What I mean by this is not that the Church who wrote the Bible per se (but yeah it IS the Church that produced the New Testaments though, to know what I mean please the videos at the bottom), I know that they are scriptures written as inspired by God over the centuries, but it was the Church that compiled the scriptures (all 73 of them) together into this book we call as the Bible now. Otherwise what would we have to use in the whole 2 centuries after Jesus' time? It was the Church that canonized and decided what scriptures were divinely inspired and to be included, and what scriptures were not. It was the Catholic Church that hold the authority, as given by Jesus as He founded the church on Peter which later on succeeded by the apostles, and made all these decisions.
(I am quoting and adapting the answers from this website which has a very understandable and polite way of answering, after cross referencing with other authorized Catholic resources)
Deuterocanonical Books - (The Apocrypha) ?
Just to start off, the Protestant Bible has only 66 books, missing seven whole books (I and II Maccabees, Sirach, Wisdom, Baruch, Tobit, and Judith) and portions of two others (Daniel and Esther) in comparison to the Catholic Bible. These missing parts is called the Apocrypha by the protestants of which they believe to be good books but not divinely inspired as the rest. The Catholics call these books deuterocanonical books. Deutrerocanon means “second canon”. Deuteronomy means “second book”, just as II Peter is also second book. III John is a third book. The term “deuterocanon” refers to the fact that these books were written and accepted later in time than the rest of the Old Testament canon. The word was never intended to imply that these books were not suitable to be read.
During Jesus' time there were two Old Testament's in use. There was the Palestinian canon (written in Hebrew) , which is identical to the Protestant Old Testament, and there was the Alexandrian canon (written in Greek) also known as the Septuagint, which is identical to the Catholic Old Testament. Comparisons of the Septuagint and the Dead Sea Scrolls indicates that an accurate "eyewitness" exists to the Septuagint. Jesus quotes the Septuagint (instead of the Hebrew/Palestinian Canon/Protestant OT) in 80% of his Old Testament references. Please click this link. See how the different usage of words that Jesus and the apostles used in NT compared to the Hebrew OT, give rise to somewhat different meanings. This is additional evidence that Jesus and the apostles viewed the deuterocanonical books (the Septuagint/Greek Canon/Catholic OT) as part of canon of the Old Testament.
The Septuagint was the Scripture of Jesus' time. It has the order of Bible books that we find in modern Bibles, the Palestinian canon has a completely different order. The NIV Bible use the Septuagint's order of books, yet it leaves out some of the books (Deuterocanonical books) that we find there.
The Alexandrian and Palestinian canons were almost identical except the Septuagint contained the seven Deuterocanonical books, which Protestants call the Apocrypha. ("Canon" means the list of books) The Apostles and the early Church including the early Church fathers used the Septuagint. The African Synod's of Hippo (393 AD) and Carthage (397 AD) also approved it.
Protestants favour the Palestinian canon because it is the one that the Jews ratified in 90 AD at the Jewish (non-Christian) Council of Jamnia. Catholics feel that this Jewish council was not binding by God because God's authority was passed over to Christians at the Pentecost (Acts 2:1) sixty years earlier. Some people question if an actual council occurred at Jamnia but that does not change the premise. The Jews decided to review their canon books after the resurrection of our Lord, and therefore those decisions are not at all binding on Christians.
Furthermore, what the Jews rejected were all the Christian writings (which included the books which eventually became the New Testament) and the Septuagint. They rejected the Septuagint because the Christians were using it to support their own views of who the Messiah was (namely, Jesus Christ) and quoting from it in their writings. And apparently, the Jews did not reject these seven books – or the Septuagint as a whole – for roughly 250 years before that. From the completion of the Septuagint to the school of Jamnia a large group of Greek speaking Jews were happy to use the Septuagint. This group of Jews included Jesus and His disciples.
So I don't think to follow the list set by Christ-rejecting Jews of the time (i.e. without the 7 Deuterocanonical books as in the Protestant's ones) is rational.
Did Saint Jerome not rejected these books?
