Which Canon is Right? With Michael Kruger

[The Liturgist]

Good Day,

That would be a rather current development by the Roman church for their members... Indeed

Seeing I am not a member of that denomination it would both historically and logically irrelevant.


Our analysis has shown that the vast weight of historical evidence falls on the side of excluding the Apocrypha from the category of canonical Scripture. It is interesting to note that the only two Fathers of the early Church who are considered to be true biblical scholars, Jerome and Origen (and who both spent time in the area of Palestine and were therefore familiar with the Hebrew canon), rejected the Apocrypha. And the near unanimous opinion of the Church followed this view. And coupled with this historical evidence is the fact that these writings have serious internal difficulties in that they are characterized by heresies, inconsistencies and historical inaccuracies which invalidate their being given the status of Scripture. New Catholic Encyclopedia, vol. I (Washington D.C.: Catholic University, 1967), p. 390.



In Him,

Bill

Note that neither the 1911 Catholic Encyclopedia or the 1967 New Catholic Encyclopedia represent the actual Magisterium of the Roman Catholic Church; they are unofficial but somewhat useful resources of information but not official creedal documents in any sense.

 

[chevyontheriver]

Note that neither the 1911 Catholic Encyclopedia or the 1967 New Catholic Encyclopedia represent the actual Magisterium of the Roman Catholic Church; they are unofficial but somewhat useful resources of information but not official creedal documents in any sense.

I have used the New Catholic Encyclopedia many times. And I really don't think what has been put forth as a referenced quote here is actually from the New Catholic Encyclopedia. I would also expect that the poster has probably never touched a volume of the New Catholic Encyclopedia. I have no proof of either claim that I just made, and await the poster's clarifications.

You would probably agree that the original Catholic Encyclopedia is a superior work to the new one. I've sure found that to be the case.

 

[The Liturgist]

I have used the New Catholic Encyclopedia many times. And I really don't think what has been put forth as a referenced quote here is actually from the New Catholic Encyclopedia. I would also expect that the poster has probably never touched a volume of the New Catholic Encyclopedia. I have no proof of either claim that I just made, and await the poster's clarifications.

You would probably agree that the original Catholic Encyclopedia is a superior work to the new one. I've sure found that to be the case.

I haven’t read the new one at all, but given how things were during the pontificate of Paul VI, such as what I regard as the seriously flawed implementation of Sacrosanctum Concilium under Archbishop Bugnini, and the extreme modernism, and the “wreckovations” of parishes, I would not be surprised if I found the older one preferrable, although it remains dated.

 

[chevyontheriver]

I haven’t read the new one at all, but given how things were during the pontificate of Paul VI, such as what I regard as the seriously flawed implementation of Sacrosanctum Concilium under Archbishop Bugnini, and the extreme modernism, and the “wreckovations” of parishes, I would not be surprised if I found the older one preferrable, although it remains dated.

The old one is dated but I prefer it vastly to the new one. The new one is such a limited thing. Still, even though I would always be a bit suspicious of the new one for theological reasons, I just can't see the supposed quote actually coming from that source.

 

[HARK!]

The official OT text is still the Septuagint.

There is no official text. The only officials on this subject (aside from Yahshua and YHWH) the Zadokites, who were charged by YHWH to preserve and teach his word, had multiple variants in their library, including the LXX. The vast majority of their scrolls are written in Hebrew, and some are even written in Paleo Hebrew.

Yahshua and his disciples quoted form both the LXX and the MT.

 

[HARK!]

If the teachings of commentators and theologians is discarded, who determines doctrine?

Doctrine was nailed to the pale.

We don't go by doctrine anymore.

Now that Yahshua has come, we go by every iota and serif of the Torah.

 

[GreekOrthodox]

There is no official text. The only officials on this subject (aside from Yahshua and YHWH) the Zadokites, who were charged by YHWH to preserve and teach his word, had multiple variants in their library, including the LXX. The vast majority of their scrolls are written in Hebrew, and some are even written in Paleo Hebrew.

Yahshua and his disciples quoted form both the LXX and the MT.

