1st Clement and the Canon

[kern]

How did the St. Joseph edition of the NAB that I have get the Imprimatur when there is so much of this "higher criticism" in it?

Is JEPD also against Catholic teaching (i.e. must you believe that Moses wrote the Torah?)

-Chris

 

[The Squalid Wanderer]

Dear Chris,

I would ask you to consider the content of this article: http://www.cathinsight.com/apologetics/criticism.htm

And then consider the following:

Matthew 8:4
And Jesus said to him, "See that you tell no one; but go your way, show yourself to the priest, and offer the gift that Moses commanded, as a testimony to them."

Matthew 19:
7They said to Him, "Why then did Moses command to give a certificate of divorce, and to put her away?"
8He said to them, "Moses, because of the hardness of your hearts, permitted you to divorce your wives, but from the beginning it was not so.

Mark 7:10
For Moses said, "Honor your father and your mother';[7:10 Exodus 20:12; Deuteronomy 5:16] and, "He who curses father or mother, let him be put to death.'[ Exodus 21:17]

Mark 12:26
But concerning the dead, that they rise, have you not read in the book of Moses, in the burning bush passage, how God spoke to him, saying, "I am the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob'?[

Luke 2:22
Now when the days of her purification according to the law of Moses were completed, they brought Him to Jerusalem to present Him to the Lord

John 1:17
For the law was given through Moses, but grace and truth came through Jesus Christ.

John 5:46
For if you believed Moses, you would believe Me; for he wrote about Me.

Acts 3:22
For Moses truly said to the fathers, "The LORD your God will raise up for you a Prophet like me from your brethren. Him you shall hear in all things, whatever He says to you.

Romans 10:5
For Moses writes about the righteousness which is of the law, "The man who does those things shall live by them."[10:5 Leviticus 18:5]

Romans 10:19
But I say, did Israel not know? First Moses says: "I will provoke you to jealousy by those who are not a nation, I will move you to anger by a foolish nation."[10:19 Deuteronomy 32:21]

1 Corinthians 9:9
For it is written in the law of Moses, "You shall not muzzle an ox while it treads out the grain."[9:9 Deuteronomy 25:4]

Concerning your St. Joseph edition of the NAB, perhaps this criticism of that edition will help:

Just a few of the problems with it:


1. It does not even mention that the "woman" in Revelation 12 is Mary, and instead gives another interpretation, even though the Magisterium has taught with great frequency that she represents Mary, including in the Catechism (and, incidentally, the argument that she is Mary is very good).

2. When confornted with a difficulty in the OT, the footnote writers are content to dismiss it as simply that OT writer's point-of-view, not even seeing that there's an issue of Biblical inerrancy.


3. In the intro to the edition, they give a really ambiguous and harmful interpretation of what Vatican II meant by inerrancy in the Bible, to suggest that the inerrancy only matters as far as what pertains to our salvation, and not historicity.


4. They apply overly confident form criticism to the Gospels, to impugn against their historicty over and over again, contrary to Vatican II, which emphaticaly affirmed the historicity of the Gospels, and contrary to an important Church text officially approved by Paul VI and thus part of his Magisterium.


5. They assign late dates of authorship for the books of the Bible, based on the false idea that the Gospels could not really be predicting the future, and thus had to be written *after* the events predicted. (Note how many problems are contained in this approach: a denial of the supernatural, a view that words are invented and retrojected back into Jesus' mouth, a denial of the Church teaching that the Gospels were written shortly after the events, etc.)


7. They constantly cast doubt on authentic authorship of the books of the NT, contrary to the Church Fathers.


8. In one case, in Luke's transcription of Jesus' words, they even say Luke stitched together different speeches badly, so that the actual Bible text doesn't even make sense.


The NAB translation itself is not harmful. I am not personally fond of it, but the translation is not harmful. My problem is with the introductions, commentaries, and footnotes.


The fact that it has an imprimatur and nihil obstat is what made me buy it, too. People should be aware, however, that an imprimatur and nihil obstat are not a Magisterial acts and do not call for assent. Moreover, the teachings of the pope (and an ecumenical council) override a decision of a bishop's assistant granting an imprimatur. Always remember that a pope is higher than anyone in the Church (except, of course, our Lord Himself). If any bishop, any expert, any great saint, anybody, says something contrary to the pope's magisterium, always go with the pope's magisterium.

