Perhaps no area in Catholic-Protestant apologetics involves as many outright falsehoods as the history of the Bible. To be sure, there are lots of theological topics on which Catholics and Protestants disagree, but for sheer number of popular Protestant arguments that are explicitly and undeniably false, nothing tops the question of where the Bible comes from and how many books it has.
Of course, there are plenty of historical debates both in and out of Christian circles. For example, there’s the annual fight over whether Christopher Columbus was a great or terrible man. That’s an issue upon which reasonable people, looking at the same evidence, may disagree. But imagine if one side of that debate claimed that there was no evidence Christopher Columbus even crossed the Atlantic. That’s the level of argument to be found in the surreal world of many Protestant versions of the history of the Bible: that of outlandish claims and easily disproven falsehoods.
It’s one of my favorite topics, and I think you’ll be surprised at the number of blatant falsehoods being peddled by these Protestant teachers.
The more we have invested in something, the more we’re inclined to defend it; even when it’s blatantly wrong and requires extreme blindness and self deception to do so.
John, your words ring with a deep truth. We certainly dig in our heels when we are emotionally, culturally, intellectually, and spiritually invested in them, even if they were handed down by previous generations. Your insight also applies to any area that gets deep attachment, like political identity or ethical decisions.
The challenge is to be able to separate our personal investment and cultural heritage (possibly through many generations) with the factual basis of claims to authority. I fear that we are losing this in spades right now in our country. It is the ecumenical work to seek the truth and hear others with genuine interest. Thank you, John, for your reply and blessings to you!
Rev. Dark Hans,
This is why – as a former Catholic – I don’t automatically assume what people tell me – even if it comes from someone in the church. See my comments that I posted elsewhere in this blog.
The gold standard of truth use to be reason and facts grounded in God, but is quickly becoming nothing but “feelings”. The deadly effects are slowly manifesting and at some point even the blindest will no longer be able to ignore them.
John,
Exactly! That is why we have to consult a truly infallible authority – outside of mankind, including ourselves – to obtain that “gold standard of truth” (John 17:17).
Unless you have a red bat phone to God, good luck. Even then, how can you be sure of who’s on the other end or that you are properly hearing and understanding?
John,
Again, that’s why you need an objective authoritative God-breathed source (ie: the Bible)(2 Timothy 3:16). Otherwise, you are simply believing what a fallible “bat-phone” that just “claims” to be speaking for God, but can’t actually prove it. You just trade one authority (God-breathed – ie: Scripture) for another authority (man-made – ie: the Catholic church). And Scripture is clear what the OT canon is – the OT canon of the Pharisees.
JJ: You have yet to provide any real evidence that canon of scripture, OT or NT, has a self-contained table of contents. On the contrary, Jesus Himself places his authority in the hands of the apostles and Peter in particular to build His Church. This is clearly stated in scripture and has been passed to succeeding generations. It’s also clear that the canon for both OT & NT were developed by the Church over time as a tool in the hands of the Church.
Lastly, we really can’t dismiss non-canonical writings as irrelevant as they often provide insight into things that are unclear or just not addressed in the canon.
Jim,
How do you know the Bible is an objective God-breathed source?
JJ regarding 2 Tim 3:16. “All scripture is inspired by God and is useful for teaching, for refutation, for correction, and for training in righteousness, so that one who belongs to God may be competent, equipped for every good work.” Paul is writing to Timothy, his protege who he has ordained as a bishop himself. He cites scripture in general (all) as inspired by God and a useful tool, but certainly doesn’t negate the personal instruction he has given Timothy. Nowhere does he specify a specific subset of scripture as “god breathed” to the exclusion of others or of other training. The conditional “may” implies that Paul does not believe that scriptural knowledge alone necessarily makes one competent or fully equipped.
John,
“You have yet to provide any real evidence that canon of scripture, OT or NT, has a self-contained table of contents.”
Nor was I claiming that either Testament “contained” a “table of contents.” That is strawman, nor the argument I was making. Again, Catholic Answers Jimmy Akin even admitted that both the canon of the Pharisees & the OT canon of later Protestants contained the EXACT same Scriptures. And it was the Pharisees – not any other Jewish sect – that Jesus stated “they HAVE Moses & the Prophets” (Luke 16:29).
And, again, it’s not until at least the ninth century that the Catholic church has an OT canon that even resembles the OT canon of Trent, since both Catholic.com & NewAdvent.org admit that Baruch was NOT in the Codex Amiatinus which was a faithful rendition of JEROME’S Vulgate – not “later” Vulgates – but JEREOME’S specifically.
Regarding your comment about Paul’s second epistle to Timothy, in context, Paul was addressing the OLD Testament Scriptures. But this blog & conversation is about what makes up the CONTENT of the OT, not it’s authority. So, let’s not go off on endless irrelevant rabbit trails. Let’s stick on the focus of the blog.
BTW, Joe STILL hasn’t responded to me, yet he complained that his replies were not met. Again, don’t you find that hypocritical. And you STILL have not answered my question about believing Jews.
Duane,
“How do you know the Bible is an objective God-breathed source?”
Irrelevant question to the purpose of the blog. People only do this when their replies are answered & the run out of material. So, again, I’ll ask you: “How did a believing Jew know that Isaiah & 2 Chronicles were Scripture, 50 years before Christ & before there was a Magisterium, since Jesus held them accountable for knowing what it was? (Luke 16:29). Protestants can answer this question, while Catholics cannot. When you accept this reality, you’ll understand what the OT canon really is limited to.
JJ,
“Catholic Answers Jimmy Akin even admitted that both the canon of the Pharisees & the OT canon of later Protestants contained the EXACT same Scriptures” = Please continue listening to Mr. Akin’s podcast; he paints a very different story than what your (mis)quote seems to suggest. Furthermore, Paul himself quoted from the Septuagint Bible.
Jim,
Jim James:
So you’ve run out of material already eh? Because instead of answering the simple question that I asked you based on one of your replies, you go back to asking a question that I have answered twice before. A Protestant can answer it, as you have shown. Your answer made me laugh. Ty for coming back Barry. I have never laughed since you were gone.
By the way, this Catholic (me) answered your question several times. You just didn’t like the answer.
Should say I have never laughed so hard when debating a Protestant since you’ve been gone Barry.
LLC,
I’ve listened to Jimmy Akin’s podcast. While he is correct that the Pharisees shared the exact same canon that later Protestants would have later, he “assumes” that Jesus & the disciples strictly embraced the Septuagint & that the Pharisees did not have a fixed canon until after A.D.70. However, the later two assumptions are false. One, John did not use the Septuagint when he quoted Zechariah in either his gospel nor Revelation. Two, the Septuagint included other writings besides those in the Catholic OT. Three, the sect of the Pharisees that Paul espoused to was that of Hillel, which even Sunberg (who agrees that Judaism – as a whole – did not have a fixed canon in the time of Jesus) affirmed that as early as Hillel, there was a fixed Pharisaic canon. While there was at least one other sect in the time of Hillel (Shammai), this is not the sect the Pharisee Paul espoused to, but rather Hillel.
Also, if your argument is that Paul “quoted” from the Septuagint, then to be consistent, then the Catholic Bible should also include Epimedes, Menander, & other writings since Paul “quoted” from those books too. Jude “quoted” from 1 Enoch & the Assumption of Moses too. So, since they “quoted” from them, then “why” are they not in the Catholic OT? And the NT also “quoted” from other books found in the Septuagint, such as the Psalms of Solomon, the Prayer of Manasseh, & other writings found in the Septuagint. So, why are “they” not in the Catholic OT, if you believe “quoting” from the Septuagint qualifies as OT Scripture? And since the NT never “quotes” from books like Esther & Song of Solomon from the Septuagint, then why are they in the Catholic OT? Remember, “quoting” is your qualification for OT inclusion.
JJ,
“I’ve listened to Jimmy Akin’s podcast” = incorrect. You have heard it, but not listened to.
“he “assumes” that Jesus & the disciples strictly embraced” = incorrect. Jimmy Akins said that “…they (Jesus and the disciples” acknowledged…” the Septuagint.
Furthermore, Jimmy Akins said that the Pharisees’ OT “…included everything we today find in the Protestant Bible…”, but not that it was limited to it.
“One, John did not use the Septuagint when he quoted Zechariah in either his gospel nor Revelation” = non sequitur. The point here is that Jesus and the disciples (not just John) did quote from the Septuagint.
“Two, the Septuagint included other writings besides those in the Catholic OT” = non sequitur, again.
“While there was at least one other sect in the time of Hillel (Shammai), this is not the sect the Pharisee Paul espoused to, but rather Hillel” = therefore, your own point about one “Pharisees’ Bible” is not historically correct, because there were at least two different schools of teachings among the Pharisees.
“if your argument is that Paul “quoted” from the Septuagint, then to be consistent” = actually, the contrary is true. It is your point that Paul’s Scripture pool should be limited only to the Protestant OT, which is historically and Biblically incorrect.
Now, if you don’t have anything better to add to this argument, I will consider it also closed.
LLC,
“…they (Jesus and the disciples” acknowledged…” the Septuagint.”
“One, John did not use the Septuagint when he quoted Zechariah in either his gospel nor Revelation” = non sequitur.
No, it’s completely relevant, because YOU are the one claiming that Jimmy Akin stated that Jesus & His disciples used the Septuagint. Yet, if that were true – and the Septuagint is the Greek NT – then “why” did the NT writer John not use it? If the NT used it 100% of the time, you would have a valid argument. But they didn’t. John used his OWN Greek translation of Zechariah – both times – in the NT, instead of using the Septuagint. So, using the “quoting Septuagint” argument fails.
It also fails, because if you are saying that the Septuagint is the translation they used, then you should have ALL the books from the Septuagint in the Catholic OT – not just “most” of them. So, despite you not finding this relevant, it’s extremely relevant to your argument since YOU – not me – are using the “they quote from the Septuagint” argument.
And you’re still not getting my point about Hillel & Shammai. BEFORE the time of Christ, the school of Shammai competed with the school of Hillel. But is school of HILLEL won out & is the Pharisaic school that Paul espoused to in the next century. So, when Paul referred to “the Law & the Prophets” to describe the OT canon (just as how Jesus described it earlier during His earthly ministry), Paul would have espoused to the school of HILLEL – NOT the school of Shammai that lost out in the B.C. era. And it was the school of Hillel, not Shammai, that Paul espoused to that was the same as the later Protestant OT, as well as later rabbinic Judaism, as well as that of Ezra centuries earlier who ALSO returned from Babylon as Hillel did.
So, I’m afraid you are taking out of context what I am saying by quoting “part” of what I’m writing, rather than taking ALL of what I’m saying.
You are also not addressing my question that since there was more than one sect of Judaism, then how could Jesus hold the Jews accountable for knowing “what” Scripture was? There had to be a defined canon, even if they didn’t all agree what it was. The only evidence we have – either from the NT or from first century B.C. or A.D. history – is that Jesus addressed the canon with the PHARISEES (Luke 16:29). So, “what” was their canon in the time of JESUS – just as Jimmy Akin admitted – the canon of later Protestants.
“Now, if you don’t have anything better to add to this argument, I will consider it also closed.”
You said that last time. Why did you reply again?
JJ,
“No, it’s completely relevant, because YOU are the one claiming that Jimmy Akin stated that Jesus & His disciples used the Septuagint.” = factually incorrect. The first point of the conversation was the rebuttal of your characterization of Jimmy Akins’ point.
“If the NT used it 100% of the time, you would have a valid argument.” = asinine argument
“And you’re still not getting my point about Hillel & Shammai. BEFORE the time of Christ, the school of Shammai competed with the school of Hillel. But is school of HILLEL won out & is the Pharisaic school that Paul espoused to in the next century” = incorrect. The point is that there were competing Pharisaic schools; is it you who tries to change the subject.
“how could Jesus hold the Jews accountable for knowing “what” Scripture was” = the same way Jesus holds you accountable. You should know that the Catholic Bible is the correct one, and yet choose not to use it.
“just as Jimmy Akin admitted” = see above. Repeating an incorrect notion doesn’t make it correct.
“You said that last time. Why did you reply again?” = incorrect, again. “last time” refers to the presence of Revelation in the list of Canonical Books from the Council of Carthage 397. Please pay attention.
LLC,
I’m afraid you still aren’t getting my argument. After reading your comments, it seems that it’s the result of you addressing INDIVIDUAL comments, rather than addressing them as a whole. And as a result, you don’t see how even your own replies don’t take into account your other replies, and you don’t see how they even contradict.
For example, Jimmy Akin using the Septuagint to say that Jesus & the NT writers “used” it is generally used as a defense for including the Deuterocanon. However, this results in the problems I laid out:
1) There were other books in the Septuagint, besides those in the Catholic OT. So, it’s not a non-sequitur, since the Septuagint is used to defend including the Deuterocanon.
2) Since John didn’t use the Septuagint exclusively. This too is not a non-sequitur, nor an “asinine argument.” Again, since you are using the Septuagint as a defense for including the Deuterocanon, since John used his “own” Greek translation of Zechariah in the NT, then that defense is useless.
3) Again, my point about acknowledging the Pharisaic schools of Hillel & Shammai BEFORE the time of Christ doesn’t negate that LATER Pharisees DURING the time of Christ had a unified OT canon that later rabbinic Jews adopted AFTER the destruction of Temple. Again, by the time of Christ, the school of Hillel won out, which again Paul was a student of – NOT that the school of Shammai. So, when Paul – as a Pharisee – used the term “the Law & the Prophets” to refer to the OT canon, as a Hillelitte Pharisee, Paul would have limited this to the Hillelite canon (ie: the Hebrew Bible) – again, not that of Shammai.
When you don’t look at the whole picture, but simply quote-mine individual comments out of their proper context, you don’t realize what your arguments are overlooking.
This is an interesting position to take, all the while positing your own interpretation of John 17:17, which is not infallible, & is in fact of this world.
Does “word” in the verse mean Scripture or word as in utterance or other meaning?