No, he didn't. What Saint Jerome (the man who compiled and translated the first unified Bible in the early 400s) did was believe in Hebraica veritias (“Hebrew truth”). He believed that the Scriptures written in Hebrew were superior and gave a better witness to Christ. He expressed misgivings about the seven deuterocanonical books but agreed to the authority of the Church and the pope and included them in his translation. This is an example of a non infallible opinion from a man, of which later he did heed to the infallible authority of the Church.
Keep in mind that Protestants reject the longer, Alexandrian version of Daniel; St. Jerome did not.
In addition, a snip from Columbia University (Secular institution)
"As to the deuterocanonical books of the Old Testament, Jerome made hasty translations of Tobit, Judith, and the additions to Daniel and Esther; the rest he did not touch, hence the Vulgate includes Old Latin versions of them." http://www.answers.com/topic/vulgate
The Vulgate (the bible in Latin that Christians has always been using since 400 A.D.) ALWAYS included the Deuteros. Four were translated by Jerome and the rest of them used the old Latin. In other words the Church ALWAYS accepted them.
The Deuterocanonical books were not added to the Bible at the council of Trent like many opponents to them say. Christians always considered them part of the Bible. The Latin Vulgate which was written in 400 A.D. by Jerome, included the Deuterocanonical books. Their formal acceptance happened at Trent as a response to the Reform. This was the first time the Deuterocanonical books were called into serious question.
Furthermore: The Gutenberg Bible of 1455 contained the Deuterocanonical books. It was the Vulgate. It was written in Latin. It predates (even before) the Reformation.
Peter Flint, the author of the only existing English translation of the Dead Sea Scrolls (published in 1999, www.deadseascrolls.org). His book on the scrolls was declared book of the year 2003 by the Institute of Biblical Archeology in Washington DC. He made it plain that the Deuterocanonical Books (Apocrypha) were included with the other books of the Old Testament in the scrolls. They were found together. This helps to confirm that the Deuterocanonical books are valid.
Professor Flint, who is an Evangelical Protestant Bible scholar made a powerful statement:
While we know that at the time of Jesus there were different canons of the Old Testament because the canonical process was not yet complete, the glorious truth is that God has invited humans to be partners in the putting together of Scripture. I think the implications are that you cannot have Scripture without the community of faith [in other words, the Church]. It’s not just a private revelation. God gives us Scripture, but then the [Church], by God’s guidance, has to choose what’s in and what’s out. (as quoted in Christianity Today, October 6, 1997.)
He also said "Without the Church you have a bunch of books. With the Church you have a Bible." (Lecture Feb. 13, 2004, Ottawa, Canada)
These books contain fantastical and inappropriate elements.
The Gospels contain a man being resurrected from the dead, the ascension of Jesus. Genesis contains the creation of the whole universe! These things are just as fantastical as anything in the deuterocanon, say the dragon thing from the expurged parts of Daniel.
Just because something does not match up with a personal theology it cannot simply be discarded; there are some people today who deny certain aspects of Christian moral teaching (such as homosexuality, for example). We can't just discard any sections of the Bible that put forward those moral views.
Catholics believe that the canon of the Bible is not open to interpretation and modification by people who are doing so just because it doesn't agree with their personal theology. Truth is truth, it cannot change over time nor can it contradicts each other because the Holy Spirit cannot possibly be confused. If the books of the Bible disagrees with anyone's personal theology, it is a sign that his/her personal theology is wrong, not that the book should not be in the Bible. No individuals have the authority to made the personal, sole decision to discard anything from the Bible that has been agreed upon for 1500 years under the infallible decision by the Catholic Church, of which Jesus Christ Himself promised to protect for all eternity through the Holy Spirit. [Matthew 28:20] (More on the Church authority and infallibility of Her teachings in the future)
Neither Jesus nor His apostles quote the deuterocanonical books, they should be left out of the Bible.
This claim ignores that Jesus nor His apostles do not quote Ecclesiastes, Esther or the Song of Songs, nor even mention them in the New Testament; yet Protestants accept these books. Furthermore, the New Testament quotes and refers to many non-canonical books, like pagan poetry quoted by Paul and Jewish stories referred to by Jude, which neither Protestants nor Catholics accept as Scripture. Clearly New Testament quotation, or the lack thereof, cannot be a reliable indicator of Old Testament canonicity.
