did the Church enable God's people to know what scriptures were from God?
You see, if you mean to argue anything before 150 AD, than we will examine the fact that each church had it's own individual leadership at this time, and that there was no one authority, aside from God, of course, which enabled the people to see what Scriptures were inspired.
In fact; the Apostles themselves send out their letters to different churches, and demand that they be read in them. Without a central authority at the time, this would open the door to something other than what you would support.
God bless
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Catholic Vs. Protestant Bible - 4/11/2005 11:01:31 PM
|
|
|
sdaw
Posts: 877
Joined: 4/11/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Jb_Ca
quote:
The Church enabled God's people to know what Scriptures, which were given by God, were to be used for public teaching, preaching and worship in His Church.
What church? The Catholic church? When did the Church enable God's people to know what scriptures were from God?
You see, if you mean to argue anything before 150 AD, than we will examine the fact that each church had it's own individual leadership at this time, and that there was no one authority, aside from God, of course, which enabled the people to see what Scriptures were inspired.
In fact; the Apostles themselves send out their letters to different churches, and demand that they be read in them. Without a central authority at the time, this would open the door to something other than what you would support.
God bless
Dear Jb_Ca,
Actually, it would open the door to something other than what you would support. As the Church became more organized and catholic in its outlook, the letters written to the individual churches became property of all the churches. Nobody is saying the the Church's central authority in its earliest years was the same as it later was. But it appears that first the Universal Church took shape, and, after that, the Canon as we know it.
Let's not confuse the issues of inspiration and canonicity.
Eternal rest grant unto him, O Lord!
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Catholic Vs. Protestant Bible - 4/11/2005 11:03:55 PM
|
|
|
Jb_Ca
Posts: 36
Joined: 4/11/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
As the Church became more organized and catholic in its outlook, the letters written to the individual churches became property of all the churches.
Problem being, sdaw, is that the church you speak of changed from what the Apostles initially created - the church you argue is based off of the Apostles.
quote:
Nobody is saying the the Church's central authority in its earliest years was the same as it later was. But it appears that first the Universal Church took shape, and, after that, the Canon as we know it.
My friend, the earliest universal church was one with individual congregations and individual positions of leadership. Let us not confuse the Universal body of believers with the Catholic Church as we see it today.
God bless
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Catholic Vs. Protestant Bible - 4/11/2005 11:10:19 PM
|
|
|
sdaw
Posts: 877
Joined: 4/11/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Jb_Ca
quote:
As the Church became more organized and catholic in its outlook, the letters written to the individual churches became property of all the churches.
Problem being, sdaw, is that the church you speak of changed from what the Apostles initially created - the church you argue is based off of the Apostles.
quote:
Nobody is saying the the Church's central authority in its earliest years was the same as it later was. But it appears that first the Universal Church took shape, and, after that, the Canon as we know it.
My friend, the earliest universal church was one with individual congregations and individual positions of leadership. Let us not confuse the Universal body of believers with the Catholic Church as we see it today.
God bless
Dear Jb_Ca,
We aren't confusing them, my friend. There is one Church. All believers belong to it, however imperfect the communion between them all.
Eternal rest grant unto them, O Lord!
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Catholic Vs. Protestant Bible - 4/11/2005 11:54:52 PM
|
|
|
SaintJVMan
Posts: 73
Joined: 4/11/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Jb_Ca
When did the Church enable God's people to know what scriptures were from God?
When Christ gave the Church the authority to act in His name. "He who hears you hears me" (Luke 10:16), and "Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven" (Matt. 18:18).
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Catholic Vs. Protestant Bible - 4/12/2005 12:07:16 AM
|
|
|
Lurker
Posts: 740
Joined: 4/11/2005
From: Silver Spring, MD
Status: offline
|
I don't think I was involved much in the older thread on forums.christianity.com, but I do know that the deuterocanonical books were referenced well before 360AD by many early Church fathers.
The book of Sirach is quoted in the Didache which is dated to around 70AD. "You shall not waver with regard to your decisions [Sir. 1:28]. Do not be someone who stretches out his hands to receive but withdraws them when it comes to giving [Sir. 4:31]" (Didache 4:5)
Clement of Rome wrote to the Corinthian Church and quoted from the book of Wisdom around 80 AD.