Catholics believe that all Scripture is inspired of God, but nowhere are we told within the Scriptures themselves that they are the sole rule of faith. That duty – Scripture does inform us – is the Church’s;
1 Timothy 3:
14 Although I hope to come to you soon, I am writing you these instructions so that,
15 if I am delayed, you will know how people ought to conduct themselves in God’s household, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of the truth.
Duane,
“So you’ve run out of material already eh?”
No, it’s just that I’m attempting to stay on ONE subject, which is the subject of the blog: the Protestant OT, instead of going on endless unrelated topics that Catholics like to in order to avoid the original topic, like discussing church authority, etc. A person only does this when THEY “run out of material.” BTW, I DID answer your question – more than once – so I have no idea what you are talking about. And, no you did NOT answer my question. Your “answer” about how a believing Jew knew what Scripture was since Jesus held them accountable was that “not all Jews espoused to the same Scriptures” & that “Pharisees didn’t have a set canon until after A.D. 70.” Both “answers” are false. Again, my question wasn’t about the Jews – as a whole – but more specifically about the Pharisees. And the sect of Phariseeism Paul espoused to was that of the school of Hillel, which won out over the school of Shammai from the B.C. era. So, when Paul wrote “the Law & the Prophets” to the church of Rome around A.D. 56, as a Pharisee from the school of Hillel, Paul would have limited this to the canon of Hillel, which was the exact same canon as later Protestants. And it was this Pharisaic school of Hillel, which then grew into later rabbinic Judaism after the destruction of the Temple of A.D. 70 & into the next century.
Not sure why you find this “funny,” since this is historically – and Scripturally – verifiable, while the OT canon of Catholicism didn’t take form until at least the ninth century. Again, rather late, don’t you think?
So, it’s not that “I didn’t like your answer.” Strawman. Rather, your answers were not completely accurate from either a historical or NT standpoint. There was much you either assumed (falsely) or provided an incomplete or inaccurate answer.
Jim,
JJ:
This is why I love having you on this forum. Your twisting of the truth gets more and more laughable. Thank you. All this laughing helps me to lose weight.
Not one in a hundred scholars espouses your position. You say the Catholic Church didn’t have a canon until the ninth century, based on St. Jerome not including Bruce in his Vulgate. But the Vetus Latina, which is far older, did include it. So your argument amounts to nothing.
Stupid auto correct. Should read Baruch not Bruce
Duane,
“Not one in a hundred scholars espouses your position. You say the Catholic Church didn’t have a canon until the ninth century, based on St. Jerome not including Bruce in his Vulgate. But the Vetus Latina, which is far older, did include it. So your argument amounts to nothing.”
Truth is not based on “popular vote.” And, “I” didn’t say that the Catholic church “didn’t have a canon until the ninth century.” Again, this is based on the fact that the Vulgate ITSELF didn’t “add” it until the ninth century. That is the argument that is made – regardless of who is making it. BTW, the Vedas Latina wasn’t a single Bible like the Vulgate that was commissioned by a pope like Damasus did with Jerome’s Vulgate. So, you can’t use that argument.
Again, what you really should be concerned about is that Baruch was “added” by later Catholics – centuries later – rather than “removed” by later Protestants. If anything, those later Protestants were more faithful to Jerome’s Vulgate than those later Catholics.
“Stupid auto correct. Should read Baruch not Bruce”
Yeah, “Bruce” wasn’t in Jerome’s Vulgate either. LOL! 😉 Perhaps later Catholics will “add” it to the Bible like they did with Baruch.
Jim,
Pope St. Damasus commissioned St. Jerome to do a translation of the Vetus Latina. Not one scholar disputes that Baruch was part of Jeremiah in the Vetusl Latina. Pope St. Damasus never authorized St. Jerome to remove Baruch from his translation of Jeremiah.
The fact that Baruch was not in St. Jerome’s translation, does not mean it was not part of the canon. St. Jerome did the exact same thing the Deformers did over 1000 years later. He removed a book from the canon of Scripture, without any Divine Authority to do so, just like the Deformers removed books from the canon, without any Divine Authority to do so.
You would have to prove that Baruch was not part of Jeremiah in the Latin West, for your argument to have even the slightest chance of holding water. This you cannot do, as historians have already shown that there are no Latin patristic quotes when dealing with Baruch during this time period that do not have Baruch as part of Jeremiah. So when the Council of Rome called Jeremiah part of the canon, it included Baruch. And this is quite obvious from St. Jerome. The fact that he made such a big deal about leaving it out shows that it was considered part of Jeremiah in the Latin West.
One of the absolute worse and catastrophic consequence of protestantism is that those who are ensnared in its errors can not attain unto salvation
AMS,
“One of the absolute worse and catastrophic consequence of protestantism is that those who are ensnared in its errors can not attain unto salvation.”
One of most purposely attempts to avoid answering difficult questions. Why don’t you just admit you are unable to answer the questions I am asking you about the OT canon?
Just coming into this and clearly I see that Jim James questions are the typical, unoriginal and tired old protestant objections to the clear Truth of the Catholic Church and its custodial priveledge of the Sacred Scriptures.
I also sense, again, arrogance as is typical of fundamentalist “bible only” Christians who display a lack of charity when “confronting” us “non-biblical” Catholics. Jim, for the love of God and His One and Only Church, come back home. You’re playing with fire.
There is no arrogance, but there is a defensible and sensible Triumphalism in effect when even such relatively modern sources, such as the1952 text, Dom Orchard’s, “A Catholic Commentary on Holy Scripture,” proclaims the gigantic and Salvific Truth:
The Bible as The Church’s Exclusive Possession:
It is a teaching of the Church that the Old Testament Scriptures were transferred to her ownership by Christ himself in view of her position as the new ‘Israel of God’ and the heir of the OT promises; and that the New Testament Scriptures being written within the Church by some of its members for the benefit of all (or more precisely, within the society of the Catholic Church by Catholics for Catholics), are likewise her exclusive property, of which she is the absolute Owner, Guardian, Trustee and Interpreter….
The Church, being the divinely appointed trustee of the whole deposit of revelation, holds the Scriptures as her very own. They are part of the patrimony or dowry that she has received as the Bride of Christ…
There is danger in treating with protestant Bibles and, especially, is there danger in protestant exegesis for it is not infrequently the case that one ends-up reading protestant eisegesis.
It took the modern Ecclesiastical Praxis of Ecumenism and Indifferentism to create a fog of liberty gigantic enough to obscure the Salvific truth that it is Holy Mother Church, and Holy Mother Church alone, who owns the Bible, lock, stock and barrel.
Because ABS is the same age as Israel, he is old enough to remember the Ecclesial Orthopraxis prior to the lamentable 1960s when there was not one Catholic Prelate or Priest who publicly praised protestants and their denominationally ideological approach to Holy Writ.
ABS is not attacking individual protestants who read and revere Holy Writ but it is quite clear to Catholic men of a certain age that were a protestant to become an expert in Scripture, he would cease to be a protestant.
If that be Triumphalism, make the most of it.
Don’t go to the left,
Don’t hang a Louie;
Stick with what’s right
Read only Ol’ Douay:
Great reply. Thank you!
You mentioned that you never heard a reply from Mark Driscoll & Brian Edwards. Hopefully, you’ll do me the courtesy of replying back to me, because I’d like to discuss this with you further. The problem with this article is that it only “partially” addresses the history of the canon. For example, you address the fourth century church councils, but omits the fact that Baruch & the epistle of Jeremiah were NOT in them, & Carthage of 397 “removed” Revelation. Jerome’s Vulgate also omitted Baruch & the epistle. They didn’t get “added” to the Bible until the ninth century. ECF’s & Doctor’s of the Church prior to the fifth century were NOT unanimous on the OT, & even called non-Catholic books as “Scripture” like the Shepherd of Hermas. Jesus & Paul made it clear that the Hebrew Bible – and not the so-called “Deuterocanon” – alone was the complete Christian OT. Jimmy Akin from Catholic Answers affirms this canon of the Pharisees that Jesus affirms is the same canon as later Protestants. If you are interested in more info on this – that you won’t get from Catholic sources – please email me. In the meantime, I would like to ask you a question: “How did a believing Jew know that Isaiah & 2 Chronicles were Scripture, 50 years before Jesus & before there was a Magisterium, since Jesus held them accountable for knowing what it was (Luke 16:29)?” Blessings to you.
“Jesus & Paul made it clear that the Hebrew Bible – and not the so-called “Deuterocanon” – alone was the complete Christian OT.”
Is that so???? A sweeping assertion with no foundation.
John,
Catholic Answers senior apologist Jimmy Akin asserts that the first century Pharisees & the later Protestant OT contained the exact same books in their canons. I have been able to verify this by others, such as Lee Martin McDonald, who wrote an exhaustive book (about 500 pages) on the topic. After his conversion in the book of Acts, the apostle Paul stated that he was STILL a Pharisee (Acts 23:6), which means – as a Pharisee – he would have embraced this same Pharisaic canon, when he used the term “the Law & the Prophets” to describe it. Earlier during His ministry, Jesus used this same phrase “the Law & the Prophets” to describe the OT canon (Luke 16:16) when He was talking to the Pharisees who were listening (v.14). So, by using the same phrase the Pharisee Paul did to describe it, Jesus was affirming their OT canon. Jesus then described these “lovers of money” by comparing them to the “rich man” & his brothers who Jesus said “they HAVE Moses & the Prophets” (v.29,31), which refers to the Pharisaic OT canon – meaning Jesus is saying the Pharisees “have” possession of the OT canon, unlike other Jewish sects, like the Sadducees who didn’t. So, this is not “a sweeping assertion with no foundation.” Just the contrary, since I have been able to back this up with both Catholic sources (ie: Catholic Answers), as well as the NT which we agree on. BTW, Joe – the author of this article – has not responded to me, even though he was upset that Mark Driscoll & Brian Edwards did not respond to him. And regarding my question: “How did a believing Jew know that Isaiah & 2 Chronicles were Scripture, 50 years before Jesus & before there was a Magisterium, since Jesus held them accountable for knowing what it was (Luke 16:29)?” How ’bout it, John?
Acts 23:6 It’s pretty clear from the context that Paul is referring to his belief in the resurrection of the dead (like the Pharisees that are the tradition from which he came) as opposed to the Sadduccee’s denial of resurrection of the dead. It’s a huge stretch to assume this endorses a defined scriptural canon of the Pharisees that didn’t exist at the time. That same stretch would endorse their condemnation of Jesus that lead to His crucifixion.
Luke 16:16 Jesus is speaking to the Pharisees that are a sneering at His teaching. Jesus says “The law and the prophets lasted until John; but from then on the kingdom of God is proclaimed, and everyone who enters does so with violence. It is easier for heaven and earth to pass away than for the smallest part of a letter of the law to become invalid.” Jesus does not define the content of the law and prophets. If anything, He says that they are now obsolete as of John, since He has brought the kingdom of God that now perfects the law, but doesn’t invalidate the heart of what was already given. It seems to me that He’s saying that any authority the Pharisees may have thought they had has been put it in the hands of the Church.
John,
My point about Acts 23:6 is that Paul states “I AM [present tense] a Pharisee” – not “I WAS [past tense] a Pharisee.” IOW, he didn’t say he was no longer a Pharisee. He still was one. Therefore, he would not have abandoned the OT canon of the Pharisees, but instead continued to embrace it.
Catholic Answers senior apologist, Jimmy Akin, admitted that the OT canon of the Pharisees was identical to that of Protestant OT’s today (source: Catholic Answer YouTube channel “How did the OT canon develop”). So, when Jesus referred to the OT as “the Law & the Prophets” (Luke 16:16), just as Paul the Pharisee did later (Romans 3:21), He was using this metonym to describe the Pharisaic canon. Again, Luke describes them as “lovers of money” (Luke 16:14) & in the same passages, Jesus says “they [the Pharisees] HAVE Moses & the Prophets” (v.29). So, whatever the Pharisaic canon was (ie: that of later Protestants) Jesus was saying “they” have possession of it, which He said specifically to the Pharisees.
Now, since we’ve established that while not all JEWS believed in the same Scriptures, the PHARISEES – like Paul – did. So, “How did a believing Jew know that Isaiah & 2 Chronicles were Scripture, 50 years before Jesus & before there was a Magisterium, since Jesus held them accountable for knowing what it was (Luke 16:29)?” How ’bout it, John?
JJ: Paul was in the Pharisee camp when it came to the question of the resurrection of the dead, but you stretch that into a grand assumption of a defined OT canon commonly accepted by the Pharisees including Jesus and Paul. All the Jewish camps had access to the scriptures, including the law and the prophets, but disagreed on what was binding. If you think the Pharisees had such a canon at time, provide the evidence detailing what it was. Certainly Jesus and Paul were both critical of the Pharisees. Jesus even critiqued Moses allowing divorce as a concession to the hardness of hearts. The Pharisees had a vested interest in distancing themselves from the early Christians when they did settle on their canon.
John, you wrote:
“If you think the Pharisees had such a canon at time, provide the evidence detailing what it was.”
I did already: Catholic Answers senior apologist Jimmy Akin even admitted to this. So, if you don’t believe Catholic Answers & Mr. Akin, then I would suggest you talk with them. I was also able to verify this from other sources, including scholar & author Lee Martin McDonald (“The Biblical Canon”) who wrote a very indepth & exhaustive book (about 500 pages) on the subject.
https://www.catholic.com/encyclopedia/canon-of-the-holy-scriptures
John,
Posting a Catholic Web site to support a Catholic opinion of the canon is no less subjective than Protestant posting a Protestant one to support a Protestant view.
Try actually answering my question objectively. At least I used CATHOLIC sources (Catholic Answers, NewAdvent.org, etc)
Jim James:
HAHA. But you twisted your Catholic source. You tried to make it sound as if Jimmy Akin was affirming that Jesus affirmed a Protestant canon when you said this:
So you are basically up to your old tricks again Barry, twisting and writing falsehoods because your arguments are weak.
Duane,
“HAHA. But you twisted your Catholic source. You tried to make it sound as if Jimmy Akin was affirming that Jesus affirmed a Protestant canon when you said this.”
