Refuting Catholic Answers How to
Defend the Deuterocanonicals
(https://www.catholic.com/magazine/print-edition/how-to-defend-the-deuterocanonicals)
• God’s
written word was entrusted to the Jews, but he never provided them
with an inspired table of contents.
Neither
has Rome, thus the distinction CA attempts to make here is negated.
• They divided their sacred writings into three parts: the law,
the prophets, and the writings (which were canonized in that
order).
Which
tripartite canon is what we see being referred to in the Lord's
instruction to His disciples in Luke
24:
And he said unto them, These are the words which I
spake unto you, while I was yet with you, that all things must be
fulfilled, which were written in the law of Moses, and in the
prophets, and in the psalms, concerning me. (Luke
24:44)
Which is understood as being the Palestinian canon
held to by those who sat in the seat of Moses, and which the ancient
1st century Jewish historian Josephus numbered as 22 books, and which
is understood as correspondent to the 39 book Protestant canon, which
divides books the Jews referred to as single works.
Answering
the charges of an anti-Semite named Apion at the end of the first
century A.D., Josephus says:
“We
do not possess myriads of inconsistent books, conflicting with each
other. other. Our books, those which are justly accredited, are but
two and twenty, and contain the record of all time....” —
Josephus, Against Apion, 1,8 (38-41)
"...the
pseudepigraphical work 4 Ezra (probably written about A.D.
1208)...admits that only twenty-four Scriptures have circulated
publicly since Ezra's time." — Robert
C. Newman, "THE
COUNCIL OF JAMNIA AND THE OLD TESTAMENT CANON," Westminster
Theological Journal 38.4 (Spr. 1976) 319-348
Cyril
of Jerusalem, whose list rejected the apocrypha (except for Baruch)
exhorts his readers to “read
the Divine Scriptures, the twenty-two books of the Old Testament,
these that have been translated by the Seventy-two Interpreters,”
the latter referring to the Septuagint but not as including the
apocrypha. (Cyril
of Jerusalem on the Canon of Scripture)
And
which means that the 39 book Protestant canon is more ancient than
that of Rome's, as it corresponds to a ancient canon held by
Palestinian Jews from before the third century, and which is affirmed
in Catholic scholarship:
“the
protocanonical books of the Old Testament correspond with those of
the Bible of the Hebrews, and the Old Testament as received by
Protestants.” “...the Hebrew Bible, which became the Old
Testament of Protestantism.” (The
Catholic Encyclopedia>Canon of the Old Testament;
htttp://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03267a.htm)
The Protestant canon of the Old Testament is the same as the
Palestinian canon. (The
Catholic Almanac, 1960, p. 217)
By
the time of Christ, the law—and most likely the prophets—was
set in number, but the writings were not yet closed.
Not
yet universally closed, yes, but which was also the case for most of
Rome's history, yet nor is the canon universally settled today in all
that is called Christianity.
• In
Jesus’ time, the Samaritans and Sadducees accepted the law but
rejected the prophets and writings. The Pharisees accepted all three.
Other Jews used a Greek version (the Septuagint) that included the
seven disputed books, known as the deuterocanonicals. Still other
Jews used a version of the canon that is reflected in the Septaguint
and included versions of the seven books in question in their
original Hebrew or Aramaic.
Which
is is simply ignorance and or erroneous or dubious (at best)
statements deceptively presented as facts. For this claim presumes
that the Septuagint contained all the apocryphal books at that time,
but for which there is no historical evidence. The earliest existing
Greek manuscripts which contain some of them date from the 4th
Century and are understood to have been placed therein by Christians.
Philo of Alexandria (1st c A.D.) states that only the Torah
(the first 5 books of the O.T.) was commissioned to be translated,
leaving the rest of the O.T. following in later centuries, and in an
order that is not altogether clear, nor do all LXX manuscripts have
the same apocryphal books and names.
British scholar R. T.
Beckwith states,
Philo
of Alexandria's writings show it to have been the same as the
Palestinian. He refers to the three familiar sections, and he
ascribes inspiration to many books in all three, but never to any of
the Apocrypha....The Apocrypha were known in the church from the
start, but the further back one goes, the more rarely are they
treated as inspired. (Roger
T. Beckwith, "The Canon of the Old Testament" in Phillip
Comfort, The Origin of the Bible [Wheaton: Tyndale House, 2003] pp.