Polycarp of Smyrna wrote a letter to the Philadelphians where he quotes from 1st Peter, Isaiah, AND Tobit. This was around 135AD.
Iraneus, one of the early Church fathers (around 189AD) wrote several and referenced the gospels, as well as the 13th and 14th chapters of Daniel (not in the Protestant canon), and the book of Baruch in his work, "Against Heresies"
And then we have Hippolytus in 204AD quoting the story of Suannah in his Commentary on Daniel. The story of Susannah is in Daniel chapter 14 btw, not part of the Protestant canon.
And there is also Cyprian of Carthage who quotes from Maccabees as well as Daniel 14. Cyprian was born around 200AD, and became a martyr for his faith in Christ on September 14th, 258AD.
So even though the canon wasn't set down in stone until later, it would seem obvious that the early Church recognized the deuterocanonical books as authoritive.
*edit* aww... My post count is gone. *sniffle*
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Catholic Vs. Protestant Bible - 4/12/2005 6:51:31 AM
|
|
|
sdaw
Posts: 877
Joined: 4/11/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: divinemercy
 I see the Catholic bashing has begun in earnest. Didnt take long.
Dear divinemercy,
I've been bashed before. I'll be bashed again. This isn't bashing. It's just a friendly C/P discussion.
Eternal rest grant onto him, O Lord!
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Catholic Vs. Protestant Bible - 4/12/2005 7:56:42 AM
|
|
|
ern_walton
Posts: 41
Status: offline
|
sdaw,
Query: Is the Aprocrypha written in Greek or Hebrew?
What evidence is there, if any, that the Jews living in Palestine, or more orthodox Jews living elsewhere, accepted the Aprocrypha as authoritative as the Torah or the Prophets?
Although the Apostles probably used the Greek version of the O.T., which did include the Aprocrypha, is there any evidence that the Apostles deemed the Aprocrypha authoritative?
Are these not the factors that St. Jerome weighed when deciding to NOT include these books in the Latin Vulgate's OT (a decision which was overruled over his dead body)?
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Catholic Vs. Protestant Bible - 4/12/2005 8:46:56 AM
|
|
|
superdave
Posts: 25
Joined: 4/11/2005
From: Atlanta, Georgia!
Status: offline
|
I'd like to clarify one important item. The church that canonized the Bible was not the Catholic Church. They tend to forget that there was only one church then and it was not what we know now as the Catholic Church. The Orthodox Church can just as rightly claim, by that standard, that it was they that canonized the Bible. I think that Catholics, like many protestants, have a very bias veiw of church history.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Catholic Vs. Protestant Bible - 4/12/2005 8:58:06 AM
|
|
|
gtbecksr
Posts: 2
Joined: 4/11/2005
Status: offline
|
I just recently went to an exhibit of the dead sea scrolls. It is interesting to note that the apocrapha is not found in the Hebrew texts based on some charts and information shown at the exhibit. This would lead me to believe that as such the Jews did not accept them. Since Christianity gets it foundations from Judasim shouldn't we consider that? I have heard the argument before that early church leaders quoted from them. I quote from many sources when I make a argument. That doesn't make them scripture. The other argument is that the catholic church "clarified" the canon at the council of Trent. I believe the reality was that they were fighting off the damage done by wrong doing exposed by Martin Luther. They were trying to justify their own actions and had to find a source that supported their positions.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Catholic Vs. Protestant Bible - 4/12/2005 12:23:49 PM
|
|
|
sdaw
Posts: 877
Joined: 4/11/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: ern_walton
sdaw,
Query: Is the Aprocrypha written in Greek or Hebrew?
What evidence is there, if any, that the Jews living in Palestine, or more orthodox Jews living elsewhere, accepted the Aprocrypha as authoritative as the Torah or the Prophets?
Although the Apostles probably used the Greek version of the O.T., which did include the Aprocrypha, is there any evidence that the Apostles deemed the Aprocrypha authoritative?
Are these not the factors that St. Jerome weighed when deciding to NOT include these books in the Latin Vulgate's OT (a decision which was overruled over his dead body)?
Dear ern,
I am not familiar with the apocrypha. I understand that there are books in both Hebrew and Greek.