The official OT for the Eastern Orthodox Church is the LXX. The Septuagint and the Masoretic Text in the Orthodox Church(es)

While all of the canonical books of the Old Testament are written in Hebrew, the basis of the Old Testament text in the Orthodox tradition is the Septuagint [...] The authority of the Septuagint is based on three factors. First of all, though the Greek text is not the original language of the Old Testament books, the Septuagint does reflect the state of the original text as it would have been found in the third to second centuries BCE, while the current Hebrew text of the Bible, which is called the ‘Masoretic,’ was edited up until the eight century CE. Second, some of the citations taken from the Old Testament and found in the New mainly use the Septuagint text. Third, the Septuagint was used by both the Greek Fathers of the Church, and Orthodox liturgical services. Metropolitan Hilarion Alfeyev of Volokolamsk 2012​

 

[HARK!]

The official OT for the Eastern Orthodox Church is the LXX. The Septuagint and the Masoretic Text in the Orthodox Church(es)

While all of the canonical books of the Old Testament are written in Hebrew, the basis of the Old Testament text in the Orthodox tradition is the Septuagint [...] The authority of the Septuagint is based on three factors. First of all, though the Greek text is not the original language of the Old Testament books, the Septuagint does reflect the state of the original text as it would have been found in the third to second centuries BCE, while the current Hebrew text of the Bible, which is called the ‘Masoretic,’ was edited up until the eight century CE. Second, some of the citations taken from the Old Testament and found in the New mainly use the Septuagint text. Third, the Septuagint was used by both the Greek Fathers of the Church, and Orthodox liturgical services. Metropolitan Hilarion Alfeyev of Volokolamsk 2012​

I don't recognize any official status of the EOC. Again, I do recognize the authority of the Zadokites. The Zadokites had multiple variants of Hebrew manuscripts of scripture, dated to the 2nd and 3rd centuries BCE, which far outnumbered their Greek manuscripts. To my knowledge, the oldest copy of the LXX that we have was found at Betharaba in the library of the Zadokites.

 

[GreekOrthodox]

I'm going to take a long break from CF. A horrible tragedy happened to our next door neighbors. Please keep E, J, & C in your prayers.

 

[The Liturgist]

I'm going to take a long break from CF. A horrible tragedy happened to our next door neighbors. Please keep E, J, & C in your prayers.

Kyrie eleison!

 

[chevyontheriver]

Our analysis has shown that the vast weight of historical evidence falls on the side of excluding the Apocrypha from the category of canonical Scripture. It is interesting to note that the only two Fathers of the early Church who are considered to be true biblical scholars, Jerome and Origen (and who both spent time in the area of Palestine and were therefore familiar with the Hebrew canon), rejected the Apocrypha. And the near unanimous opinion of the Church followed this view. And coupled with this historical evidence is the fact that these writings have serious internal difficulties in that they are characterized by heresies, inconsistencies and historical inaccuracies which invalidate their being given the status of Scripture. New Catholic Encyclopedia, vol. I (Washington D.C.: Catholic University, 1967), p. 390.

You seem to have not bothered to address the veracity of this quote. Do you have any comment yet on this supposed quote from the New Catholic Encyclopedia?

 

[BBAS 64]

I'm not sure if you understand the role of the church in the case of doctrine/dogma, on matters of faith and morals. It doesn't matter what any commentator or theologian says, Catholic or otherwise, whether Augustine, Jerome, or Aquinas et al. The teaching of the church, what she settles on despite any other opinions, is the bottom line. Otherwise doctrine becomes a free for all.

Good Day,

This is an historical quote in substance as Jerome reports the view of the Church. This was included in his copy of the Latin and acceptable by then Pope of the Roman Church as accurate. If you have primary historical source to the contrary then I would be happy to consider that Jerome in not accurate in his statement historically.

Jerome clearly says as the church reads, he does not say as I read.

As the Church reads the books of Judith and Tobit and Maccabees but does not receive them among the canonical Scriptures, so also it reads Wisdom and Ecclesiasticus for the edification of the people, not for the authoritative confirmation of doctrine."

What I do understand is the name it claim it fallacy of your denomination, and seeing I am not in that denomination it is a moot point. I know you see them as authoritative and that is ok. I think you are subjectively doing so and are in error.

I do agree with the Church of Jerome's day on the issue, and read these books.

You rely on the teaching of your Church in this matter they tell you to do so, I get that. Just to be clear historically such reliance is missing.

In HIm,

Bill

 

[BBAS 64]

You seem to have not bothered to address the veracity of this quote. Do you have any comment yet on this supposed quote from the New Catholic Encyclopedia?