 

[NumberOneSon]

Here is what I mean. In a sense it isn't the only criteria, since there would be other measures to judge it by. Four commonly accepted criteria are:

1. Apostolic Origin – attributed to and based on the preaching/teaching of the first-generation apostles (or their close companions).

2. Universal Acceptance – acknowledged by all major Christian communities in the ancient world (by the end of the fourth century).

3. Liturgical Use – read publicly when early Christian communities gathered for the Lord's Supper (their weekly worship services).

4. Consistent Message – containing a theological outlook similar or complementary to other accepted Christian writings.

Hi Wanderer,

I have been familiar with these criteria, yes.  So beyond "Apostolic Origin", did Clement's first Epistle clash with any of the other three criteria?   The "Consistent Message", for instance?  I do realize that the epistle was pastoral in nature and not doctrinal, but were there any internal problems with the message that caused it to be rejected (i.e., something beyond his belief in an actual "phoenix").

Also, at which council was it actually shut out of the canon once and for all?  Thanks for the help.

In Christ,

Acts6:5 

 

[The Squalid Wanderer]

Dear Acts6:5,

No, I believe the lack of claim toward Apostolic origin was the deciding factor.

Honestly, I do not know which council shut it out of the canon once and for all. More than any one council, it was excluded by a growing consensus of the Church which found it's expression in individual letters and finally culminating in a couple of councils. I can't really put my finger on just one factor.

 

[dignitized]

acts: the works accpeted into the canon had to have ALL the criteria. As much as the clement text was liked, it could not be included because it did not fit all the criteria.

 

[NumberOneSon]

Thanks, Wanderer and Br. Max, for the information. It was appreciated.

In Christ,

Acts6:5

 

[kern]

Originally posted by The Squalid Wanderer
Dear Chris,

I would ask you to consider the content of this article: http://www.cathinsight.com/apologetics/criticism.htm

I don't particularly like that page because it doesn't address the scholarship that has gone into the documentary hypothesis; it just waves it all aside with ad hominem attacks and "you can't prove it because the sources aren't extant" (but I consider it intellectually dishonest to say that JEPD is false because there's no proof, while accepting a different theory which also has no proof (that Moses was the author). Better to just argue from a theological viewpoint if you're going to do that.)

And then consider the following:

None of these passages present a problem except for John 5:46 and Romans 10:5. The others only talk about what "Moses said", which doesn't necessairly mean that he wrote anything. Also, Moses *did* write stone tablets of law, so "Moses wrote" does not necessarily need to refer to the Torah.

Concerning your St. Joseph edition of the NAB, perhaps this criticism of that edition will help:

All I can say is that so-called "higher criticism" has strengthened my faith rather than weakening it.

-Chris

 

[The Squalid Wanderer]

Dear Chris,

It appears we have reached the natural conclusion to our discussion, since you will not consider the evidence.

1. There is proof of Moses authorship. The testimony of the Church found in Scripture and Tradition.

2. Perhaps you didn't read those passages carefully enough. What they were referring to that Moses wrote included more than just the Decalogue.

3. I offered that criticism in response to a specific question:

How did the St. Joseph edition of the NAB that I have get the Imprimatur when there is so much of this "higher criticism" in it?

That question has been answered. If you refuse to accept the answer on the grounds that you think Higher Criticism has helped you by casting doubt upon the witness of the Church found in Scripture and Tradition, then so be it.

I believe then that we have found a conclusion to our discussion

 

[kern]

Originally posted by The Squalid Wanderer
Dear Chris,

It appears we have reached the natural conclusion to our discussion, since you will not consider the evidence.

I would be glad to read some sites or books that discuss the JEPD hypothesis in depth. Unfortunately, the site you linked to is more interested in false ad hominem (i.e. the people who believe and come up with these theories are anti-Christian people trying to destroy the Church and religion) They make some vague references to "many" who are rejecting the documentary theory and provide a few quotes with no attribution, and one source.

That question has been answered. If you refuse to accept the answer on the grounds that you think Higher Criticism has helped you by casting doubt upon the witness of the Church found in Scripture and Tradition, then so be it.

That makes it sound so negative, but the "inerrant scriptures" were a big hurdle when I was still an agnostic. I had read the explanations of the contradictions and problems, but I was never (and still am not) convinced -- it seemed like many of the people explaining away the contradictions were doing backflips through flaming hoops to hold on to the idea that every single word of the Bible is infallible.

The idea of oral traditions passed down and then put into writing later not only explains the contradictions, but it makes sense in light of what we know from most ancient cultures (that they were more given to oral transmission of stories rather than writing them down).