This was a direct quote. So, not sure how I “twisted” it. Or, you are simply not getting the argument. Let me simplify it for you:
1) Pharisees embraced the same canon as later Protestants (Jimmy Akin, Catholic Answers)
2) Paul was a Pharisee (the New Testament)
3) Paul espoused to the Pharisaic school of Hillel, who also espoused to this same canon (NewAdvent.org)
4) Paul referred to the OT as “the Law & the Prophets” (the NT)
5) As a Pharisee from the school of Hillel, Paul would have understood “the Law & the Prophets” to be limited to the canon of Hillel & later Protestants.
6) Jesus used this same term “the Law & the Prophets” (Luke 16:16) when He was talking to the Pharisees, Who described them when He said “THEY [the Pharisees] HAVE Moses & the Prophets” (v.29).
So, THIS is the correlation between what Jimmy Akin said & what the NT says. So, even though Jimmy Akin didn’t come right out & say explicitly that Jesus & the NT writers affirmed the canon of the Pharisees & later Protestants (in fact, he assumed – falsely – that they espoused “a” version of the Septuagint that later Catholics would espouse to that included the so-called Deuterocanon), Jimmy Akin’s admission of what the Pharisaic canon is (that of later Protestants) leads to the canon of the Pharisee Paul who was from the school of Hillel.
So, while Jimmy Akin was historically correct about the Pharisaic canon, his false assumption about what canon Jesus & the NT writers believed in led to a false conclusion, especially since the Septuagint contained OTHER WRITINGS besides those in the Catholic OT, & since NT writers like John did not exclusive use the Septuagint when they quoted from the OT.
BTW, who is “Barry” & why do you keep calling me that??? Please call me by my name, rather than being condescending.
The Septuagint would’ve been around at that time. The Catholic Bible is based on the Septuagint, which is dated to about 300 BC.
Jim,
Several times in this thread, you’ve made some variation of the argument that “BTW, Joe – the author of this article – has not responded to me, even though he was upset that Mark Driscoll & Brian Edwards did not respond to him,” going so far as to call it hypocrisy. You’ve missed my point.
I wasn’t upset that Driscoll and Edwards didn’t respond to me – I respect that they’re busy, as I am, and that they may have sound such an exchange a waste of their time. In the case of your own e-mail, I read it, thought “this guy sounds like he’s trying to win an argument rather than seek the truth,” and decided to respond to it only if I had time (which I haven’t). It may well be that the gentlemen in question thought the same thing when they read my own.(And of course, I may well have been wrong about your intentions – I just get enough e-mail that I have to make judgment calls about who to respond to).
Rather, what was troubling was that they were making false claims – not claims I disagree with, but claims that are demonstrably untrue – I showed clear and irrefutable evidence of the falsity of the claims, and they continued to make the false claims.
So if you had e-mailed me about some factual error I had made in the article, and I continued to write new articles making the same false claim, that would be analogous. Do you understand how these two things are different?
Dear Joe,
I haven’t checked on this blog for awhile since I didn’t think you were going to respond to my numerous posts. But I appreciate the fact that you took the time out of your busy schedule. My point about bringing up the hypocrisy of not responding is because of your post criticized Mark Driscoll & Brian Edwards: “To give them the benefit of the doubt, years ago I personally e-mailed both Mark Driscoll and Brian Edwards (the latter of whom promised to “be in touch later”—this was in 2012), only to find them still regurgitating their earlier claims, without any correction, years later.”
My original post was on July 13th & you did not respond until two weeks later. I understand you are busy, but as you just admitted, so are they. So, even though they said they would respond to you, but didn’t, I just wanted you to see that it’s not a matter of them not addressing your criticisms, but perhaps they are just as busy – or perhaps even more-so – than even you are, and/or perhaps they don’t believe that your criticisms are valid.
For example, when Brian Edwards from AnswersInGenesis asserted that the early church did not view the so-called Deuterocanon as Scripture, “early church” means something different to a Protestant than to a Catholic.
For example, although Irenaeus alluded to the book of Wisdom, he never specifically referred to it as “Scripture,” like he did when he specifically referred to the Shepherd of Hermas as “Scripture.” Although your rebuttal is to Augustine who is technically defined as an early church father, this is a fourth century reference & not what Driscoll et al is referring to as “early church,” which would include people like Irenaeus.
So, Edwards assertion that the “early church” did not affirm the so-called Deuterocanon as “Scripture,” there is nothing erroneous about that assertion. And the early church simply “referring” to a Deuterocanonical writing as evidence that they believed it was Inspired writing is no more true than many of those in the early church & ECF’s “referring” & even quoting from non-deuterocanonical apocryphal literature. You argument actually leads to the problem of keeping these apocryphal books OUT of the Bible, than as a defense for including the Deuterocanon IN.
Also, since Origin is not considered an ECF – and even espousing heretical views – by the Catholic church, I don’t know why you even use him as an example, simply because he “referred” to Sirach. Again, “referring” to a particular writing from the OT “era” does not equate with it being part of the OT “canon.”
If you’re going to use the Muratorian Fragment as evidence for including Wisdom, then you have a huge problem, because you have to exclude the rest of the Deuterocanon because it never mentions them, & you’d have to include the Shepherd of Hermas, the Apocalypse of Peter, & other non-Catholic Scriptures, since the Fragment lists them too. And by it saying “Wisdom was written by the friends of Solomon in his honour” does not equate with it being Scripture, since it was penned several hundred years after his death. It was simply a much, much later written work falsely attributed to Solomon, just as the gnostic “gospels” were false attributed to the apostles during the church age.
The epistle of Barnabas is also a falsely authored writing, since Barnabas was long dead, it specifically calls 1 Enoch “Scripture,” which is not in the Catholic OT. So, you can only use Barnabas as a source if you acknowledge 1 Enoch.
1 Clement was written at the end of the completion of the NT with the book of Revelation. However, 1 Clement falsely believed that the phoenix was a real-live bird. So, 1 Clement “quoting” Judith does not equate with it specifically being “Scripture” like when Irenaeus did later when he specifically called the Shepherd “Scripture.”
Regarding Jamnia, it’s common for both Protestants AND CATHOLICS to refer to Jamnia as a “council.” In reality, it was a rabbinical school. But they didn’t “determine” the OT canon, like many Catholics claim. By the time of Jamnia, the OT canon of rabbinic Judaism had already been adopted by earlier first century Pharisaic Judaism. Catholic author Gary Michuta (“Why Catholic Bibles are bigger” / “The Case for the Deuterocanon”) as well as Lee Martin McDonald (“The Biblical Canon”) even affirm this.
Paul was a Pharisee who lived in the first century, who espoused to the Hillite Pharisaic school that his mentor Gamaliel (who we find in the NT) was the grandson of. ALL of them were Pharisees (NewAdvent.org / EWTN). And Hillel who had come from Babylon, espoused to the same OT canon that Ezra had centuries earlier, who also came from Babylon. And it was during the time of Ezra that the boundaries of the so-called “Hebrew Bible” were completed around 400 B.C. (Michael Voris, “Church Militant” YouTube – The Vortex). This canon of Ezra, Hillel, Gamaliel, the Pharisees (like Paul), & later rabbinic Judaism in the first & century century is the same canon of later Protestants.
As far as Driscoll’s comment about “the Council of Athanasius,” it sounds like he was referring to Athanasius. And unlike some of the ECFs, Athanasius was a Doctor of the Church who REJECTED most of the so-called Deuterocanon. This is most likely what he was referring to.
Regarding the Council of Carthage of 397, I read the entire article from the link you provided. If you read it though, it actually states “The original canon has been edited by someone who has adapted it to churchly developments after 418 A.D.” This means that this list from 397 was actually from after 418 & then retroactively placed in the 397 council. The site even admits that “this canon derives from an earlier council, convened in 393 at Hippo Regius.” The Council of 397 simply incorporated it LATER & AFTER the 418 or 419 edition of it. This is why Hippo & Carthage of 419 have IDENTICAL order of compilation of books (like listing the 12 minor prophets, while Rome of 382 lists them separately).
Also, despite ECFs & even Doctors of the Church listed Baruch & the epistle of Jeremiah SEPARATELY from the book of Jeremiah & Lamentations, the four councils in the 4th & 5th centuries omitted them. Although there were ECF’s who considered Baruch as part of the book of Jeremiah, evidence that the councils did not is based on:
1) Rome listed ALL the other Deuterocanonical books & Jeremiah & Lamentations SEPARATELY, but he did not do so with Baruch or the epistle, like Athanasius & Cyril did in the same century (both Doctors BTW);
2) Baruch was omitted from the Vulgate – which was approved by Pope Innocent I – which post-dated Carthage of 397 & predated Carthage of 419. It did not appear in the Vulgate for 400 YEARS!
3) The Codex Amiatinus which Catholic.com describes as “the most celebrated manuscript of the Latin Vulgate Bible, remarkable as the best witness to the true text of St. Jerome” did NOT include Baruch.
So, you don’t even have a Bible consistent with the Catholic OT until at least the ninth century.
Regarding the Council of Ephesus, again, this is FIFTH Century & not what Protestants like Driscoll, etc refer to when they mean “early church.” And Revelation was “removed” from the Carthage 397 council (which was edited later in the link you provided), only to be “added” back in the later Carthage 419 council. And using the argument that the ECF’s in the West espoused more to it & the Deuterocanon than ECF’s in the East doesn’t work, because:
1) There wasn’t the kind of East-West Schism back then, like there would be in the 11th Century; and
2) Irenaeus did not include all the Deuterocanon in his list, & he was a West ECF who lived much CLOSER to the first century & the OT era, than the later 4th & 5th century West ECFs did, plus he was a Doctor of the Church, just as Cyril & Athanasius were.
But, when it comes to the Hebrew Bible (ie: the Protestant OT), these books are not in dispute among the 10 major historical orthodox groups under Christendom (ie: Catholic, Protestant, Eastern Orthodox, etc). And it is this OT canon that Pharisees, like the apostle Paul, espoused to, just as Jimmy Akin alluded to:
“There were Jews, such as the Sadducees, who acknowledged only the first five books of the Bible – the so-called Law of Moses. The Pharisees honored a much broader canon of Scripture that includes everything that we today would find in the Protestant Old Testament.”
As a Pharisee in the first century during the time of Christ – and after – Paul would have “honored a much broader canon of Scripture that includes everything that we today would find in the Protestant Old Testament.”
When he referred to the OT canon as “the Law & the Prophets” (Romans 3:21), as a Pharisee, Paul would have understood it the same way as Jesus did earlier when He used this exact same phrase when He spoke to the Pharisees (Luke 16:14-16) – the boundaries of the Hebrew Bible (ie: the later Protestant OT).
So, here are the “troubling false claims” & things you overlooked in your article. Since you are willing to address them, I will be awaiting your reply, once your busy schedule clears up. No rush. I’ll be waiting.
Peace, Jim.
Joe, one more thing. You didn’t address my question to you – either in the emails I sent you, nor in the comments I posted here:
“How did the believing Jewish person know that Isaiah and 2 Chronicles were Scripture fifty years before Christ? You don’t have a Magisterium to answer that question at that point in time. Jesus plainly held men accountable to what was in Scripture. You can’t go ‘Jewish Magisterium’ because if there was a Jewish Magisterium back then, they would have never accepted what Trent accepted as canonical Scripture (especially, since there were so many Jewish factions back then like Pharisees who accepted the canon as later Protestants & Sadducees who only accepted the 5 books of Moses). You’d have had a contradiction between two allegedly infallible sources.”
Again, take your time, since I’ve given you a lot to chew on. I’ll be waiting…..Blessings, Jim.
JJ,
your post is not entirely correct: according to Wikipedia, the Council of Carthage of 397 includes the “Apocalipsis Ioannis” (Book of Revelation of John) as canonical, for example.
Regardless, the main point one should take away from this topic (and your post completely supports it) is the need for a “referee” of some sort to decide what is canonical and what is not.
Catholics accept the authority of the Church (following Jesus’ instructions) to ultimately decide.
Protestants don’t, hence the myriad of Denominations produced by the Reformation.
LLC,
Wikipedia is simply an online source that anyone (including you & me) can write & edit. So, you have to be careful about using it as an authoritative source, especially for something as important as the canon, since you can get faulty or misleading information. What the article “actually” says is that “The primary source of information about the third Council of Carthage comes from the Codex Canonum Ecclesiæ Africanæ, which presents a compilation of ordinances enacted by VARIOUS CHURCH COUNCILS [PLURAL] IN CARTHAGE during the fourth and fifth centuries.” The canon list from Wikipedia is actually taken from the later Council of Carthage of 419 (not 397), which “added” Revelation back, which had been “removed’ in the earlier Council of Carthage of 397. I have been able to verify this from other sources, such as from researcher & author, Lee Martin McDonald, who wrote an exhaustive book on this topic of the canon (around 500 pages). The list from the Council of Carthage of 419 that includes Revelation is actually taken VERBATIM from the earlier Council of HIPPO of 393 (not Carthage of 397). Again, the Council of Carthage of 397 “removed” Revelation, which then got “added” back at the next Council of Carthage of 419.
Regardless, ALL four councils from the fourth & fifth centuries (Rome, Hippo, Carthage 397 & 419) omitted Baruch & the epistle of Jeremiah, which wouldn’t be “added” until the ninth century. And, again, Jerome omitted these two writings as well in his Latin Vulgate. This has been confirmed by Catholic Answers & NewAdvent.org (an online Catholic encyclopedia) who admitted that the early eighth century Codex Amiatinus, which they BOTH describe as “the most celebrated manuscript of the Latin Vulgate Bible, remarkable as the best witness to the true text of St. Jerome,” but “that the Book of Baruch is MISSING.” So, you don’t get a version of the Latin Vulgate with the books in current Catholic OT’s until at least the ninth century. So, when you refer to the Catholic church being the “referee,” then you have to ask “At what period of time?” since the “referee” in the fourth & fifth centuries disagreed with the “referee” in the earlier eighth century & beyond. And even after the Ecumenical Council of Florence (1441), many in the church questioned Deuterocanonical books like Sirach (source: EWTN), which admits that the canon wasn’t “defined” until the Ecumenical Council of Trent (1546) – that’s FIFTEEN HUNDRED YEARS after the canon was completed!