NO I do not.... It is historically consistent

Are you suggesting that Jerome and Origen held different views than that which is the quote or that they were unfamiliar with the Hebrew canon?

What is it about the text of the quote you find inaccurate our than the conclusion of their analysis?

In Him,

 

[fhansen]

Good Day,

This is an historical quote in substance as Jerome reports the view of the Church. This was included in his copy of the Latin and acceptable by then Pope of the Roman Church as accurate.

Jerome clearly says as the church reads, he does not say as I read.

As the Church reads the books of Judith and Tobit and Maccabees but does not receive them among the canonical Scriptures, so also it reads Wisdom and Ecclesiasticus for the edification of the people, not for the authoritative confirmation of doctrine."

What I do understand is the name it claim it fallacy of your denomination, and seeing I am not in that denomination it is a moot point. I know you see them as authoritative and that is ok. I think you are subjectively doing so and are in error.

You rely on the teaching of your Church in this matter they tell you to do so, I get that. Just to be clear historically such reliance is missing.

In HIm,

Bill

An offhand comment, no matter how seriously he may have held it or where he wrote it, by an individual theologian, translator, etc simply does not constitute official church teaching. Dogma is set down and sanctioned by the church, itself, or it never becomes dogma. That's why, when it happens, the church decides what the canon consists of, not Jerome. Or in the case of basic doctrine it isn't considered to be such unless continously and consistently taught throughout time from the sources and within the setting where such teachings are naturally meant to be taught.

 

[chevyontheriver]

NO I do not.... It is historically consistent

Are you suggesting that Jerome and Origen held different views than that which is the quote or that they were unfamiliar with the Hebrew canon?

What is it about the text of the quote you find inaccurate our than the conclusion of their analysis?

In Him,

Your supposed quote indicates that it is sourced from the New Catholic Encyclopedia. Is it from the New Catholic Encyclopedia? You seem to think so, or am I mistaken about that? Have you actually touched and read page 390 of the New Catholic Encyclopedia?

Our analysis has shown that the vast weight of historical evidence falls on the side of excluding the Apocrypha from the category of canonical Scripture. It is interesting to note that the only two Fathers of the early Church who are considered to be true biblical scholars, Jerome and Origen (and who both spent time in the area of Palestine and were therefore familiar with the Hebrew canon), rejected the Apocrypha. And the near unanimous opinion of the Church followed this view. And coupled with this historical evidence is the fact that these writings have serious internal difficulties in that they are characterized by heresies, inconsistencies and historical inaccuracies which invalidate their being given the status of Scripture. New Catholic Encyclopedia, vol. I (Washington D.C.: Catholic University, 1967), p. 390.

 

[pescador]

An offhand comment, no matter how seriously he may have held it or where he wrote it, by an individual theologian, translator, etc simply does not constitute official church teaching. Dogma is set down and sanctioned by the church, itself, or it never becomes dogma. That's why, when it happens, the church decides what the canon consists of, not Jerome. Or in the case of basic doctrine it isn't considered to be such unless continously and consistently taught throughout time from the sources and within the setting where such teachings are naturally meant to be taught.

I assume by "the church" you're referring to the Catholic church. The church, according to the Bible, is the body of Christ. The Catholic church (or more properly, the Catholic denomination) is not mentioned anywhere in Scripture.

"Dogma is set down and sanctioned by the church, itself, or it never becomes dogma" is applicable to the Catholic denomination only.

 

[chevyontheriver]

An offhand comment, no matter how seriously he may have held it or where he wrote it, by an individual theologian, translator, etc simply does not constitute official church teaching. Dogma is set down and sanctioned by the church, itself, or it never becomes dogma. That's why, when it happens, the church decides what the canon consists of, not Jerome. Or in the case of basic doctrine it isn't considered to be such unless continously and consistently taught throughout time from the sources and within the setting where such teachings are naturally meant to be taught.

And Jerome did accept all of the books of the Bible in the end. So it's kind of a moot point claiming the authority of Jerome for not including all the books when he did, in the end, include and accept all the books. Cherry picking the writing of Jerome to support a diminished canon isn't very honest. Jerome had his opinions, and then Jerome went ahead and included all of the books in his translation.

 

[fhansen]

I assume by "the church" you're referring to the Catholic church. The church, according to the Bible, is the body of Christ. The Catholic church (or more properly, the Catholic denomination) is not mentioned anywhere in Scripture.