57-64)
It is
understood that manuscripts
of anything like the capacity of Codex Alexandrinus were not used in
the first centuries of the Christian era, and since in the second
century AD the Jews seem largely to have discarded the
Septuagint…there can be no real doubt that the comprehensive
codices of the Septuagint, which start appearing in the fourth
century AD, are all of Christian origin.
Nor is there
agreement between the codices which the Apocrypha include...Moreover,
all three codices [Vaticanus, Sinaiticus and Alexandrinus], according
to Kenyon, were produced in Egypt, yet the contemporary Christian
lists of the biblical books drawn up in Egypt by Athanasius and (very
likely) pseudo-Athanasius are much more critical, excluding all
apocryphal books from the canon, and putting them in a separate
appendix. (Roger
Beckwith, [Anglican priest, Oxford BD and Lambeth DD], The Old
Testament Canon of the New Testament Church [Eerdmans 1986], p. 382,
383; Triablogue:
The legendary Alexandrian canon)
Edward
Earle Ellis attests,
“No
two Septuagint codices contain the same apocrypha, and no uniform
Septuagint ‘Bible’ was ever the subject of discussion in
the patristic church. In view of these facts the Septuagint codices
appear to have been originally intended more as service books than as
a defined and normative canon of Scripture,” (E.
E. Ellis, The Old Testament in Early Christianity [Baker 1992],
34-35.
Furthermore, if
quoting from some of the Septuagint means the whole is sanctioned,
then since the Psalms of Solomon, which is not part of any scriptural
canon, is found in copies of the Septuagint as is Psalm 151, and 3
and 4 Maccabees (Vaticanus [early 4th century] does not include any
of the Maccabean books, while Sinaiticus [early 4th century] includes
1 and 4 Maccabees and Alexandrinus [early 5th century] includes 1, 2,
3, and 4 Maccabees and the Psalms of Solomon), then we would be bound
to accept them as well.
Gleason Archer states,
Even
in the case of the Septuagint, the apocryphal books maintain a rather
uncertain existence. The Codex Vaticanus (B) lacks [besides 3 and 4]
1 and 2 Maccabees (canonical, according to Rome), but includes 1
Esdras (non-canonical, according to Rome). The Sinaiticus (Aleph)
omits Baruch (canonical, according to Rome), but includes 4 Maccabees
(non-canonical, according to Rome)... Thus it turns out that even the
three earliest MSS or the LXX show considerable uncertainty as to
which books constitute the list of the Apocrypha.. (Archer, Gleason
L., Jr., "A Survey of Old Testament Introduction", Moody
Press, Chicago, IL, Rev. 1974, p. 75; What
are the apocrypha and pseudepigrapha?)
The
German historian Martin Hengel writes,
“Sinaiticus
contains Barnabas and Hermas, Alexandrinus 1 and 2 Clement.”
“Codex Alexandrinus...includes the LXX as we know it in Rahlfs’
edition, with all four books of Maccabees and the fourteen Odes
appended to Psalms.” “...the Odes (sometimes varied in
number), attested from the fifth century in all Greek Psalm
manuscripts, contain three New Testament ‘psalms’: the
Magnificat, the Benedictus, the Nunc Dimittis from Luke’s birth
narrative, and the conclusion of the hymn that begins with the
‘Gloria in Excelsis.’ This underlines the fact that the
LXX, although, itself consisting of a collection of Jewish documents,
wishes to be a Christian book.” (Martin Hengel, The Septuagint
as Christian Scripture [Baker 2004], pp. 57-59)
Also,
The
Targums did not include these books, nor the earliest versions of the
Peshitta, and the apocryphal books are seen to have been later
additions, and later versions of the LXX varied in regard to which
books of the apocrypha they contained. “Nor is there agreement
between the codices which of the Apocrypha include. (Eerdmans 1986),
382. The two most complete targums (translations of the Hebrew Bible
into Aramaic which date from the first century to the Middel Ages)
contain all the books of the Hebrew Bible except Ezra, Nehemiah and
Daniel.
• When
the Christians claimed that they had written new scriptures, Jews
from a rabbinical school in Javneh met around year 80 and, among
other things, discussed the canon. They did not include the New
Testament nor the seven Old Testament works and portions of Daniel
and Esther. This still did not settle the Pharisee canon, since not
all Jews agreed with or even knew about the decision at Javneh.