So much for a consistent “referee!” That is why we have to look to the NEW Testament, as well as EARLIER Jewish & Christian “referees” (centuries BEFORE the fourth & fifth century church councils who disagreed with each other on the canon), which both Catholics & Protestants can agree on. See my reply to John on this page for more detail on this.
BTW, Joe – the author of this article – has not responded to me, even though he was upset that Mark Driscoll & Brian Edwards did not respond to him. And regarding my question: “How did a believing Jew know that Isaiah & 2 Chronicles were Scripture, 50 years before Jesus & before there was a Magisterium, since Jesus held them accountable for knowing what it was (Luke 16:29)?” How ’bout it LLC?
JJ,
“The canon list from Wikipedia is actually taken from the later Council of Carthage of 419 (not 397)” = debatable. Karl Joseph von Hefele, for example, states that the list was compiled in the year 419 by Dionysius Exiguus, who called it the Statuta Concilii Africani (Code of the African Council). In one section of this code there is a record of the ordinances enacted at the third council of Carthage, in which the following paragraph concerning the canon of Scripture appears”. So, the list is from 419, but it records an ordinance enacted at the third council (397).
Furthermore, the discussions among the CC and in the Church councils indicate how this topic, a complicated ones, required many years and many studies to settle. Luther, instead, simply decided his theology first, then corrected the Canon.
JJ,
“How did a believing Jew know that Isaiah & 2 Chronicles were Scripture, 50 years before Jesus & before there was a Magisterium, since Jesus held them accountable for knowing what it was (Luke 16:29)?” = sorry, I didn’t see you direct question. Judaism never had a completely closed Canon, especially for the more recent Books. The Torah (Pentateuch) was canonized by the time of Ezra and Nehemiah, while the Prophets (including Isaiah) were canonized by the start of the 4th Century. Finally, the Canon of the Writings, which include everything else, was still not officially closed at the time of the destruction of the Temple in 70 AD (adapted from “From Text to Tradition: A History of Second Temple and Rabbinic Judaism”). Furthermore, was your hypothetical “believing Jew” a Pharisee or a Sadducee?
LLC,
I’m familiar with the Hefele reference. In fact, if you read it in more detail – as well as the lists from Hippo & Carthage – what gives it away that they are not from the Council of Carthage of 419 is that: 1) their lists are identical…in every way…including the order of the books listed & how they are organized; 2) it lists Boniface I as the pope presiding over both councils. However, Boniface didn’t get elected until the next century in 418 – one year before the Council of Carthage of 419. This is why Revelation appears in both of the earlier councils of Hippo & Carthage of 397. However, you’re not going to find this in a reputable Catholic source. Regardless, even “if” Revelation was in the 397 Council (which it wasn’t), NONE of the fourth or fifth century councils included Baruch & the epistle of Jeremiah, nor did Jerome’s Vulgate in 405 include it.
“Judaism never had a completely closed Canon, especially for the more recent Books.”
That’s the exact point I was trying to make. While the Jews – as a whole – didn’t espouse to a unified canon, Jesus still held them accountable for knowing what it was (Luke 16:29). The term “the Law & the Prophets” was used by both Paul (a Pharisee) & Jesus to describe it. So, which sect of Judaism espoused to the canon they shared? The Pharisees, which Paul was, which is the same canon as later Protestants – again, which Catholic Answers even admits.
JJ,
“what gives it away that they are not from the Council of Carthage of 419” = apologies, but this is actually the point you are trying to make (that the list of books for the NT that includes Revelation – or Apocalypse – is not from 397 but from 419). Therefore, it seems that you are contradicting yourself here. If you have a list of the book included in the Canon that you believe is from Carthage 397, and doesn’t include Revelation, please provide it.
“While the Jews – as a whole” = there is not such a thing. In Jesus’ times, Jews followed Rabbinic schools, which could differ from one another.
“Jesus still held them accountable for knowing what it was” = please compare Luke 16:29 with Luke 24:27.
LLC,
“apologies, but this is actually the point you are trying to make (that the list of books for the NT that includes Revelation – or Apocalypse – is not from 397 but from 419). Therefore, it seems that you are contradicting yourself here. If you have a list of the book included in the Canon that you believe is from Carthage 397, and doesn’t include Revelation, please provide it.”
I’m afraid you aren’t quite understanding my argument. Whenever Catholics show a list of books from Carthage of 397, it’s actually a list from 419 (not 397), which has been lifted from Hippo. The proof of this is that the lists in Hippo & Carthage of 397 are identical in order, grouping (ie: listing 5 books of Solomon, while Rome 382 only says 3, etc), and that Hippo & Carthage of 397 state that Boniface – not Siricius – was the Pope. IOW, these earlier two lists were lifted from Carthage of 419, & placed retroactively in Hippo & Carthage of 397 when Siricius was Pope. As far a Carthage of 397 not including Revelation, you’ll find this list in Appendix C of Lee Martin McDonald’s “The Biblical Canon.”
Again, NONE of the fourth or fifth century councils nor Jerome’s Vulgate included Baruch or the epistle of Jeremiah. Catholic.com & NewAdvent.org even admit the latter (see article on Codex Amiatinus on both sites).
So, are to answer my accountability question? And don’t you find it hypocritical that Joe has STILL not answered my question, even though he complained that his wasn’t?
JJ,
“The proof of this is that the lists in Hippo & Carthage of 397 are identical in order, grouping” = The similarity in the way of listing the books only shows a similarity in the way of listing the books. In other words, if you listed the ingredients for your favorite dish this year, and then again for the same dish 5 years from now, the list would be identical.
The reference to Boniface has been explained by the same Von Hefele and others, so it’s not a problem at all.
Further proof that Revelation was already listed as Canonical is the absence of recorded objections after either council (397 & 419) or later.
As for the list of books from Carthage 397, unless you (or Martin McDonald) can produce an original document, I will consider this topic closed.
“Catholic.com & NewAdvent.org even admit the latter (see article on Codex Amiatinus on both sites)” = incorrect. Both sites report that “but it should be noted that the Book of Baruch is missing, though the Epistle of Jeremias, usually incorporated with it, is here appended to the Book of Jeremias”. Perhaps you meant “the former” (Baruch).
“So, are to answer my accountability question? And don’t you find it hypocritical that Joe has STILL not answered my question, even though he complained that his wasn’t?” = your questions (plural) have been addressed already in this and other blogs; as JH said, it only takes mere seconds of research to debunk them.
LLC,
“please compare Luke 16:29 with Luke 24:27.”
“But Abraham said, ‘They have Moses and the Prophets; let them hear them.'” (Luke 16:29)
“Then beginning with Moses and with all the prophets, He explained to them the things concerning Himself in all the Scriptures.” (Luke 24:27)
“All” the Scriptures refer to “Moses & the Prophets,” which refers to “all” of the OT Scriptures, which would refer to Scriptures of the Pharisees (“THEY [the Pharisees] HAVE Moses & the Prophets”). The question is “what were the Scriptures of the Pharisees?” – the Hebrew Bible, which excludes the so-called Deuterocanon.
“The similarity in the way of listing the books only shows a similarity in the way of listing the books. In other words, if you listed the ingredients for your favorite dish this year, and then again for the same dish 5 years from now, the list would be identical.”
Not THAT identical! Not only the order of the books are identical, but also whether Paul’s books are 13 vs 14; the “12 minor prophets” being listed as a group, rather than individually like Rome, listing them as the same canon group, both listing the same wrong pope, etc. If your argument is similarity, then why did are BOTH of them “disimilar” to Rome, who did not list the order the same way, mention the 12 minor prophets by name (as opposed to a listing), have the correct pope, etc? Sorry, but you’re argument isn’t consistent, so it doesn’t work.
“Further proof that Revelation was already listed as Canonical is the absence of recorded objections after either council (397 & 419) or later.”
Not talking about AFTER 419. Talking about the Carthage of 397, which was BEFORE.
“Perhaps you meant “the former” (Baruch)”
Yes, Baruch is what I was referring to, which proves that it was NOT in Jerome’s Vulgate. And this is from TWO Catholic sources. And since it was not in his Vulgate, then why would be in Carthage of 419 – just a mere 14 years BEFORE this last council? So, there blows the theory that “Baruch was part of Jeremiah,” since fourth century ECF’s & Doctors of the Church, like Athanasius, listed Baruch & the epistle as SEPARATE WRITINGS from Jeremiah. Rome 382 even lists Lamentations separate from Jeremiah, & the other six Deuterocanonical books individually, but not Baruch & the epistle. Sorry, but they were NOT in any of the fourth & fifth century church councils, nor Jerome’s Vulgate. Baruch was ADDED several centuries later, at least into the ninth century. A bit, don’t you think?
The details of Hippo are mostly gone from history, which includes the list of books, which is why it lists Boniface, instead of Siricius, as the Pope at the council. Again, it got retroactively lifted from Carthage of 419, & placed back into Hippo. Same with Carthage of 397.
And, no, you haven’t adequately answered my question about how a believing Jew would know what the books were 50 years before Christ, since He held them accountable for knowing what they were. Try again.
Again, don’t you find it hypocritical of Joe that he complained about his questions not being answered, yet he refuses to do the same with me? At the very list, be objective & see that he is being hypocritical for (not) doing the same thing he is complaining about.
JJ,
“All” the Scriptures refer to “Moses & the Prophets,” which refers to “all” of the OT Scriptures, which would refer to Scriptures of the Pharisees (“THEY [the Pharisees] HAVE Moses & the Prophets”)” = factually incorrect. All the Scriptures means just that, all of them. Jesus doesn’t stop at Moses (the Law) and the Prophets; He starts with them. Furthermore, the Jewish OT didn’t stop at the Torah and the Prophets. There is no such thing as “Hebrew Bible”. Finally, Paul quoted abundantly from the Deuterocanon.
“Not THAT identical” = therefore, not the same recipe.
Again, since you failed to produce an original list of canonical books dated at or around 397 which excluded Revelation (the original argument of this now too long discussion), I will be not commenting on this topic anymore.
LLC,
“All the Scriptures means just that, all of them. Jesus doesn’t stop at Moses (the Law) and the Prophets; He starts with them. Furthermore, the Jewish OT didn’t stop at the Torah and the Prophets.
Again, the term “The Law (of Moses) & the Prophets” is a metonym for the OT – as a whole – not simply the first & second sections of the OT. This is a common misunderstanding by Catholics, even by people like Trent Horn from Catholic Answers. Again, the NT writers, like Paul, wouldn’t have used the term “OLD Testament” to refer to it, since the NEW Testament was still being written. They would have used metonyms like “The Law (of Moses) & the Prophets” to describe it – just as later Catholics would. And as a Pharisee, Paul, would NOT have included the Deuterocanon as being part of it – despite alluding to it – since it was not in the Hillelite Pharisaic school canon that Paul espoused to.
And even “if” the term “the Prophets” referred to the second section exclusively, again, Paul would not have included writings like Baruch & the “additions” to Daniel, which are under “the Prophets” in Catholic OT’s, since – again – they would not have been in his Pharisaic canon. So, either way, Paul would not have acknowledged them.
“There is no such thing as “Hebrew Bible”. Finally, Paul quoted abundantly from the Deuterocanon.”
The term is simply shorthand for the books that were included in the boundaries of the Hillelite Pharisaic school OT canon. Even Catholic apologists (including Catholic Answers) use this term, or interchange it for “Protocanon,” to distinguish it from the “Deuterocanon.” And even by using the terms “Protocanon” & “Deuterocanon,” Catholics are actually acknowledging that the “Protocanon/Hebrew Bible” as a separate unified collection of Inspired writings SEPARATE FROM the so-called “Deuterocanon,” which the latter wasn’t even a term to describe it until the 16th Century. IOW, even Catholics (like Jerome) referred to this second collection of writings as “Apocrypha” prior to the Reformation.
Again, what you should be concerned about is that Baruch was NOT in the Vulgate commissioned by Pope Damasus until at least the ninth century when later Catholics “added” it to the Bible, rather than later Protestants “removing” it. If anything, those later Protestants were more faithful to Damasus’ & Jerome’s Vulgate for not including Baruch than those later Catholics were who “added” it.
JJ: The canon list from Wikipedia is actually taken from the later Council of Carthage of 419 (not 397), which “added” Revelation back, which had been “removed’ in the earlier Council of Carthage of 397.
Denzinger 186 contains the decree of Council of Carthage of 397. It includes the Revelation of John as “Apocalpypsis Ioaninis”. I greatly question the accuracy of your source.
Alexander,
That’s because whenever the “list” from Carthage of 397, it mentions Boniface I as the pope residing over the council. However, Boniface didn’t become pope until 418 – one year before Carthage of 419 where he presided over as pope. Siricius presided over Hippo & Carthage of 397, not Carthage of 419. This is how you know the list of 397 is not from that FOURTH century council, but rather from the FIFTH century council, that simply retroactively imputed the list into the earlier Carthage council, and got the list from the earlier Hippo council of 393.
Regardless, even “if” Revelation was in Carthage of 397 (which it wasn’t), Rome, Hippo, & both Carthage councils did NOT have Baruch & the epistle of Jeremiah, nor did Jerome include them in the Vulgate.
BTW, BTW, Joe – the author of this article – has not responded to me, even though he was upset that Mark Driscoll & Brian Edwards did not respond to him. And regarding my question: “How did a believing Jew know that Isaiah & 2 Chronicles were Scripture, 50 years before Jesus & before there was a Magisterium, since Jesus held them accountable for knowing what it was (Luke 16:29)?” How ’bout it Alexander?
That’s because whenever the “list” from Carthage of 397, it mentions Boniface I as the pope residing over the council. However, Boniface didn’t become pope until 418 – one year before Carthage of 419 where he presided over as pope. Siricius presided over Hippo & Carthage of 397, not Carthage of 419. This is how you know the list of 397 is not from that FOURTH century council, but rather from the FIFTH century council, that simply retroactively imputed the list into the earlier Carthage council, and got the list from the earlier Hippo council of 393.