The Deuterocanonicals are mostly in Greek, although Sirach has a Hebrew original. The canonical text is in Greek.
If the Apostles used the LXX the same way they used the Proto MT, I would understand that to mean they accepted its authority. I don't think that they thought about it that way.
I don't know what normative value the Jewish canon, which was finalized after the Christian one and partially in reponse to it, has on the Christian Canon.
Jerome had his opinons. Each Church, Catholic, Protestant, Orthodox, Coptic, formed its own canon for its own reasons.
Eternal rest grant onto him, O Lord!
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Catholic Vs. Protestant Bible - 4/12/2005 12:26:46 PM
|
|
|
sdaw
Posts: 877
Joined: 4/11/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: superdave
I'd like to clarify one important item. The church that canonized the Bible was not the Catholic Church. They tend to forget that there was only one church then and it was not what we know now as the Catholic Church. The Orthodox Church can just as rightly claim, by that standard, that it was they that canonized the Bible. I think that Catholics, like many protestants, have a very bias veiw of church history.
Dear superdave,
The canons of the Catholic Church and the Orthodox are slightly different. For the first 1050 years, it is a biased view to speak of Catholic versus Orthodox, although West versus East has some validity.
Eternal rest grant onto him, O Lord!
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Catholic Vs. Protestant Bible - 4/12/2005 2:06:02 PM
|
|
|
S.Benedict
Posts: 29
Joined: 4/11/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Jb_Ca
And to further clarify, sdaw; you are not arguing that the Catholic church gave the world the Bible, right?
Was it God who gave us the Bible?
If yes - can any specific church make a claim that they gave us the Bible?
If no, than why did the Roman Catholic Church add books to the Bible? Why did the Church first question the inspiration of James/Hebrews?
God bless
The RCC did not add books to the bible. It was just the opposite in fact. It was protestants who took them out.
During the Reformation, primarily for doctrinal reasons, Protestants removed seven books from the Old Testament: 1 and 2 Maccabees, Sirach, Wisdom, Baruch, Tobit, and Judith, and parts of two others, Daniel and Esther. They did so even though these books had been regarded as canonical since the beginning of Church history.
As Protestant church 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 Protestant Bible]. . . . It always included, though with varying degrees of recognition, the so-called apocrypha or deuterocanonical books" (Early Christian Doctrines, 53), which are rejected by Protestants.
Below we give patristic quotations from each of the deuterocanonical books. Notice how the Fathers quoted these books along with the protocanonicals. The deuterocanonicals are those books of the Old Testament that were included in the Bible even though there had been some discussion about whether they should be.
Also included are the earliest official lists of the canon. For the sake of brevity these are not given in full. When the lists of the canon cited here are given in full, they include all the books and only the books found in the modern Catholic Bible.
When examining the question of what books were originally included in the Old Testament canon, it is important to note that some of the books of the Bible have been known by more than one name. Sirach is also known as Ecclesiasticus, 1 and 2 Chronicles as 1 and 2 Paralipomenon, Ezra and Nehemiah as 1 and 2 Esdras, and 1 and 2 Samuel with 1 and 2 Kings as 1, 2, 3, and 4 Kings—that is, 1 and 2 Samuel are named 1 and 2 Kings, and 1 and 2 Kings are named 3 and 4 Kings. The history and use of these designations is explained more fully in Scripture reference works.
The Didache
"You shall not waver with regard to your decisions [Sir. 1:28]. Do not be someone who stretches out his hands to receive but withdraws them when it comes to giving [Sir. 4:31]" (Didache 4:5 [A.D. 70]).
The Letter of Barnabas
"Since, therefore, [Christ] was about to be manifested and to suffer in the flesh, his suffering was foreshown. For the prophet speaks against evil, ‘Woe to their soul, because they have counseled an evil counsel against themselves’ [Is. 3:9], saying, ‘Let us bind the righteous man because he is displeasing to us’ [Wis. 2:12.]" (Letter of Barnabas 6:7 [A.D. 74]).
Clement of Rome
"By the word of his might [God] established all things, and by his word he can overthrow them. ‘Who shall say to him, "What have you done?" or who shall resist the power of his strength?’ [Wis. 12:12]" (Letter to the Corinthians 27:5 [ca. A.D. 80]).