This
also indicates ignorance. As WP documents, The theory that Jamnia
finalised the canon, first proposed by Heinrich Graetz in 1871,[2]
was popular for much of the 20th century. However, it was
increasingly questioned from the 1960s onward, and the theory has
been largely discredited.[3] (Council
of Jamnia - Wikipedia) Sid Z. Leiman made an independent
challenge for his University of Pennsylvania thesis published later
as a book in 1976, in which he wrote that none of the sources used to
support the theory actually mentioned books that had been withdrawn
from a canon, and questioned the whole premise that the discussions
were about canonicity at all, stating that they were actually dealing
with other concerns entirely. Other scholars have since joined in and
today the theory is largely discredited.[28]
Some scholars
argue that the Jewish canon was fixed earlier by the Hasmonean
dynasty.[5]
(Development
of the Hebrew Bible canon - Wikipedia)
• If
anything is certain, it is that there was no common canon among the
Jews at the time of Christ.
Which
is simply deceptive, for while there was also variant views as there
are today on many things, the manifest reality is that an
authoritative body (canon) of wholly inspired writings had been
established by the time of Christ, and without an infallible
magisterium, which Rome presumes is essential for ascertaining that
is of God.
Therefore the Lord and disciples repeatedly
quoted from, referenced, and referred them and others to the
Scriptures as authoritative, (Matthew
21:42; 26:54,56; Mark
14:49) including reading from one of the established books in the
synagogue as Scripture, (Luke
4:21) and men such as Paul reasoned with Jews likewise "from
the Scriptures," and men "searched the Scriptures" in
order to ascertain his veracity, (Acts
17:2,11)
and there were souls who were "mighty in the Scriptures,"
(Acts
18:34,28)
and the Lord substantiated His mission to the disciples by the
Scriptures (as a tripartite canon), and opened their minds to the
understanding "of the Scriptures." (Luke
24:44,45)
Yet Catholics argu that there was no
authoritative canon of sacred writings! And note that those who sat
in the seat of Moses, whom the Lord enjoined conditional (only
Scriptural) obedience to, (Mt. 23:2) never made the canonical status
of the Scriptures the Lord and His prima NT church invoked as issue,
this implicitly affirming there accepted status.
• At
the Council of Rome in 382, the Church decided upon a canon of 46 Old
Testament books and 27 in the New Testament. This decision was
ratified by the councils at Hippo (393), Carthage (397, 419), II
Nicea (787), Florence (1442), and Trent (1546).
None
of which were ecumenical councils that settled the canon so that
disagreement was disallowed. Thus as even the Catholic Encyclopedia
states,
In the Latin Church, all through the Middle Ages [5th
century to the 15th century] we find evidence
of hesitation about
the character of the deuterocanonicals.
There is a current friendly
to them, another one distinctly unfavourable to their authority and
sacredness, while wavering
between the two are a number of writers whose veneration for these
books is tempered by some perplexity as to their exact standing, and
among those we note St. Thomas Aquinas. Few
are found to unequivocally acknowledge their canonicity.
The prevailing attitude of Western medieval authors is substantially
that of the Greek Fathers. The chief cause of this phenomenon in the
West is to be sought in the influence, direct and indirect, of St.
Jerome's depreciating Prologus (CATHOLIC
ENCYCLOPEDIA: Canon of the Old Testament)
• Further,
if Catholics added the deuterocanonical books in 1546, then Martin
Luther beat us to the punch: He included them in his first German
translation, published the Council of Trent...
they had been
included at least in an appendix of Protestant Bibles. It is
historically demonstrable that Catholics did not add the books,
Protestants took them out.
Which
is more deception, for the issue is not whether the Deuteros can be
read, but the canonical status of them. And as they are were not
considered canonical, Luther translated them but placed them in a
separate section, as did typical Protestant Bibles, as per an ancient
tradition. Thus it is historically demonstrable that Catholics did
not the books as Scripture, while Protestants followed the more
ancient canon, out of which the NT shows Lord referenced writings as
authoritative Scripture.
• Luther
had a tendency to grade the Bible according to his preferences. In
his writings on the New Testament, he noted that the books of
Hebrews, James, Jude, and Revelation were inferior to the rest, and
they followed "the certain, main books of the New
Testament."
Which
was nothing novel or unCatholic, for in reality, scholarly
disagreements over the canonicity (proper) of certain books continued
down through the centuries, and right into Trent, until it provided
the first "infallible," indisputable canon after
the death of Luther.
Thus
Luther was no maverick but had substantial RC support for his
non-binding canon, and which did not determine the canon for
Protestantism.