[Revelation was not in Carthage of 397]
The trouble is, it’s the word of your professor of a Baptist seminary (Lee Martin McDonald) against Denzinger and a host of other sources which claim that the 397 council’s canon was simply copied forward as the same list. I also think I know where your author erred too, he seems to have mistaken Carthage of 397 with the Synod of Laodicea 363~364, which does omit Revelation.
Rome, Hippo, & both Carthage councils did NOT have Baruch & the epistle of Jeremiah, nor did Jerome include them in the Vulgate.
I’m afraid I’m going to have to disagree due to evidence to the contrary. Some Church Fathers (notably St. Cyril 4th Catechetical Lecture circa A.D. 350) explicitly include Baruch and the letter, thus leaving it unclear whether Baruch and the Letter were intended as inclusions in these councils. To make matters more hairy, some lists explicitly include Lamentations and others omit it, so this is a scholarly issue for both sides of the Reformation divide.
Joe – the author of this article – has not responded to me.
Not really concerned about it, no need to repeat.
“How did a believing Jew know that Isaiah & 2 Chronicles were Scripture, 50 years before Jesus & before there was a Magisterium, since Jesus held them accountable for knowing what it was (Luke 16:29)?” How ’bout it Alexander?
Sure. There were some books of the Old Testament that were canonical and some that were deutero-canonical. The canonical books were certain and agreed to be canonical by all, and the deutero-canonical books were discussed, some held them to be canon (notably the Jewish diaspora), others not. Our Blessed Lord held those accountable for what the Pharisees taught were certainly canon (Matthew 23:2-3), and left the Church to decide the status of the deutero-canonical Old Testament books (as well as the New Testament canon). Early Christians generally used the Septuagint and accepted the deuterocanonicals to varying degrees. The Pharisees, only after rejecting Christ (and thus, losing their authority), closed the canon onto the 39 books which they accepted at the time of Christ. Since the Church had the authority to decide the New Testament canon, she also had the authority to differ from the post-Christ Pharisees in accepting the Deuterocanonical books.
Correction: The [OT] canonical books were certain and agreed to be canonical by all [the Pharasaic Party and diaspora — those of whom we would both agree were the faithful party of the Jews, since they confess to the resurrection of the dead].
The Sadducees and the Essenes had differing opinions on the canon as is well known.
Alexander,
“Some Church Fathers (notably St. Cyril 4th Catechetical Lecture circa A.D. 350) explicitly include Baruch and the letter, thus leaving it unclear whether Baruch and the Letter were intended as inclusions in these councils. To make matters more hairy, some lists explicitly include Lamentations and others omit it, so this is a scholarly issue for both sides of the Reformation divide.”
Yes, and they (like Cyril & Athanasius) who both lived during the fourth century listed them as SEPARATE from Jeremiah, because they were not authored by Jeremiah or Baruch because they were written centuries after they died. The fact that they listed them separately during the same time the fourth century councils convened demonstrates that they were NOT included as part of Jeremiah in the councils, especially since Rome (382) listed Lamentations separate. Since Lamentations was originally part of Jeremiah since he authored it (but not Baruch), “why” would Rome separate Lamentations, but not Baruch & the epistle? Again, why would Carthage of 419 include Baruch as part of Jeremiah since Jerome’s Vulgate EXCLUDED Baruch from the Bible itself?
“The canonical books were certain and agreed to be canonical by all, and the deutero-canonical books were discussed, some held them to be canon (notably the Jewish diaspora), others not. Our Blessed Lord held those accountable for what the Pharisees taught were certainly canon (Matthew 23:2-3), and left the Church to decide the status of the deutero-canonical Old Testament books (as well as the New Testament canon).”
Genuine kudos for answering this question with some real thought. You are really the first to attempt to do this on this blog. The problem is when Jesus held the Pharisees accountable, it wasn’t just to “some” of the OT, but rather ALL of it, when He used the OT metonym “Moses (or the Law) & the Prophets” (Luke 16:16,29). IOW, it wasn’t merely their limited canon He held them accountable to, but ALL of the OT Scriptures. When Jesus spoke to the Pharisees (Luke 11:43), He referred to the OT as “ALL of the prophets” (v.50), see also Matthew 11:13. The Pharisees were accountable for knowing ALL of the Scriptures, that included “the Law & ALL of the Prophets” – not just the canon they espoused to. Otherwise, Jesus couldn’t hold them accountable for knowing the so-called Deuterocanon too, since they rejected it. But He did.
Yes, and they (like Cyril & Athanasius) who both lived during the fourth century listed them as SEPARATE from Jeremiah…
That’s why I cited my source. In Cyril’s cathechetical lecture, he lists Jeremiah as “of Jeremiah one, including Baruch and Lamentations and the Epistle”. IOW, he explicitly considers Baruch, Lamentations, and the Epistle PART of Jeremiah.
http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/310104.htm
The problem is when Jesus held the Pharisees accountable, it wasn’t just to “some” of the OT, but rather ALL of it, when He used the OT metonym “Moses (or the Law) & the Prophets” (Luke 16:16,29).
And this is where it becomes a scripture interpretation issue. I would argue that Luke 16:16 and Matthew 11:13 argues against a 400 year silence, since our Lord says that “The law and the prophets were until John”. I would also point out that it’s not necessary to interpret this passage of our Lord’s teaching to indicate a closed, 39 book canon. That they have “Moses and the prophets” doesn’t necessitate that all his hearers agreed on the full extent of the list of the prophetic writings.
He referred to the OT as “ALL of the prophets”
In what way does the text indicate that He is referring to the OT? He is referring to the prophets of the time of the OT, and how the Pharisee’s hypocrisy was going to cause the guilt of their blood to be imputed upon them.
LLC,
“All the Scriptures means just that, all of them. Jesus doesn’t stop at Moses (the Law) and the Prophets; He starts with them. Furthermore, the Jewish OT didn’t stop at the Torah and the Prophets. There is no such thing as “Hebrew Bible”. Finally, Paul quoted abundantly from the Deuterocanon.”
Oh really? Where exactly did JESUS said – not what the Catholic church “says” Jesus said – that He “doesn’t stop with the Law of Moses & the Prophets”? Unless YOU can provide an exact quote from Jesus, then YOUR argument is bogus.
BTW, the term “Hebrew Bible” is what the Catholic church refers to as the “Protocanon,” to distinguish it from the “Deuterocanon” which are those 7 books that the Catholic church “added” to the OT. The fact that they even use the term “Deuterocanon” proves that they believe in a “Protocanon.” You can’t have a Deuterocanon without FIRST having a Protocanon!
The term “the Law & the Prophets” (or “Moses & the Prophets”) is a metonym to describe the Old Testament – as a whole! – not just the first & second sections of the OT. This is where Catholic Answers & other Catholic organizations get it wrong. The first century church wouldn’t have used the term “OLD Testament,” because the “NEW” Testament was still being written.
And, again, if your argument is that since Paul “quoted abundantly” from the Deuterocanon, then the Catholic OT should be MUCH larger, since Paul (& other NT writers) ALSO “quoted abundantly” from a lot of other books found in the Septuagint & other OT era writings, such as Psalms of Solomon, the Prayer of Manasseh, 3 & 4 Esdras, 3 & 4 Maccabees, 1 Enoch, the Assumption of Moses, etc. Again, Paul & the NT did NOT “quote” from Esther & the Song of Solomon. So, why are they in the Catholic OT since they were NOT “quoted”?
Again, Baruch was NOT in Jerome’s Vulgate. It wouldn’t get “added” until several CENTURIES later! So, here’s an example where Protestants didn’t “REMOVE” books to the Bible, but rather later Catholics “ADDED” books to the Bible.
JJ,
“Oh really? Where exactly did JESUS said – not what the Catholic church “says” Jesus said – that He “doesn’t stop with the Law of Moses & the Prophets”? Unless YOU can provide an exact quote from Jesus, then YOUR argument is bogus” = Luke 24:27 is a direct quote. Jesus started with the Law and the Prophets, and didn’t stop there (“all the Scriptures”). You are refuted by Scriptures.
LLC,
“Luke 24:27 is a direct quote. Jesus started with the Law and the Prophets, and didn’t stop there (“all the Scriptures”). You are refuted by Scriptures.”
Read it again: “Then beginning with Moses and with ALL THE PROPHETS, He explained to them the things concerning Himself in ALL THE SCRIPTURES.”
“ALL the Scriptures” refers to Moses & “ALL the Prophets.” Luke is NOT saying “Moses & the Prophets” AND the Deuterocanon. “ALL” refers to “Moses & the Prophets” – which is the EXACT same OT metonym Jesus used earlier in Luke’s gospel when He addresses the Pharisees (“Moses & the Prophets”)(Luke 16:29), which does NOT include the so-called Deuterocanon.
The real question you need to ask is: “What was the canon of the Pharisees?” So, I’m afraid your understanding of Luke 24:27 is a bit faulty. BTW, thought you weren’t going to reply anymore. This is like your second or third reply after you said “I’m done.”
JJ,
“BTW, thought you weren’t going to reply anymore. This is like your second or third reply after you said “I’m done.” = perhaps you do not understand that this (Luke 24:27) is a different topic than the Canonical Books from the Council of Carthage 397 and than Jimmy Akins’ misquotation.
But “all the Scriptures” does include more that the Law and the Prophets. The Tanakh (Hebrew scriptures) is made up of the Torah (“Law”), the Nevi’im (“Prophets”), and the Ketuvim (“Writings”). So by limiting the Hebrew canon to the Law and the Prophets, you are throwing out books such as the Psalms, Ruth, Esther, Daniel, Ezra, and Chronicles.
By the way, the Septuagint counts Baruch, Jeremiah’s letter, and Greek Daniel among the Prophets, so Jesus could have just as well been thinking of these when he started with the Law and the Prophets.
For example, you address the fourth century church councils, but omits the fact that Baruch & the epistle of Jeremiah were NOT in them, & Carthage of 397 “removed” Revelation..
The Canonist Donald Trump says your claim is fake news
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
The Canon of the Holy Scripture and the Apocryphal Books *
[From the same epistle to Exuperius]
96 (7) A brief addition shows what books really are received in the canon. These are the desiderata of which you wished 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 Tobias one book, Esther one, Judith one, of the Machabees two, of Esdras two, Paralipomenon two books. Likewise of the New Testament: of the Gospels four books, of Paul the Apostle fourteen epistles, of John three [cf.n. 84, 92] epistles of Peter two, an epistle of Jude, an epistle of James, the Acts of the Apostles, the Apocalypse of John.
Others, however, which were written by a certain Leucius under the name of Matthias or of James the Less, or under the name of Peter and John (or which were written by Nexocharis and Leonidas the philosophers under the name of Andrew), or under the name of Thomas, and if there are any others, you know that they ought not only to be repudiated, but also condemned.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++=
2) Prophetic Writers — The prophetic books were entitled in the same canon the “later Prophets”. Gradually the custom of calling their authors the prophetic writers crept in. There are four Greater Prophets, that is those whose works are of considerable length. Isaias, Jeremias, Ezechiel, and Daniel, and twelve Minor Prophets, whose works are briefer—Osee, Joel, Amos, Abdias, Jonas, Micheas, Nahum, Habacuc, Sophonias, Aggeus, Zacharias, and Malachias. The Book of Baruch, which is not included in the Hebrew canon, is united in our Bibles to the Book of Jeremias The ministry of Amos, the most ancient perhaps of the prophetic writers, is placed about the years 760-50. Osee follows him immediately. Next comes Isaias (about 740-700), and his contemporary Micheas. Sophonias, Nahum, and Habacuc prophesied towards the last quarter of the seventh century. Jeremias about 626-586; Ezechiel between 592-70. The prophecy of Aggeus and in part that of Zacharias are dated exactly in 520 and 520-18. Malachias belongs to the middle of the fifth century. As for Daniel, Abdias, Joel, Baruch, as well as portions of Isaias, Jeremias, Zacharias, their dates being disputed, it is necessary to refer the reader to the special articles treating of them.
++++++++++++++++++
I suppose one could also consult Stanley Fish or Jacques Derrida as well as Wikipedia for reliable information about what the Catholic Church did in forming the Canon of Scripture….
Amateur Brain Surgeon,
Early church fathers, and even Doctor’s of the Church, like Athanasius who lived during the fourth century when the councils were beginning to convene, listed the Deuterocanonical books of Baruch & the epistle of Jeremiah as SEPARATE WRITINGS from the book of Jeremiah, and included Lamentations separately. This is because Jeremiah authored his book & Lamentations, but not Baruch or the epistle, since they were written centuries after Jeremiah & Baruch died. The Council of Rome (382) listed the books individually – including Lamentations separated from Jeremiah – but did not include Baruch nor the epistle. Jerome’s Vulgate also omitted Baruch & the epistle, which is confirmed by both Catholic Answers & NewAdvent.org (a Catholic online encyclopedia), which admits that Baruch was NOT in the eighth century Codex Amiatinus (see by reply to LLC on this page).
So, this isn’t “fake news,” but reliable historical sources, which does not include Wikipedia which is not always reliable. BTW, Joe – the author of this article – has not responded to me, even though he was upset that Mark Driscoll & Brian Edwards did not respond to him. And regarding my question: “How did a believing Jew know that Isaiah & 2 Chronicles were Scripture, 50 years before Jesus & before there was a Magisterium, since Jesus held them accountable for knowing what it was (Luke 16:29)?” How ’bout it Amateur Brain Surgeon?
Dear Mr. James. You believed Wiki and that was a mistake.
You could have done yourself a big favor by apologising for using that as a reliable source and also admitting that what you adamantly claimed is not true.
But, one can see you won’t do that. Like a typical troll, you will simply go on to make other accusations but ABS does not feed trolls and he encourages others to starve trolls also – if they are not served of attention, tools will weary men with their antics.