An extended discussion of this is perhaps not appropriate to this thread since it was supposed to be about 1 Clement, so if you're interested in discussing this further (which it does not appear you are) we can start a new thread.

-Chris

 

[kern]

So Wolseley posted in a recent thread on the Apocrypha that Jonah and Judith were religious novels rather than historical truth, and that Daniel was not written by the prophet but a number of years later. Isn't this "higher criticism" as well? It just seems like not everyone rejects this, even some of the conservative Catholics.

I'm not trying to pick fights or anything, I'm just trying to understand what "Biblical infallibility" really means to the Catholic church.

-Chris

 

[The Squalid Wanderer]

Did you see my other post for you?

As for Wolselely's post, you should probably ask him that question.

 

[NumberOneSon]

Does anyone know if there are various versions/translations of 1st Clement?  By that I mean versions of 1st Clement, each claiming to be the original epistle, but differing from each other in content and teaching?  I've heard there are.  I'm not referring to the  psuedo-Clementine writings, by the way. 

Any insight?

In Christ,

Acts6:5

 

[Angelus00]

Squalid,

Where can I find your source for the criteria used to determine the canon?


1. Apostolic Origin – attributed to and based on the preaching/teaching of the first-generation apostles (or their close companions).

2. Universal Acceptance – acknowledged by all major Christian communities in the ancient world (by the end of the fourth century).

3. Liturgical Use – read publicly when early Christian communities gathered for the Lord's Supper (their weekly worship services).

4. Consistent Message – containing a theological outlook similar or complementary to other accepted Christian writings.

 

[Defender of the Faith 777]

When was were the Apocryphal books written?

 

[Defender of the Faith 777]

Originally posted by Angelus00
Squalid,

Where can I find your source for the criteria used to determine the canon?


1. Apostolic Origin – attributed to and based on the preaching/teaching of the first-generation apostles (or their close companions).

2. Universal Acceptance – acknowledged by all major Christian communities in the ancient world (by the end of the fourth century).

3. Liturgical Use – read publicly when early Christian communities gathered for the Lord's Supper (their weekly worship services).

4. Consistent Message – containing a theological outlook similar or complementary to other accepted Christian writings.

These criterion are used by us as well. Oddly we use it to show the Apocrypha was not inspired. A fifth criterion would be inspiration: Is there any place that it claims inspiration for itself? Is there any sense or evidence of "Thus saith the LORD", or was it origanlly written as a story? Bel and the Dragon sounded and still sounds like a story (this is another name for one of them, I cannot remember which). They claim no inspiration, are written by unknown authors, and teach Biblically contradictory material. Test 6: Were they quoted by Christ or the apostles, or is there even a reference to any verse in any book in the apocrypha?Prior to the Reformation, and AFTER 325 at the Council of Nicaea, they were put there as edifying material. Only Constantine and a few others truly accepted its inspiration. But Constantine was not a scholarly Christian with education. He converted because he won a war through a vision. The apocrypha was there because it was seen as an edifying paraBiblical source of information.

Martin Luther then completely took them out, because the Catholic church used verses from them as if they were inspired to support Biblically inconsistent teachings. This pushed the church to the opposite extreme, of canonizing them along with the others. This is our understanding of the Apocrypha. They fail test 1, 2 (only some accepted it), 4, 5, and 6. 3 is debateable because though it was read, whether or not they read it with the same reverance they read the Scriptures is contraversial. Nevertheless, they do not pass 1, 2, 4, 5, and 6. This has been my understanding of them. I read them as historical documents, but not the Word of God.

 

[VOW]

Uh, Defender:

You need to revise your information. The Canon, once set, was never tampered with again. And the Deuterocanonicals ARE referenced, not only in the Gospels, but in the Epistles, too.

Have you even READ them, yourself?


Peace,
~VOW

 

[Hoonbaba]

Originally posted by Acts6:5
Hi Wanderer,

I have been familiar with these criteria, yes.  So beyond "Apostolic Origin", did Clement's first Epistle clash with any of the other three criteria?   The "Consistent Message", for instance?  I do realize that the epistle was pastoral in nature and not doctrinal, but were there any internal problems with the message that caused it to be rejected (i.e., something beyond his belief in an actual "phoenix").

Also, at which council was it actually shut out of the canon once and for all?  Thanks for the help.

In Christ,

Acts6:5 

Hi Acts6:5,

I read somewhere that 1 Clement was considered scripture by some up until the Council at Carthage in 397AD.