• In
1519, this same attitude fueled his debate against Johannes Eck on
the topic of purgatory. Luther undermined Eck’s proof text of 2
Maccabees 12 by devaluing the deuterocanonical books as a whole.
And
since the canon had not been settled then Eck had a problem which
would not be rectified until after the death of Luther. Likewise,
Luther's position on the canon could not be made a damnable issue, as
it is with later Catholicism, until after Trent.
• Though
there are no quotes, the New Testament does make numerous allusions
to the deuterocanonical books. For one strong example, examine
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."
Even
contemporary news can be referenced in Scripture, (Luke 13:1-3) which
does not mean it is the latter, but, in contrast to the basis for
Catholic oral tradition being the word of God, affirmation of such by
inspired Scripture surely means it is true. And in contrast to
canonical writings, the deuteros (Apocrypha) were never referred to
as scripture as in "Search the scriptures" (John
5:39) and to Sadducees Ye do err, not knowing the scriptures, nor
the power of God (Matthew
22:29) or "It is written."(Mt.
4:4)
• "Early
Christians read the Greek translation of the Old Testament, the
Septuagint. It included the seven deuterocanonical books.
Which
is a repetition of the deceptive statement which was dealt with
earlier.
• Since
there was disagreement between some Church Fathers, it became obvious
that no individual could provide an infallible list of inspired
books.The bottom line: "We have no other assurance that the
books of Moses, the four Gospels, and the other books are the true
word of God," wrote Augustine, "but by the canon of the
Catholic Church."
Which
presumption would logically mean that first century souls had no
other assurance that the books of Moses were the true word of God,"
yet the manifestly did! And rather than the historical magisterium
infallibly indisputably defining what and who was of God, the church
began with common souls assuredly ascertaining that both men (such as
the prohets and John the baptizer: "for all men counted John,
that he was a prophet indeed" (Mark 11:32) and writings were of
God. (John 7:40-42)
So much for the presumption of Rome with
her the novel and unScriptural premise of ensured perpetual
magisterial infallibility.
• One must either trust a rabbinical school that rejected the
New Testament 60 years after Christ established a Church, or one must
trust the Church he established.
Which
is simply a reiteration of ignorance dealt with before, as well as
pure propagada, For the fact is that the church of Rome (nor the EOs,
if less aberrant) cannot claim to be the one true and apostolic
church, since distinctive Catholic are not
manifest in the only wholly inspired substantive authoritative record
of what the NT church believed (including how they understood the
OT and gospels), which is Scripture, especially Acts thru Revelation.
• Which
deserves our trust? Martin Luther makes a pertinent observation in
the sixteenth chapter of his Commentary on St. John "We are
obliged to yield many things to the papists [Catholics]—that
they possess the Word of God which we received from them, otherwise
we should have known nothing at all about it."
Which
helps the RC argument how? The Catholic logic is that if one is
indebted to Catholicism for the Bible then it means acknowledging and
submitting to Catholicism as being the infallible authority on what
it consists of and means.
However, this logically means that
first century souls should have submitted to those who sat in the
seat of Moses over Israel, (Mt. 23:2) who were the historical
instruments and stewards of Scripture, "because that unto them
were committed the oracles of God," (Rm. 3:2) to whom
pertaineth" the adoption, and the glory, and the covenants, and
the giving of the law, and the service of God, and the promises"
(Rm. 9:4) of Divine guidance, presence and perpetuation as they
believed, (Gn. 12:2,3; 17:4,7,8; Ex. 19:5; Lv. 10:11; Dt. 4:31;
17:8-13; Ps, 11:4,9; Is. 41:10, Ps. 89:33,34; Jer. 7:23)
And
instead they followed an itinerant Preacher whom the magisterium
rejected, and whom the Messiah reproved them Scripture as being
supreme, (Mk. 7:2-16) and established His Truth claims upon
scriptural substantiation in word and in power, as did the early
church as it began upon this basis. (Mt. 22:23-45; Lk. 24:27,44; Jn.
5:36,39; Acts 2:14-35; 4:33; 5:12; 15:6-21;17:2,11; 18:28; 28:23; Rm.
15:19; 2Cor. 12:12, etc.)
Note also that whenever you see a
Catholic quote Luther as this
one , one should avail the research of James Swan a site search
(site:beggarsallreformation.blogspot.com "We
are obliged to yield many things"
..).
Thus once again the sophistry of (money-begging)
Catholic Answers is once again exposed, but the grace of God.