If you do trust the New Testament as a source fo Faith and Wisdom, seriously read and prayerfully think abut 2 John 9 for it applies to you as an Ex-Catholic:
Whosoever recedeth, and continitueth not in the doctrine of Christ, hath not God; he that continuity in the doctrine, he hath both the Father and the Son.
ABS, had you taken time to actually READ my reply about Wikipedia, this was my exact quote:
“Wikipedia is simply an online source that anyone (including you & me) can write & edit. So, you have to be careful about using it as an authoritative source, especially for something as important as the canon, since you can get faulty or misleading information.”
As you can see, I DO NOT espouse to Wikipedia. Rather, it was LLC – a Catholic – not me, who used the Wikipedia as HIS source. So, instead of “assuming” things about other people who disagree with you, it might be to your advantage to actually address what they are asking you, rather than what you “think” people are basing their beliefs on.
Incidentally, my sources are mostly from CATHOLIC sources, such as Catholic Answers & NewAdvent.org with both describe Codex Amiatinus as “the most celebrated manuscript of the Latin Vulgate Bible, remarkable as the best witness to the true text of St. Jerome” but “that the Book of Baruch is missing.” This codex was written around A.D. 700 – THREE HUNDRED YEARS after Jerome’s Vulgate, which proves that the Vulgate did NOT originally include this book! It was “added” centuries later.
So, as you can see, I’m not a “troll,” since I have provided indisputable CATHOLIC sources, rather than from Wikipedia, which is intended to make you think. Perhaps your reluctance to answer my specific questions & address my comments is your inability to, rather than reluctance to “answer trolls” which is an emotional, subjective, & avoiding response.
It’s because the Catholic church does NOT possess the complete OT canon of Scripture is why it’s not the “One True Church” that Christ built, & why I look to Scripture – not the Catholic church – for my “source of faith & wisdom.”
So, again, “How did a believing Jew know that Isaiah & 2 Chronicles were Scripture, 50 years before Jesus & before there was a Magisterium, since Jesus held them accountable for knowing what it was (Luke 16:29)?” How ’bout it Amateur Brain Surgeon? Can you answer this? A simply yes or no will do. This question is crucial to understanding what the canon of Scripture is actually based on – and it’s not the Catholic church.
So many errors by Jim James. Where to start?
Jim James:
Wrong. Baruch and the Epistle of Jeremiah were considered part of Jeremiah in the early Church, so that council did NOT omit them. Jerome’s Vulgate included them in Jeremiah.
Jim James:
Interesting. In which book or books does either Jesus or St. Paul list the canon? If they don’t in any of the books, then your statement amounts to nothing. Furthermore, the Protestant historian J.N.D. Kelly contradicts your useless claim when he writes this: “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).
Jim James:
Oh really? Then why does Jimmy write this?:
He goes on to say that the Pharisees settled on a canon, well after St. Paul was martyred. Jesus could not have affirmed your canon Jim James, because the Pharisees had not settled their canon yet.
Furthermore, interestingly enough, there is evidence that Sirach was accepted by the Jews as canonical at the time of Christ, which Rabbi Dr. Ezekiel Epstein, a Jewish historian, admits.
Jim James:
Addendum,
Jim, I find it funny that you accept the canon of the Pharisees, one in which Jimmy Akin, (whom you have quoted erroneously to bolster your argument) states they did not come up with until after the temple was destroyed and some sixty years after Jesus walked the Earth, when at the same time they settled their canon they were explicitly rejecting Jesus. And I’m to believe they got the canon right while rejecting God when He walked in their midst? Okaaaaay.
Duane
Clarification
I meant to say evidence that Sirach was accepted as Scripture.
Duane,
So many false assumptions. Let’s start here:
“Wrong. Baruch and the Epistle of Jeremiah were considered part of Jeremiah in the early Church, so that council did NOT omit them. Jerome’s Vulgate included them in Jeremiah.”
Although “some” ECF’s considered them to be part of Jeremiah, this was not a “universal” (ie: “catholic”) belief. Again, Athanasius listed them as SEPARATE writings from Jeremiah & Lamentations, who lived during the fourth century when the councils convened. Again, the Council of Rome (382) listed all of the other so-called Deuterocanonical books individually, as well as the 12 “minor” prophets individually. Yet, it omitted mentioning Baruch & the epistle.
Again, Catholic.com & NewAdvent.org admit that the Codex Amiatinus (A.D. 700) is a very faithful rendition of Jerome’s Latin Vulgate, but OMITTED Baruch. This proves that Baruch was NOT in Jerome’s Vulgate.
“In which book or books does either Jesus or St. Paul list the canon?”
If you read my other comments, Jesus affirms that canon of the Pharisees when they are listening to him & He is talking about them: “they HAVE Moses & the Prophets” (Luke 16:29), which a metonym for the OT canon. Jesus also uses the term “the Law of Prophets” in the same passage (v.16), which Paul uses later (Romans 3:21). Paul was also a Pharisee (Acts 23:6), which means he espoused to their canon. Catholic Answers senior apologist admitted that the canon of the Pharisees & that of later Protestants were the exact same. So, Jesus & Paul not “producing a list” in the NT is irrelevant, once you accept this Catholic & NT evidence.
“Oh really? Then why does Jimmy write this?: During the first century, the Jews disagreed as to what constituted the canon of Scripture. In fact, there were a large number of different canons in use.”
That was not my argument. Read it again. I said the PHARISEES had a fixed canon, not the JEWS AS A WHOLE. Please pay attention to the details next time.
“He goes on to say that the Pharisees settled on a canon, well after St. Paul was martyred.”
Again, this was rabbinic Judaism, not the first century Pharisees. Catholic author Gary Michuta (Why Catholic Bibles are Bigger; The Case for the Deuterocanon) state the two Jewish groups that “survived” the Diaspora after the destruction of Temple (A.D.70) were the Christians & the Pharisees. And it was the Pharisees who morphed into second century Judaism. But the Pharisees did have a fixed canon as far back as Hillel from the 1st Century B.C. who came from Babylon, who brought the same canon back that Ezra had centuries later from Babylon. Hillel was also a Pharisee (ETWN), who was the grandfather of Gamaliel who was also a Pharisee who was the mentor of the apostle & Pharisee Paul (Acts 22:3). So, the Pharisees in Jesus’ time did indeed have a fixed canon already, which is the same as both later rabbinic Judaism as later Protestants.
“there is evidence that Sirach was accepted by the Jews as canonical at the time of Christ”
Again, the JEWS AS A WHOLE, yet. The Pharisees specifically, no. The Jews AS A WHOLE also accepted a lot of other apocryphal & pseudoepigraphical writings as well. So, if that is your argument, then why aren’t these other writings in the Catholic OT – using this argument?
“You need to tell us what type of believing Jew. Jesus is addressing a certain school of Pharisees here.”
Again, the school of Hillel. See above.
“Would he hold the Sadduccees accountable here for rejecting Isaiah and Chronicles? Seemingly not, as He never tells them that they are wrong for only accepting the Torah.”
I’m afraid He did:
“The Pharisees AND SADDUCEES came up, and testing Jesus, they asked Him to show them a sign from heaven. ‘An evil and adulterous generation seeks after a sign; and a sign will not be given it, except the sign of Jonah.'” (Matthew 16:1,4)
This is from Jonah 1:17 – which the Pharisees accepted as Scripture, but the Sadducees did not. So, yes, Jesus DID “tell them that they are wrong for only accepting the Torah.”
“Bible researcher.com state that the council in 397 lists Revelation as part of the canon. The part where Boniface is mentioned they admit is a further addition.”
Yet, if you examine the lists between Hippo of 393 & Carthage of 397, they are identical in EVERY WAY (ie: order & spelling of books;how many books are attributed to Solomon which differs from Rome of 382; how many are attributed to Paul which differ from Rome; listing them under the exact same canon number in BOTH councils; etc). So, Boniface wasn’t the only “addition.” It was the entire list that was lifted.
“And I’m to believe they got the canon right while rejecting God when He walked in their midst?”
That was kind of Jesus’ point when He said: “They [the Pharisees] HAVE Moses & the Prophets [“have” possession of the OT canon], but if they don’t believe them, they won’t believe if someone rises from the dead.” (Luke 16:29-30).
“This is why I, as a current Catholic, when a former Catholic tries to tell me what Jesus is saying in Scripture, always hold my nose. It is a guarantee that 99% of the time the former Catholic will be telling me something that looks like a snow covered dung heap, and they will tell me it is ice cream on top of chocolate cake”
Or perhaps you aren’t really understanding their argument like you just did (Pharisee canon vs. Jewish canon).
So given the clarification that Jesus DID indeed hold both the Pharisees AND the Sadducees accountable for accepting or rejecting “the Prophets” as well as “the Law,” then I’ll ask again:
“How did a believing Jew know that Isaiah & 2 Chronicles were Scripture, 50 years before Jesus & before there was a Magisterium, since Jesus held them accountable for knowing what it was (Luke 16:29)?” Also, Joe – the author of this article – has STILL not responded to my questions, even though he got upset that Mark Driscoll & Brian Edwards did not respond to his questions. Since he is doing the same thing with me, don’t you find that a bit hypocritical?
No, it is not hypocritical. Joe probably has replied to about one of every one or two thousand posts. His practice is typically to give us the OP, then leave it to us to discuss it. Then, too, if you insist on prejudging him on other grounds, perhaps he’d be more inclined to let you stew in the juice of your own designs.
Margo,
“Joe probably has replied to about one of every one or two thousand posts.”
You don’t think that Mark Driscoll & Brian Edward receive thousands of posts & emails too? So, if this is your response, then to be consistent, then should he “not” complain about the same thing – ie: that all 3 of them can’t reply to everyone, since they receive “two thousand” (or more) posts? Either way, he’s being hypocritical.
Jim,
It’s amazing how many mistakes you make.
Jim James:
Agreed, it was not universal. And I will admit you are right about St.Jerome not including Baruch. Here is your problem though. It does not hurt our argument in the least. Because whether Baruch was listed separate or as part of Jeremiah, it was still considered canonical in the Church from the earliest times. The council of Rome used the Vetus Latina, and we know Baruch was part of Jeremiah in Vetus Latina.
Perhaps one of the most famous Latin patristic scholars is Pierre-Maurice Bogaert, this is what he has to say about Baruch:
Also, we have early liturgies dating to the third century, where parts of Baruch are read under the title of Jeremiah, so it would not be expected that the Council of Rome would list Baruch as separate.
Jim James:
Except they had no canon until after the temple was destroyed. Show me in the Old Testament or the New Testament the listing of which books are canonical. The senior apologist flat out said that the canon that was established by the Pharisees was around 90 A.D., and was not what was recognized by the Apostles. So your conclusions are erroneous.
Jim James:
Read what I wrote and what Akin said. He says the Pharisees did not fix a canon until after the temple was destroyed. He never says the Pharisees had a fixed canon at the time of Christ. If they did, there would have been no reason to set the canon at the end of the first century.
Jim James:
You have two problems here. Nowhere does Michuta, or EWTN, or any writings say the the Pharisees had a fixed canon before the destruction of the temple in 70 A.D. And which Pharisees had this supposed canon? All of them? We know there were competing schools of Pharisees, who did not agree with each other, yet you say they agreed upon a canon. Hmmmm. Do you have some swampland in Florida to sell me also?
Jim James:
Show me where the Pharisees before Jesus rejected Sirach. If you can’t, then it’s an unfounded assertion.
Jim James:
I’m afraid He doesn’t. He only says the only sign that will be given is the sign of Jonah. He is saying they are wrong for asking for a sign, not that they are wrong for only accepting the Torah.
Jim James:
They imported the canons from 393 to 397. Any new canons enacted by later councils would be numbered after the canons of those previous councils. Why does that bother you?
Jim James:Or perhaps you aren’t really understanding their argument like you just did (Pharisee canon vs. Jewish canon).
Or perhaps I understand their argument completely, but their argument is extremely lacking. Case in point. The Pharisees are Jews. You have admitted that there were multiple schools of the Pharisees. Does St. Paul say he is of the school of Hillel? Did all the Pharisees share the same imaginary canon? You have not provided one shred of evidence that there was a canon at the time of Christ. The Catholic apologists you have quoted to bolster your argument all argue against your position.
They specifically say that the canon of the Pharisees was not formed until after 70 A.D. They agree that that canon is the canon that you now recognize. This should give you pause as you have stated that those same Pharisees that formed that canon specifically rejected Christ.
But for the sake of argument, let’s say you are right and a canon of the Pharisees existed at the time of Christ. There is no evidence to show that the Deuterocanonicals were not part of that canon. St. Irenaeus said that the Jews removed those books from the bible.
Unless you can prove (which at this time you cannot) that the canon you now use was in use at the time of Christ, your arguments are useless.
Jim James:
You clarified in your own mind, and thought that I would accept your clarification. Your clarification would hold water if Jesus had said Scripture has it, or have you never read the Scriptures as He does in so many other places. Curiously He didn’t in that passage of Mt. He simply gives an answer that some would accept as quoting as Scripture, and that others wouldn’t. And HE never tells the Sadduccees they are wrong for only accepting the Torah. Don’t read something into Scripture that’s just not there.
A final note. Jesus affirms the Catholic canon in the New Testament. Matthew 16:19
Addendum
Jim (Barry),
Good to have you back Barry, and much more civil than before.
Excellent arguments, (Jim) Barry.
And better responses, Duane.
Glad to have our cordial friend back, to stir up the apologetical stew…so to say.
Are you really glad? Hey! I wrote above about his stew before I even read your post. Are we both hungry? Flounder chowder, anyone?
Hi Margo,
Yes, I’m happy, if as Duane says… (Jim)Barry remains “much more civil than before”. It gives excellent apologists such as Duane a good opportunity to reveal/teach the holy faith in greater detail than normal. Without such a catalyst for debate, there is less opportunity to delve deeper into some of these excellent topics that are currently being discussed.
A lot of what I currently know about apologetics and Church history came from the apologetic arguments and challenges offered by Craig, Irked and Barry on this site. For better or worse, they impel a Catholic who wants to dialog with them to start studying and researching the history and doctrine of the Church in a way that they probably never would have, lacking such a catalyst or impetus. And this is why this is such a great and interesting Catholic website.