There's only one church, there can only be one church, by whatever name. And it's not divided over basic beliefs. So, for example. the church assembled the writings of NT Scripture as well as the entire canon of the bible and hammered out the doctrine of the Trinity. The church teaches that baptism regenerates and that Jesus is really present in the Eucharist and that a believer may compromise his state of justice and so lose his salvation and that salvation involves a journey throughout whatever time God grants us in this life with whatever time and opportunity and grace and knowlege/revelation we have to work out our salvation, after which God decides our eternal destinies. And that's consistent with Scripture and the ECFs as well.

 

[BBAS 64]

Your supposed quote indicates that it is sourced from the New Catholic Encyclopedia. Is it from the New Catholic Encyclopedia? You seem to think so, or am I mistaken about that? Have you actually touched and read page 390 of the New Catholic Encyclopedia?

Good Day,

Yes I have one of my best friends in a member of the Church of Rome and has a copy.

In Him,

Bill

 

[BBAS 64]

And Jerome did accept all of the books of the Bible in the end. So it's kind of a moot point claiming the authority of Jerome for not including all the books when he did, in the end, include and accept all the books. Cherry picking the writing of Jerome to support a diminished canon isn't very honest. Jerome had his opinions, and then Jerome went ahead and included all of the books in his translation.

Good Day, Chevyontheriver

Jerome never said he did not accept them. He recognized the use of the books in the Church as they are read by the Church and historically he is correct and he did translate them.

As to the authority of Jerome:

Cardinal Cajetan (contemporary of Luther) wrote a commentary on all the canonical books of the Old Testament which he dedicated to the pope. He stated that the books of the Apocrypha were not canonical in the strict sense, explaining that there were two concepts of the term 'canonical' as it applied to the Old Testament. He gave the following counsel on how to properly interpret the decrees of the Councils of Hippo and Carthage under Augustine:




Here we close our commentaries on the historical books of the Old Testament. For the rest (that is, Judith, Tobit, and the books of Maccabees) are counted by St Jerome out of the canonical books, and are placed amongst the Apocrypha, along with Wisdom and Ecclesiasticus, as is plain from the Prologus Galeatus. Nor be thou disturbed, like a raw scholar, if thou shouldest find anywhere, either in the sacred councils or the sacred doctors, these books reckoned as canonical. For the words as well of councils as of doctors are to be reduced to the correction of Jerome. Now, according to his judgment, in the epistle to the bishops Chromatius and Heliodorus, these books (and any other like books in the canon of the bible) are not canonical, that is, not in the nature of a rule for confirming matters of faith. Yet, they may be called canonical, that is, in the nature of a rule for the edification of the faithful, as being received and authorised in the canon of the bible for that purpose. By the help of this distinction thou mayest see thy way clearly through that which Augustine says, and what is written in the provincial council of Carthage.

Now I find the words of this Cardinal to be quite interesting and really do find his words more compelling historically authoritative ( pre-Trent) then any thing you may add at this point. Just to add this Cardinal would be in agreement with Luther on the question.

Are you willing to take historical correction as suggested by this Cardinal (pre-trent)?

We see here before Jerome and is consistent with the Church of Jerome's time:

I also write, by way of remembrance, of matters with which you are acquainted, influenced by the need and advantage of the Church. In proceeding to make mention of these things, I shall adopt, to commend my undertaking, the pattern of Luke the Evangelist, saying on my own account: 'Forasmuch as some have taken in hand,' to reduce into order for themselves the books termed apocryphal, and to mix them up with the divinely inspired Scripture, concerning which we have been fully persuaded, as they who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and ministers of the Word, delivered to the fathers; it seemed good to me also, having been urged thereto by true brethren, and having learned from the beginning, to set before you the books included in the Canon, and handed down, and accredited as Divine...There are, then, of the Old Testament, twenty-two books in number; for, as I have heard, it is handed down that this is the number of the letters among the Hebrews...there are other books besides these not indeed included in the Canon, but appointed by the Fathers to be read by those who newly join us, and who wish for instruction in the word of godliness. The Wisdom of Solomon, and the Wisdom of Sirach, and Esther, and Judith, and Tobit" (Athanasius, Festal Letter 39:2-4, 39:7)

I agree.

In Him,

Bill