God bless!

-Jason

 

[Hoonbaba]

Originally posted by Acts6:5
Does anyone know if there are various versions/translations of 1st Clement?  By that I mean versions of 1st Clement, each claiming to be the original epistle, but differing from each other in content and teaching?  I've heard there are.  I'm not referring to the  psuedo-Clementine writings, by the way. 

Any insight?

In Christ,

Acts6:5

Check out this page:

http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/1clement.html

It has three different translations.  And this page seems to have one unknown authored translation:

http://webcampus3.stthomas.edu/jmjoncas/LiturgicalStudiesInternetLinks/ChristianWorship/Texts/Centuries/Texts_0001_0100CE/ClementRomeFirstLetterCorinthiansc95CE.html

And then there's the ccel.org page:

http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/ANF-01/anf01-05.htm#P171_20841

God bless! =)

-Jason

P.S.  Did you read about 1 Clement and how there's evidence for a pre-70AD dating of that book? =)

 

[Wolseley]

As for Wolselely's post, you should probably ask him that question.

I tend to favor higher criticism as well, but usually only that of Catholic scholars in good standing with the Holy See (big surprise there, eh?) I may not go along with every single explanatory footnote in the St. Joseph NAB, but I freely admit that they represent the accumulated scholarship of hundreds of men much smarter than I am. And like Chris, I find that the higher criticism tends to strengthen my faith rather than shake it.

These criterion are used by us as well. Oddly we use it to show the Apocrypha was not inspired. A fifth criterion would be inspiration: Is there any place that it claims inspiration for itself? Is there any sense or evidence of "Thus saith the LORD", or was it origanlly written as a story? Bel and the Dragon sounded and still sounds like a story (this is another name for one of them, I cannot remember which).

Some of them are didactic fiction (Judith, Tobit); some of them are historical documents (1 Maccabees); and some of them are wisdom literature (Sirach, Wisdom). No different from the non-Deuterocanon. Kings and Chronicles are historical documents, Proverbs and Ecclesiastes are wisdom literature, and Jonah and possibly Job are didactic fiction.

They claim no inspiration, are written by unknown authors,

No different from non-Deutercanonicals. Who wrote Job? Who wrote Hebrews?

and teach Biblically contradictory material.

Only according to Protestant interpretation of Scripture.

Were they quoted by Christ or the apostles, or is there even a reference to any verse in any book in the apocrypha?

Yup.

Jesus and the Gospel writers referenced the Deuterocanonicals in the following instances:

Matthew 6:12, 14-15---"Forgive us our debts, as we forgive our debtors; if you forgive others their transgressions, your heavenly Father will forgive you. But if you do not forgive others, neither will your heavenly father forgive your transgressions."
Sirach 28:2---"Forgive your neighbor's injustice; then when you pray, your own sins will be forgiven."

Luke 1:17 (describing John the Baptist)---"He will go before him in the spirit and power of Elijah to turn the hearts of fathers towards children and the disobediant to the understanding of the righteous, to prepare a people fit for the Lord."
Sirach 48:10---"You are destined, it is written, in time to come, to put an end to wrath before the day of the Lord, to turn back the hearts of fathers towards their sons, and to re-establish the tribes of Jacob."

Luke 1:28, 1:42---"And coming to her, he said, 'Hail, favored one! The Lord is with you!'.....Most blessed are you among women, and blessed is the fruit of your womb."
Judith 13:18---"Then Uzziah said to her: 'Blessed are you, daughter, by the Most High God, above all the women of the earth; and blessed be the Lord God, the Creator of heaven and earth.

Luke 1:52---"He has thrown down the rulers from their thrones, but lifted up the lowly."
Sirach 10:14---"The thrones of the arrogant God overturns, and establishes the lowly in their stead."

Luke 12:19-20---"I shall say to myself, 'Now as for you, you have so many good things stored up for many years, rest, eat, drink, be merry!' But God said to him, 'You fool, this night your life will be demanded of you; and the things you have prepared, to whom will they belong?'"
Sirach 11:19---"When he says: 'I have found rest, now I will feast on my possessions,' he does not know how long it will be till he dies and leaves them to others."

Luke 18:22---"When Jesus heard this, he said to him, 'There is still one thing left for you: sell all that you have and distribute it to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven.'"
Sirach 29:11---"Dispose of your treasure as the Most High commands, for that will profit you more than the gold."