Duane did a great job refuting Barry, and it is worth the tolerating of minor insults regarding Barry’s persistent request to engage Joe. I just appreciate the talents of the many devout Catholics on this site. So, I like the ‘stew to be stirred’ so-to-say. It’s reveals more clearly the beauty of the Catholic Faith. But, as much civility and charity as possible should be the goal in all such discussions. In this way we avoid the occasion of sin, and can put into practice how Jesus taught us to spread the Good News…that is, with great charity, peace, patience and joy.
Best to you always in the Lord.
Hi Al,
More power to you, Duane, and others. You seem to show the strength of the beatitude’s righteous. I personally subscribe to yesterday’s word; I still shake the dust from my sandals of seasons passed.
As always, the best in Lord to you and yours.
Duane,
“Here is your problem though. It does not hurt our argument in the least. Because whether Baruch was listed separate or as part of Jeremiah, it was still considered canonical in the Church from the earliest times.”
Yes, it does hurt it, because since it was listed separate – even in the fourth century when the councils convened – and since it was NOT included in Jerome’s Vulgate, then you can’t use the fourth & fifth century councils & Jerome’s Vulgate as “universal” councils as evidence for the Catholic canon, since Baruch was still missing in the Codex Amiatrinus THREE HUNDRED YEARS later. A bit later don’t you think?
“we have early liturgies dating to the third century, where parts of Baruch are read under the title of Jeremiah, so it would not be expected that the Council of Rome would list Baruch as separate.”
The Council of Rome didn’t list Baruch at all! The point (which you missed) is that Doctors of the Church, who lived during the fourth century councils, like Athanasius, listed Baruch & the epistle separate. The fact that Rome listed the OTHER Deuterocanonicals separate – but not Baruch or the epistle – means that you cannot use the argument that “other early Christian writers ‘considered’ Baruch attached to Jeremiah” as a consistent “universal” defense for the fourth & fifth centuries councils (especially Rome) including Baruch with Jeremiah. Again, the fact that Rome listed ALL of the other Deuterocanonicals SEPARATELY – but not Baruch & the epistle – is inconsistent – especially, since Baruch was NOT in Jerome’s Vulgate completed in 405.
“We know there were competing schools of Pharisees, who did not agree with each other.”
My argument about the Pharisees centered around PAUL who was a Pharisee. Paul was a student of Gamaliel, who was the grandson of Hillel. ALL of them were Pharisees. And the school of Hillel originated with the return of Hillel from Babylon – just as Ezra did centuries earlier. Therefore, Hillel would have espoused to the school of Phariseeism, which included the same canon that Ezra had earlier when he returned from Babylon. So, given that argument, the “different schools of Phariseeism” falls apart.
Gotta run……I’ll finish this later. Ciao!
JimBarry,
JJ:
Sure we can. Because as shown by scholars, in the Latin west Baruch was considered part of Jeremiah. It was first listed separately in the East by Origen. So at the Council of Rome, when they canonized Jeremiah, they are also canonizing Baruch because it was not separate from Jeremiah at the time.
I’m not trying to use St. Jerome’s Vulgate. He chose to insert his private views instead of what the Church held. But to use St. Jerome’s view of what is, and is not Scripture, is the way a Protestant thinks, not a Catholic.
But it was universal. Because we have liturgies dating back to the third and fourth centuries from the Latin west, North Africa, and the Greek east, all with passages from what was listed as Baruch in the Greek east and North Africa, and those same passages listed as Jeremiah in the Latin west, read as Scripture.
Furthermore, there are manuscripts based on the Vetus Latina, which is far older than the Vulgate, than contain Baruch as part of Jeremiah.
Two things further hurt your argument as far as St. Jerome is concerned. One, there is a passage in one of his letters where he calls Baruch a prophet of God. Two, St. Jerome, in his prologue to Jeremiah, specifically states that he has omitted Baruch, because it is not found in the Hebrew Jeremiah. Now remember, he was asked to revise the Vetus Latina. If Baruch was not found in Jeremiah in the Vetus Latina, there is no reason for him to mention Baruch at all. No one would know the difference.
By the way, Gary Michuta has a podcast on St. Jerome from about 3 years ago on Catholic.com. In the podcast he mentions numerous errors that St. Jerome made from assumptions he made about the Hebrew texts that almost all scholars now admit were erroneous assumptions.
JJ:
Hmmmm. St. Athanasius was in the Greek east, and we know they started separating Baruch after the time of Origen. Now let’s look at my answer.
There’s your problem. You don’t realize that the Catholic Church is and was universal, and that St. Athanasius is not a Latin but a Greek.
By the way, you keep saying St. Jerome and his Vulgate. The fact that he chose not to include something is monumental for a Protestant. A Catholic just says, wow he made a mistake there. He is not the Gold Standard for a Catholic on which books should be in the bible. The councils are. So your saying Jerome this and Jerome that is useless. If you can say council this and pope that, then you will grab a faithful Catholics attention. As I said earlier, St. Jerome is known to have made plenty of mistakes.
JJ:
HAHA. See how you twist things. I have highlighted what you have twisted. Several Jewish websites, and Protestant also, say Ezra returned with only the Torah. So you are saying Hillel was secretly a Sadduccee, and only accepted the Torah as canonical. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you.
Again, show me in Scripture where Jesus, or any of the New Testament enumerates what the Old Testament canon is. If you can’t, then don’t waste my time. Because my saying the Pharisees, in rejecting Christ, rejected books of the Deuterocanon that they once accepted, is just as, if not more plausible than you saying Jesus affirms their canon.
To a Catholic, Jesus explicitly affirmed our canon in Matthew 16.
Clarification,
Should say Baruch part of Jeremiah in North Africa also.
Duane,
“Sure we can. Because as shown by scholars, in the Latin west Baruch was considered part of Jeremiah. It was first listed separately in the East by Origen. So at the Council of Rome, when they canonized Jeremiah, they are also canonizing Baruch because it was not separate from Jeremiah at the time.”
No offense, but you are repeating yourself & not listening to what I’m saying.
1) The issue isn’t that “the Latin west” had “considered” Baruch to be part of Jeremiah. This issue is the false accusation that later Protestants “removed” books like Baruch from THE BIBLE! Again, the fact that Jerome didn’t include Baruch isn’t the issue. The issue is that the Vulgate WAS the Bible – even in the West! So, later Protestants didn’t “remove” it, but rather later Catholics “added” it TO THE BIBLE!
2) Regarding Jesus using Jonah 1:17 about giving a sign, He even quoted the verse to not only the Pharisees, but ALSO the Sadducees. Again, this verse would be meaningless to the Sadducees since Jonah was not in their canon, but it was in the canon of the Pharisees. So, yes, Jesus was simultaneously acknowledging the Pharisees’ canon while rejecting the Sadducees’ by using this reference that was meaningful to one but not the other.
“They imported the canons from 393 to 397. Any new canons enacted by later councils would be numbered after the canons of those previous councils. Why does that bother you?”
Because these canons ALSO read that Boniface I was the pope who wouldn’t be elected pope until the next century. Plus, it’s not like they had computers to “cut & paste” lists. They would have to hand-write the lists. And Rome is written completely different that the verbatim lists of Hippo & Carthage 397. Again, the details of Hippo are lost to history. So, what we find in the lists of Hippo are extrapolated from the later council of Carthage of 419, which also got extrapolated to Carthage of 397, which is why it lists Revelation which was NOT originally in the council of Carthage of 397, but got “added” back in 419.
“The Pharisees are Jews. You have admitted that there were multiple schools of the Pharisees. Does St. Paul say he is of the school of Hillel?”
The NT is explicit that Paul was a protege of Gamaliel, & NewAdvent.org (& other Catholic sources) state that Gamaliel was a student of Hillel. History also tells us that Hillel came from Babylon – just as Ezra came from Babylon centuries earlier. Therefore, in terms of the OT, Hillel & Ezra would have had the same “Babylonian flavor” as one author put it. So, there is your link between the Pharisaic school of Hillel, Gamaliel, & the Pharisee Paul’s canon.
“They specifically say that the canon of the Pharisees was not formed until after 70 A.D.”
Again, this is false. What happened is that late & second century rabbinic Judaism “adopted” the canon of the Pharisees, which grew out of the Pharisaic school of Hillel which had existed since the first century that Gamaliel (his grandson) & later Paul espoused to.
“Your clarification would hold water if Jesus had said Scripture has it, or have you never read the Scriptures as He does in so many other places.”
Actually, He does. In fact, out of the nearly 300 times that one of these OT metonyms are used in the NT (like “have you not read,” “as it is written,” “the Scriptures,” etc), 100% of the time they refer to books found ONLY in the boundaries of the Hebrew Bible, but not ONCE from the Deuterocanon – independent of the Hebrew. IOW, even when Catholic apologists attempt to link these metonyms to the Deuterocanon (like Matthew 4:4), they are really from much EARLIER books from the Hebrew Bible.
“A final note. Jesus affirms the Catholic canon in the New Testament. Matthew 16:19”
No, He does not. That is Catholic eisegesis attempting to link Jesus giving Peter the “keys” to him being the first pope (“the rock”), which is based on poor hermeneutics, and also an attempt to divert off of the topic (the Protestant OT), rather than focus on the blog’s purpose. So, let’s not start up an irrelevant topic before we have exhausted this one.
“we have liturgies dating back to the third and fourth centuries from the Latin west, North Africa, and the Greek east, all with passages from what was listed as Baruch in the Greek east and North Africa.”
Yet, it was not included in Jerome’s Vulgate that was commissioned under Pope Damasus I, & didn’t get “added” until at least the ninth century – FOUR HUNDRED YEARS LATER! Plus, if you study the ECF’s – both Latin west & Greek east – you find a LOT of other books in the third & fourth centuries that were included in their liturgies. And you even find disagreements about canonical books (that both Catholics & Protestants espouse to) that were NOT in these liturgies.
So, arguing West vs East Scriptural use in liturgies isn’t a solid argument, since the actual argument is that Baruch was NOT in the Latin Vulgate of 405, so why would it be in Carthage of 419 just FOURTEEN YEARS later, & not “added” to the Vulgate until FOUR HUNDRED YEARS later? So, since Athanasius – despite being the east, which is really irrelevant when it comes to the fourth & fifth century councils which were NOT “ecumenical” but local – listed Jeremiah & Baruch & the epistle as SEPARATE writings – that’s not a fair argument.
“Vetus Latina, which is far older than the Vulgate, than contain Baruch as part of Jeremiah.”
But the Vetas Latina was NOT the Latin Bible that was used for the vast majority of the history of the church – Jerome’s Vulgate was. Nor, was it commissioned by Damasus. Again, Jerome’s Vulgate was, which EXCLUDED Baruch. So, using an EARLIER Latin translation which was written during a time that the OT canon did not have “universal” (“catholic”) agreement, since there was no single “Vetas Latina” Bible, but rather a collection of Biblical manuscript texts. So, it’s not like the Vulgate was an “update” from it, since the Vulgate excluded Baruch.
“There’s your problem. You don’t realize that the Catholic Church is and was universal, and that St. Athanasius is not a Latin but a Greek.”
Yet, he’s considered not only an ECF, but also a “Doctor of the Church.” So, you’re argument has more to do with a modern-day view of the “universality” of the Catholic church & its OT canon which wasn’t defined until Trent, rather than on how the fourth & fifth century councils & church viewed Scripture, which they were not “universal” in even their own canons, let alone “universal” to Jerome’s Vulgate.
“A Catholic just says, wow he made a mistake there. He is not the Gold Standard for a Catholic on which books should be in the bible. The councils are.”
Perhaps that has to do with the Catholic’s low view of the Bible vs its high view of the church. No one is saying that JEROME is the “Gold Standard” (even though he’s a canonized saint in Catholicism, and most popes & other ECF’s are not), but rather SCRIPTURE is. So, it’s irrelevant “who” wrote the Vulgate. The point is that the Vulgate “was” the Latin Bible, which EXCLUDED Baruch. Plus, those councils were NOT ecumenical. You don’t get a defined canon at an ecumenical council til Trent. Even after Florence (1441), Sirach was still questioned (EWTN), because it was not defined even then!
Hope I covered everything. Was hoping you would give me time to finish replying to your previous comment, but you added more, so sorry if this is a bit long.
At the very least, it should concern you that since we BOTH agree with the NT, which states that ALL Scripture is God-breathed (2 Timothy 3:16), which includes the OT, that if Baruch was truly God-breathed, that it was omitted from the Bible for at least FOUR HUNDRED YEARS, & the Catholic canon wasn’t even “defined” until Trent (1546).
If anything, Catholicism can actually thank the Reformation for getting the Catholic church to FINALLY define its canon! Lastly, what makes more sense? – the Protestant OT that was defined by the Hillel school of Pharisaic Judaism that existed before the time of Christ, which He describe to the Pharisees as “the Law & the Prophets” (Luke 16:16), which is how the Pharisee Paul also defined it (Romans 3:21). Or the Catholic canon whose NON-ecumenical councils neither agreed with Jerome’s Vulgate commissioned by Pope Damasus, completed in 405, which excluded Baruch, that wasn’t “added” until FOUR HUNDRED YEARS, & wasn’t “defined” as canonical until Trent in 1546?
BTW, who’s “Barry”?????
Jim,
I hear what you are saying. You’re just wrong though.
JJ:
Actually, the Catholic accusation stands, by your own words. You said Baruch was in the Vulgate as of the ninth century. It was certainly in the Vulgate in the sixteenth century when the Protestants arrived on the scene. Are you trying to tell me the Protestants were using a Vulgate from the eighth century that didn’t have Baruch?
And what about the other disputed books that were in the Vulgate that the Protestants removed? Even if someone was to grant your assertion of Baruch, the Protestants still removed the other books.
But here is the really laughable part of your answer. St. Jerome’s Vulgate was a translation of the Vetus Latina. The Vetus Latina was still used in many parts of the West well into the twelfth century. The Vulgate never became the official bible of the Latin west, until… wait for it……drum roll…..(the suspense is killing me) THE SIXTEENTH CENTURY!!!!!