Although no direct quotes, biblical evidence to indirectly link the Deuterocanonical books in the New Testament can be found here.
The Church did not authoritatively define the canon of Scripture until the Council of Trent and, since that Council was a reaction to the Reformation, the deuterocanon can be considered an “addition” to the original Christian canon.
This is also incorrect. Regional councils of the early Church had enumerated the books of the Bible time and again prior to the Reformation, always upholding the current Catholic canon.[12] Examples include the Council of Rome (382), the Council of Hippo (393), and the Third and Fourth Councils of Carthage (397, 418).[13] All of these affirmed the Catholic canon as we know it today, while none affirmed the Protestant canon.
This exact canon also had the total support of important Church Fathers like St. Augustine (Christian Instruction, 397).[14] In 405, Pope St. Innocent also taught the Catholic canon in a letter to Exsuperius, Bishop of Toulouse,[15] the same year that St. Jerome completed the Latin Vulgate translation of the Bible at the request of the Popes. A thousand years later, while seeking reunion with the Copts, the Church affirmed the same canon at the ecumenical[16] Council of Florence in 1442.[17] When the canon became a serious issue following the Protestant schism in the early 1500s, Trent dogmatically defined what the Church had consistently taught for more than 1,000 years.
And....
...
...
...
To conclude (Logical point of view that's going to make you say 'Eh... Ya la ho.., and less technical, I promise!)
If the Bible requires the Church for its compilation/canonization (since the Bible doesn't appear from thin air or drop from the sky all of a sudden one day), I would think that the decision process to decide on the Canon would have to be "inspired" by God. I think the same kind of Grace would be required to decide on what books to include in the Bible Canon as was required to write the books in the first place. To me there are 4 possibilities.
- God did not inspire the decision on the Canon.
- God gave the Jews that Grace in the 2nd century A.D. when they chose the Masoretic (similar to Hebrew/Palestinian) Canon, i.e. (after they rejected his son, the Messiah)
- God gave the Reformation that Grace in 1546
- God give the Catholic Church that Grace at Carthage in 397 A.D.
The final lists produced by the various councils who were inspired by the Holy Spirit to determine which books were in the Bible are the very same lists which give us the books of the New Testament. If you don't trust the lists for the Old Testament, why do you trust them for the New Testament?
Everybody loves visual media.
Believe it or not, but for God's sake please watch the videos below and give them a deep, deep thought about them, because it is a serious matter of your own eternal salvation.
This program is from RealCatholicTV.com
Please click the large space below (if you can't see the video) and download the video to watch the 2nd part of 'Where did the Bible come from?'.
This program is from RealCatholicTV.com
Headache yet? Just because Catholic Church has so much to learn about does not make her wrong and that the much simplified and easier versions of Christianity to be right. If you really know the Bible, you'll know that from the OT to the NT, being a true follower of Christ/God was never easy and simple. If you are looking for a Christianity that is all simple, all happy and all easy you might as well not being a Christian at all, since [Matthew 7: 21 “Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven.] and [Philippians 2:12 ... work out your own salvation with fear and trembling.] Please don't take our God, nor His sacrifice for granted. I beg you, don't be complacent with whatever comfort zone you're in. Never stop searching for Him!
The Church knows it and this is reflected in the history of our saints, in the teachings, in the things we do in honouring Him. After all, the Church has 2000 years of unbroken history and knowledge revealed and protected unfailingly all these time by the Holy Spirit (as promised by Jesus Christ Himself) since the pentecost of Jesus' time! [Matthew 28:20 ... I am with you always, even unto the end of the world. Amen.] Everything we do has reasons and a purpose, in terms of biblically, common sense and historically. Don't believe me? Stay up-to-date with me on this blog. I have so much more that I'm aching to share with you readers!
Depending on my inspirations, coming topics might be...
The Bible and Its role in Catholic Church.
The Bible and Its interpretation.
Sola Scriptura?
Other references that I used: http://www.catholicscomehome.org/ http://www.realcatholictv.com/ http://www.cuf.org/ http://www.catholic.com/
No comments:
Post a Comment