Polycarp of Smyrna
"Stand fast, therefore, in these things, and follow the example of the Lord, being firm and unchangeable in the faith, loving the brotherhood [1 Pet. 2:17].
. . . When you can do good, defer it not, because ‘alms delivers from death’ [Tob. 4:10, 12:9]. Be all of you subject to one another [1 Pet. 5:5], having your conduct blameless among the Gentiles [1 Pet. 2:12], and the Lord may not be blasphemed through you. But woe to him by whom the name of the Lord is blasphemed [Is. 52:5]!" (Letter to the Philadelphians 10 [A.D. 135]).
Irenaeus
"Those . . . who are believed to be presbyters by many, but serve their own lusts and do not place the fear of God supreme in their hearts, but conduct themselves with contempt toward others and are puffed up with the pride of holding the chief seat [Matt. 23:6] and work evil deeds in secret, saying ‘No man sees us,’ shall be convicted by the Word, who does not judge after outward appearance, nor looks upon the countenance, but the heart; and they shall hear those words to be found in Daniel the prophet: ‘O you seed of Canaan and not of Judah, beauty has deceived you and lust perverted your heart’ [Dan. 13:56]. You that have grown old in wicked days, now your sins which you have committed before have come to light, for you have pronounced false judgments and have been accustomed to condemn the innocent and to let the guilty go free, although the Lord says, ‘You shall not slay the innocent and the righteous’ [Dan. 13:52, citing Ex. 23:7]" (Against Heresies 4:26:3 [A.D. 189]; Daniel 13 is not in the Protestant Bible).
"Jeremiah the prophet has pointed out that as many believers as God has prepared for this purpose, to multiply those left on the earth, should both be under the rule of the saints and to minister to this [new] Jerusalem and that [his] kingdom shall be in it, saying, ‘Look around Jerusalem toward the east and behold the joy which comes to you from God himself. Behold, your sons whom you have sent forth shall come: They shall come in a band from the east to the west. . . . God shall go before with you in the light of his splendor, with the mercy and righteousness which proceed from him’ [Bar. 4:36—5:9]" (ibid., 5:35:1; Baruch was often considered part of Jeremiah, as it is here).
Hippolytus
"What is narrated here [in the story of Susannah] happened at a later time, although it is placed at the front of the book [of Daniel], for it was a custom with the writers to narrate many things in an inverted order in their writings. . . . [W]e ought to give heed, beloved, fearing lest anyone be overtaken in any transgression and risk the loss of his soul, knowing as we do that God is the judge of all and the Word himself is the eye which nothing that is done in the world escapes. Therefore, always watchful in heart and pure in life, let us imitate Susannah" (Commentary on Daniel [A.D. 204]; the story of Susannah [Dan. 13] is not in the Protestant Bible).
Cyprian of Carthage
"In Genesis [it says], ‘And God tested Abraham and said to him, "Take your only son whom you love, Isaac, and go to the high land and offer him there as a burnt offering . . ."’ [Gen. 22:1–2]. . . . Of this same thing in the Wisdom of Solomon [it says], ‘Although in the sight of men they suffered torments, their hope is full of immortality . . .’ [Wis. 3:4]. Of this same thing in the Maccabees [it says], ‘Was not Abraham found faithful when tested, and it was reckoned to him for righteousness’ [1 Macc. 2:52; see Jas. 2:21–23]" (Treatises 7:3:15 [A.D. 248]).
"So Daniel, too, when he was required to worship the idol Bel, which the people and the king then worshipped, in asserting the honor of his God, broke forth with full faith and freedom, saying, ‘I worship nothing but the Lord my God, who created the heaven and the earth’ [Dan. 14:5]" (Letters 55:5 [A.D. 253]; Daniel 14 is not in the Protestant Bible).
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]).