John 3:12---"If I tell you about earthly things and you do not believe, how will you believe if I tell you about heavenly things?"
Wisdom 9:16---"Scarce do we guess the things on earth, and what is within our grasp we find with difficulty; but when things are in heaven, who can search them out?"

John 5:18---"For this reason the Jews tried all the more to kill him, because he not only broke the Sabbath, but he also called God his own Father, making himself equal to God."
Wisdom 2:16---"He judges us debased; he holds aloof from our paths as from things impure. He calls blest the destiny of the just and boasts that God is his Father."

John 10:29---"My Father, who has given them to me, is greater than all, and no one can take them out of the Father's hand."
Wisdom 3:1---"But the souls of the just are in the hand of God, and no torment shall touch them."

Paul and James allude to them as well:

Romans 2:11---"There is no partiality with God."
Sirach 35:12---"For he is a God of justice, who knows no favorites."

Romans 9:21---"Or does not the potter have a right over the clay, to make out of the same lump one vessel for a noble purpose andanother fo an ignoble one?"
Wisdom 15:7---"For truly the potter, laboriously working the soft earth, molds for our service each several article: both the vessels that serve for clean purposes, and their opposites, all alike; as to what shall be the use of each vessel of eiother class, the worker in clay is the judge."

Romans 11:24---"For who has known the mind of the Lord, or who has been his counsellor?"
Wisdom 9:13---"For what man knows God's counsel, or who can conceive what the Lord intends?"

1 Thessalonians 2:16---"(The enemies of Christ persecute us), trying to prevent us from speaking to the Gentiles that they may be saved, thus constantly filling up the measure of their sins. But the wrath of God has finally begun to come upon them."
2 Maccabees 6:14---"Thus, in dealing with other nations, the Lord patiently waits until they reach the full measure of their sins before he punishes them; but with us he has decided to deal differently"

James 1:13---"No one experiencing temptation should say, 'I am being tempted by God'; for God is not subject to temptation to evil, and he himself tempts no one."
Sirach 15:11-12---"Say not: 'It was God's doing that I fell away'; for what he hates he does not do. Say not: 'It was he who set me astray'; for he has no need of wicked man."

James 5:2-3---"Your wealth has rotted away, your clothes have become moth-eaten, your gold and silver hav corroded, and that corrosion will be a testimony against you; it will devour your flesh like a fire."
Judith 16:17---'The Lord Almighty will requite them; in the day of judgement he will punish them: he will send fire and worms into their flesh, and they shall burn and suffer forever."

Now, of course, you may say that threse don't sound like exact quotes, and you'd be right; but there are thousands of allusions in the New Testament from the Old, both Deuterocanon and not, which are not exact quotes. Romans 11:34, for example, also has an allusion to Job 15:8, but ironically the allusion to Wisdom 9:13 is closer in actual wording to it than Job is. And, of course, if you want to get into loose allusions, we could expand the above list to ten times the size it is. Then there are also the cases of outright error in some New Testament quotes, such as Matthew 27:9, in which Matthew quotes "the prophet Jeremiah", when the allusion is actually found nowhere in Jeremiah but rather in Zecheriah 11:12-13.

As for some books not being quoted by Jesus in the New Testament, so what? He didn't quote from Ezra, Nehemiah, Esther, Ecclesiastes, or the Song of Solomon, either. Are they not canonical Scripture because He did not reference them?

Prior to the Reformation, and AFTER 325 at the Council of Nicaea, they were put there as edifying material. Only Constantine and a few others truly accepted its inspiration. But Constantine was not a scholarly Christian with education. He converted because he won a war through a vision. The apocrypha was there because it was seen as an edifying paraBiblical source of information.

Alternative history again. Do you have a cite for this?

Martin Luther then completely took them out, because the Catholic church used verses from them as if they were inspired to support Biblically inconsistent teachings.

No, Martin Luther took them out because he personally had problems with both Purgatory and works being required for salvation.

this pushed the church to the opposite extreme, of canonizing them along with the others.

Odd that they could be canonized after Martin Luther rejected them in the 1500's when the Canon was officially closed by Pope Innocent I in 405 AD.....at which time, I hasten to add, the Deuterocanonicals were already included.

This is our understanding of the Apocrypha.

And you are entitled to it. We simply don't happen to agree.

 

[Hoonbaba]

Hi Wolseley,

Is there a website that expands on those passages you listed?  In other words is there a page that has a entire list of correlations between the NT and the deuterocanonicals?

God bless!

-Jason