Furthermore, we have manuscripts that state that Jerome’s translation of Jeremiah was not read in the churches, that a different translation of Jeremiah was in use. I wonder which one?
JJ:
Your answer makes no sense when you take into account the fact in dealing with the Sadduccees at another time, He went out of His way give an answer that they would understand. This answer has nothing to do with an acknowledgement of the OT canon.
JJ:
What you are reading is not the canon. It was a paragraph written in 419 talking about the canons of 397. But here is the key sentence, which tells you that this list of canonical books is from an earlier council: because we have received from our fathers that those books must be read in the Church.
What evidence can you present that Revelation was not in the list of 397?
JJ:
And you have writings, ancient manuscripts, proving that it’s false? Because if not, I’m going to stick with the canon wasn’t finalized until well after the time of Christ.
Don’t you think it’s odd that St. Paul, when he writes his epistles, never once says any of the disputed books are not Scripture, even though his audience used the Septuagint? And again, like the Protestant historian Kelly said, the Church from the beginning recognized those books as Scripture.
JJ:
But in the verse of the NT that you quoted, Jesus does not say Scripture has it, or have you never read Scripture. My point still stands.
JJ:
But you are the one that said Jesus affirmed the Protestant canon in a particular verse. I am showing you that actually he affirms the Catholic canon in a different particular verse. The Protestant OT canon was a direct response to the Catholic canon, so we are not getting off topic. The Catholic eisegesis is first class.
JJ:
What other books were read in the liturgies?
JJ:
LOL. YOU are the one that brought St. Athanasius into the debate, and now you say not a fair argument. And I’m not arguing West vs East scriptural use, they BOTH had Baruch as Scripture, one separate from Jeremiah, one included as part of Jeremiah.
You better reread Carthage, they do not list Baruch at all. Which tells you that they still held it to be part of Jeremiah. Just like the Latin West.
JJ:
You do realize St. Jerome’s Vulgate was just a collection of Biblical manuscript texts? And while the Vulgate did enjoy wide use, we can show that the Vetus Latina was also still in use, AND THAT IN THE CHURCHES, the Vulgate’s version of Jeremiah was not used, rather the longer version that included Baruch was.
JJ:
Wrong again. Even if you say those were regional councils, every region was covered by those councils, and they all affirmed the canon we use today. So it truly was universal. Trent reaffirmed Florence.
JJ:
I know many Catholics who have a high view of the Bible. And I know many who don’t. But I can say the same for Protestants. Low view or High view has nothing to do with whether St. Jerome made a mistake in his choosing to omit Baruch. And the Vulgate was not the Latin Bible until after Trent.
You better actually read Florence. Sirach is listed as canonical there.
By the way, Protestantism’s low view of the Church is really scarier than anyone’s low view of Scripture, as Jesus built the Church. If not one word of the New Testament had ever been written, the Catholic Church would still be here.
JJ:
But it wasn’t excluded from the Bible. Catholicism had no official bible in the West, until Trent! St. Jerome made a poor judgement to exclude Baruch.
Read Pope Innocent when he defines what the canon is for the whole Catholic Church, as well as Damasus. So it was defined loooooooong before Trent. And Florence defined it 100 years before Trent also.
JJ:
How can I answer this question when you have framed it in such a way where I count at least six errors that I am supposed to answer as if those errors are true?
A better way of framing the question would be: what makes more sense? Believing in a Protestant OT that the Reformers, who had no Divine Authority to do anything, assembled because they did not like certain Catholic practices, and started their own man made churches? Or the Catholic OT, assembled by bishops in direct succession to the Apostles and given Divine Authority to teach by Christ Himself?
The issue of the canon was possibly the foremost driving issue in my conversion from Protestantism to Catholicism. Even if sola scriptura was true, is it even feasible if we don’t have the entirety of Scripture? The weight of evidence in favor of the deuterocanon was immense and I could no longer pretend it wasn’t there.
Daniel,
Welcome home.
Daniel,
And it was one of the issues that was the driving force in my conversion from Catholicism to Protestantism, because many of the arguments in favor for including the so-called Deuterocanon could also be used for including other books that were also included in the Septuagint, quoted by early church fathers, used in liturgies, books included & not included by the various councils & the Vulgate, etc. I would welcome you to read some of the comments raised here, including my replies to various Catholics, such as Duane, LLC, etc.
In Him,
Jim.
To all who follow this blog, and especially you Jim James. Jim stated earlier that he used Catholic sources in his argument. This he indeed did do. As an example Jim stated this:
I replied that he bent and twisted what those sources said. As an example, Jimmy Akin nowhere says that Jesus affirmed a Jewish, or Pharasaic canon of the Old Testament. Jimmy Akin has explicitly stated that the Pharasaic canon was established well after the time of Christ.
Jim replied with this:
Jimmy Akin specifically says that the canon of the Pharisees was established well after the time of Christ, and after the time of St. Paul.
JIm said:
Paul does indeed say this.
Jim said:
The ending should read like this
Jim said:
Please give me a link to the New Advent page that states this. I have read New Advent’s page on the Jewish canon of the Old Testament, and their page on Rabbi Hillel. NOWHERE does New Advent mention Hillel espousing a canon of the Old Testament, on either page. So, again I say you have twisted, and in the case of using New Advent as your source, it seems you have inserted something that is not there. I will gladly apologize if you provide a link to New Advent’s page showing what you have asserted.
Jim:
But since you have provided no evidence that Hillel observed the same canon that the Pharisees after the time of Christ established, I can, with as much confidence as you have, assert that St. Paul and Hillel actually recognized a canon that included the Deuterocanonicals.
By the way, in response to my saying this:
Jim James either made a mistake, or he outright lied when he responded with this:
In the video, Jimmy Akin never says that Jesus affirmed the canon of the Pharisees that Protestants later held. In fact, Jimmy says the exact opposite, saying that Jesus and the Apostles (including St. Paul) acknowledged the larger canon of the Septuagint. Must have been an indirect quote. 😉
Hi Duane,
All your arguments are excellent. Thanks for your patience in composing your comments.
I think that in all of the discussion on the topic of Catholic and Protestant scripture one thing is being taken for granted, and that is, that even the Protestant Bible is highly Catholic in one particular way. And that is… that it was the Catholic Church itself, through it’s hierarchy of bishops and popes who changed the ancient biblical text into a form that modern readers could understand by inventing chapters and verses for scripture, where in ancient times there were none. I wonder why people think that this has no impact on the concept of ‘sola scripture’ when it was by authority of ‘Tradition’ that these changes to scripture took place? All of these changes to the Bible were done at a time when Protestantism didn’t even exist. Consider this very short passage on the subject, for example:
“In Israel the Torah (its first five books) were divided into 154 sections so that they could be read through aloud in weekly worship over the course of three years. In Babylonia it was divided into 53 or 54 sections (Parashat ha-Shavua) so it could be read through in one year.[2] The New Testament was divided into topical sections known as kephalaia by the fourth century. Eusebius of Caesarea divided the gospels into parts that he listed in tables or canons. Neither of these systems corresponds with modern chapter divisions.[3] (See fuller discussions below.)
Chapter divisions, with titles, are also found in the 9th century Tours manuscript, Paris Bibliothèque Nationale MS Lat. 3, the so-called Bible of Rorigo.[4]
Archbishop Stephen Langton and Cardinal Hugo de Sancto Caro developed different schemas for systematic division of the Bible in the early 13th century. It is the system of Archbishop Langton on which the modern chapter divisions are based.[5][6][7]” (wikipedia)
There’s a lot more to consider, here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chapters_and_verses_of_the_Bible
To sum up, it is the Catholic Church who decided how to organize the Bible so that it could be better understood. And Protestants should be grateful for such wisdom and invention, and also trust that ‘Mother Church’ got it all right!
Best to you! You’re an excellent apologist and a joy to read.
Hi Al,
Thank you for your kind words. I enjoy reading your replies, as you always get me to think about something I had either not thought of before, or to see it in a different light.
Hope all is well with you
Where we got the bible from…
http://www.catholicapologetics.info/apologetics/protestantism/wbible.htm
Just a suggestion. Wait until Lent before you begin beating your head against a wall by engaging with a troll
ABS
Best answer on this thread!!! Very good advice.
Do you also post on Father Hunwicke’s site?
Yes
Great link, ABS!
I have that book. Great read.
AMS,
“Just a suggestion. Wait until Lent before you begin beating your head against a wall by engaging with a troll”
First, this isn’t a “Catholic-only” blog. If it was, then the blogger would restrict it to certain rules & require people to sign up. But it isn’t. ANYONE can comment So, calling me a “troll” only demonstrates your antichrist-like attitude, which is usually the result from a prideful demeanor due to one’s inability to objectively examine an opposing arguments, but instead result in name-calling, which is expected from adolescents, rather than adults – which I was hoping to have an adult conversation with you, like I have with others here who don’t agree with me, but don’t result to name-calling. Unfortunately, it is obvious from you insistence to not be objective, & rather choose to insult, this isn’t possible.
You won’t even acknowledge one of the real problem with Catholicism: that Jerome’s Vulgate – commissioned by Pope Damasus I – OMITTED Baruch & the epistle of Jeremiah. And it wouldn’t be “added” later in the ninth century by later Catholics, rather than later Protestants “removing” it from Jerome’s Vulgate, who were actually more faithful to Damasus’ & Jerome’s Vulgate than those later Catholics. What this really demonstrates is Catholics like you who hold a much higher view of the Catholic church who “adds” even books to the Bible (like Baruch) than the Inspired Word of God, even those you deny this reality.
So, we are done.
Jim,
You do realize that Pope St. Damasus was long dead before St. Jerome ever started to translate Jeremiah, and that St. Jerome admitted that he was taking Baruch out of his translation of Jeremiah?
So St. Jerome was NOT translating the book of Jeremiah that Pope St. Damasus knew.
Duane,
You are missing my point about Damasus, Jerome, & the book of Jeremiah. Damasus commissioned Jerome to translate the Bible – which would have INCLUDED Jeremiah & anything “attached” to it, including Lamentations, & allegedly Baruch and the epistle. The fact that Damasus was “long dead” before Jerome began translating Jeremiah is irrelevant, because Jerome would have understood Damasus’ instructions on Jeremiah “if” Damasus considered Baruch part of Jeremiah. The fact that Jerome ended up not including Baruch nor the epistle – despite including the rest of the Deuterocanon which Jerome questioned – demonstrates that Damasus did NOT consider Baruch as part Jeremiah nor to be included in the Bible (which is consistent with the fourth century Doctors of the Church, like Athanasius & Cyril who ALSO listed them as SEPARATE writings from Jeremiah), since Jerome did not end up including it. Only if Jerome had INCLUDED Baruch & the epistle in the Vulgate could you make the argument that Damasus considered Baruch & the epistle as part of Jeremiah. That’s because Jerome questioned ALL of the Deuterocanon, but included all of them – EXCEPT – Baruch & the epistle, which we have proof of even from Catholic.com & NewAdvent.org that the Codex Amiatinus (A.D. 700) did NOT include Baruch, but they BOTH admit is a faithful rendition of Jerome’s Vulgate. So, now we’re talking about the “official Latin translation of the Catholic Bible” that was accepted as Inspired Scripture for over 1,000 years – most of that time did NOT include Baruch! This is a huge problem for Catholics who rely on the ECF’s, Doctors, Popes, early councils, & Jerome’s Vulgate, since this is clear example of later Catholics “adding” to the Bible, which is GOD-breathed Inspired Scripture FOUR HUNDRED YEARS later, rather than later Protestants “removing” it. If anything, Protestant Bibles that omit Baruch & the epistle are more faithful to Jerome’s Vulgate than Catholics have been for the past 1,200 years or so.
I am only replying to you this one time, because I have stopped responding, since I have been called names by more than one Catholic here (but not you), which is when I stop responding to people. I also wanted to show respect for the writer of the article of this blog, by addressing his specific comments. If you wish to respond, I just want to let you know I will not be replying. If you wish to read more, read my lengthy response to Joe above. But, again, I will not be replying, since it takes way too much time. And most of what I’ve been asked, I’ve already written, so I don’t wish to keep repeating myself. Plus, I’m done here due to some of the unchristlike comments here. Take care, Duane. Nice chatting you. Iron sharpens iron. Jim.
Jim,
You said:
I’m a Knight of Columbus and I can confirm, regrettably, Columbus was a terrible guy.
http://www.kofc.org/en/columbia/detail/christopher-columbus-fake-history.html
I am thinking about writing a book. In it the main character says:
1.) Jesus affirmed the Protestant canon, with no proof offered but a vague reference to a verse in Scripture that others do not see it as affirming any canon at all.
2.) That St. Paul also affirmed this same canon, because he said he was a Pharisee in Acts, and the canon that the Pharisees came up with long after St. Paul was martyred is the one that Protestants adhere to, with no other proof offered.
3.) The main character says he directly quotes Catholic sources, but when pointed out to the main character that he actually twisted, or outright lied about what those Catholic sources said, the main character offers no proof that he did not twist.
4.) The main character says that certain councils did not have books listed as part of the canon, but when you read those councils, there the books are.(He offers no proof for his statement)
5.) The main character says that a certain bible was the official bible of the Church over a 1000 years before the Church ever said it was the official bible, and during this time we can prove there were other translations in use. (He offers no proof for his statement)
And I can go on….
I am going to name this book The JimJamci code. Should be a bestseller.
That’s funny. Although it’s really boring to read your discussion through and through. You don’t have to believe one inch in the bible to know Duane is historically and logically right.
“He seeks those who will worship him in spirit and in truth”, not those who will argue over the exact nature of the Trinity or exactly what texts should be considered inspired and acceptable.
“Go and preach the Gospel to all nations…”
Why did Christ not choose scribes for his apostles, that they might between the twelve of them, get down his every word in order with independent verification?
It can only be that such was not the point. We were given enough to know what we must do; if we are doing it we probably have very little time left for arguments about angels and pinheads.