Augustine
"The whole canon of the scriptures, however, in which we say that consideration is to be applied, is contained in these books: the five of Moses . . . and one book of Joshua [Son of] Nave, one of Judges; one little book which is called Ruth . . . then the four of Kingdoms, and the two of Paralipomenon . . . . [T]here are also others too, of a different order . . . such as Job and Tobit and Esther and Judith and the two books of Maccabees, and the two of Esdras . . . . Then there are the prophets, in which there is one book of the Psalms of David, and three of Solomon. . . . But as to those two books, one of which is entitled Wisdom and the other of which is entitled Ecclesiasticus and which are called ‘of Solomon’ because of a certain similarity to his books, it is held most certainly that they were written by Jesus Sirach. They must, however, be accounted among the prophetic books, because of the authority which is deservedly accredited to them" (Christian Instruction 2:8:13 [A.D. 397]).
"We read in the books of the Maccabees [2 Macc. 12:43] that sacrifice was offered for the dead. But even if it were found nowhere in the Old Testament writings, the authority of the Catholic Church which is clear on this point is of no small weight, where in the prayers of the priest poured forth to the Lord God at his altar the commendation of the dead has its place" (The Care to be Had for the Dead 1:3 [A.D. 421]).
The Apostolic Constitutions
"Now women also prophesied. Of old, Miriam the sister of Moses and Aaron [Ex. 15:20], and after her, Deborah [Judges. 4:4], and after these Huldah [2 Kgs. 22:14] and Judith [Judith 8], the former under Josiah and the latter under Darius" (Apostolic Constitutions 8:2 [A.D. 400]).
Jerome
"What sin have I committed if I follow the judgment of the churches? But he who brings charges against me for relating [in my preface to the book of Daniel] the objections that the Hebrews are wont to raise against the story of Susannah [Dan. 13], the Song of the Three Children [Dan. 3:29–68, RSV-CE], and the story of Bel and the Dragon [Dan. 14], which are not found in the Hebrew volume, proves that he is just a foolish sycophant. I was not relating my own personal views, but rather the remarks that they are wont to make against us. If I did not reply to their views in my preface, in the interest of brevity, lest it seem that I was composing not a preface, but a book, I believe I added promptly the remark, for I said, ‘This is not the time to discuss such matters’" (Against Rufinius 11:33 [A.D. 401]).
Pope Innocent I
"A brief addition shows what books really are received in the canon. These are the things of which you desired to be informed verbally: of Moses, five books, that is, of Genesis, of Exodus, of Leviticus, of Numbers, of Deuteronomy, and Joshua, of Judges, one book, of Kings, four books, and also Ruth, of the prophets, sixteen books, of Solomon, five books, the Psalms. Likewise of the histories, Job, one book, of Tobit, one book, Esther, one, Judith, one, of the Maccabees, two, of Esdras, two, Paralipomenon, two books . . ." (Letters 7 [A.D. 408]).
You see, these early members of the Church quoted from teh deuterocanonical books and these early lists of the books included in the Bible show that said books were always included from the begining. Even teh original King James version included these books. It is the New King James version that does not, and these books were not removed until the 1800s. If you want to read a bible that was used by the early church, read a RC bible. The only problem for protestants is that there is scripture in those 7 books that does not support many of their beliefs.
_____________________________
I am already saved, but I’m also being saved, and I have the hope that I will be saved. Like the apostle Paul I am working out my salvation in fear and trembling, with hopeful confidence in the promises of Christ.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Catholic Vs. Protestant Bible - 4/12/2005 4:00:10 PM
|
|
|
Jb_Ca
Posts: 36
Joined: 4/11/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
So even though the canon wasn't set down in stone until later, it would seem obvious that the early Church recognized the deuterocanonical books as authoritive.
I agree - the early church did recognize the books as authoritive.
Now, why did Rome add to the books of the Bible hundreds of years later in the Apocrypha?
God bless
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Catholic Vs. Protestant Bible - 4/12/2005 4:01:11 PM
|
|
|
Jb_Ca
Posts: 36
Joined: 4/11/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
I'd like to clarify one important item. The church that canonized the Bible was not the Catholic Church. They tend to forget that there was only one church then and it was not what we know now as the Catholic Church. The Orthodox Church can just as rightly claim, by that standard, that it was they that canonized the Bible. I think that Catholics, like many protestants, have a very bias veiw of church history.
I am happy that you concede to this.
It is not the RCC that gave us the Bible.
God gave the world the Bible.
God bless
|
|
|
|
|
Forum Tools
Printable Version
