Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
The problem is that, while we hold that Jerome was doctor of the Church, it doesn't mean that he carries any authority.
So you just answered the question you asked me. Even though he was the one who could speak the languages the of the original manuscripts, those "in authority" disregarded his expertise and went their own way. Yet we're supposed to simply believe they had a better grasp of it?
It had nothing to do with the translation, which Jerome supplied. It had to do with the use of the Deuterocanon in Liturgy.
One. More. Time. Jerome carried no authority to do away with the DeuteroCanonicals, so his opinion doesn't matter. Just as the pope cannot change the priesthood to include women. He doesn't have the authority to do it.
I've stated many times, that citation in the NT has nothing to do with the canonicity of the Deuterocanonicals, but we do have many cases where they are cited, whether BBBBBBB agrees, or not.
I'll ask again, will you address bbbbbbb's point?
Which point is that? Concerning alleged Deuterocanonical citations in the New Testament? Since I haven't claimed there are any I don't know what about it you want me to say.
-CryptoLutheran
The problem is that, while we hold that Jerome was doctor of the Church, it doesn't mean that he carries any authority.
Thank youActually many did, and we're excoriated for it. That's all beside the point, as it was an act of addition by the rcc to include the apocrypha. This means the apocrypha was not a part of the original canon. This leaves the rcc without a footing.
Why not quote him and his reply instead of simply broad brushing an amorphous response? He laid it out pretty nicely. It shouldn't be much for you to show every instance mentioned is in fact mentioned in the nt, right? And what is "that citation"? I was under the impression there were dozens of citations. As I said, will you respond to what bbbbbbb has posted or not?
Thank you
I suppose this comes down to whether or not one has a text-based faith or not; the teachings of Christianity preceded the inspired writing of the NT, and Christianity received the OT primarily as the LXX (which includes both proto-canon and deuterocanon).
That the Holy Scriptures are the crown of what was received is undisputed I would think across Christianity; that the Holy Scriptures were part of what was received is the view of the earliest Christians (as, indisputably, they had no NT). The holding as a precious deposit what was received is a responsibility.
The (modern) view of a culture heavily marked by literacy is certainly demonstrated in threads disputing the references in the NT of the deuterocanon (which here also utilizes a selective, ie inconsistent, application of the claimed standard regarding its own shorter canon) literate cultures tend to require a form of citation that is unlike mixed-literate and pre-literate cultures. (And literate cultures may miss that even citations that conform to their standards are meant in a different way in mixed-and-pre-literate cultures, where the citation is not a 'stand-alone quote, but often meant to bring the entire context of the quote to mind, not just the quoted line; so, for example, where a Psalm is quoted it is the entire Psalm that is "meant" by the quote.)
It's not written in stone, brother. He renounced his error later. I did quote it earlier, if you bother to look.
But what difference does it make? The answer is, none at all. The fact is that there are books in your canon which have zero attestation in the NT, so that doesn't matter as to whether or not a book is canonical.
One. More. Time. Jerome carried no authority to do away with the DeuteroCanonicals, so his opinion doesn't matter. Just as the pope cannot change the priesthood to include women. He doesn't have the authority to do it.
I've stated many times, that citation in the NT has nothing to do with the canonicity of the Deuterocanonicals, but we do have many cases where they are cited, whether BBBBBBB agrees, or not.
That's kind of true, but pretty meaningless unless the proto-canonical OT and the deuterocanonical OT each existed as well defined blocks where the whole block was either attested or not. But of course that's not a sensible starting point - each book is an entity in itself. If one is going to insist on attestation as a criterion that criterion needs to be applied separately to each book. People weren't walking around in the first century with one volume labeled OT-protocanonical, and another labeled deutocanonical. They had individal scrolls, what collection of scrolls different people had would have varied.However, it apparently does make a very bid difference to some Catholics who go so far as to create lists of alleged citations of the DC in the NT. It also make a big difference to those at CF who decided to cut and paste these lists to show us benighted Protestants the legitimacy of the DC.
The reality, of course, is that, unlike many books of the OT which are quoted directlly in the NT and/or are cited directly, there are absolutely no direct quotations or citation of the DC in the NT. Instead, one is left with possible implications.
You really need to step back one more stage - who gets to decide what constitutes a "citation", and on what grounds?So, these "many cases" do not appear on the list of the OP. Would you care to start with the first one and we will see whether or not it is actually a citation. A citation, BTW, is where Jesus would say, "As it is written in the Psalms . . ."
You really need to step back one more stage - who gets to decide what constitutes a "citation", and on what grounds?
That's a statement of very approximately where you want to draw a line. You haven't justified drawing it there. The implication seems to be: this is modern practice in referring to texts so this the model we should impose back on ancient texts.It's like this:
There's a report from the Department of Transportation that states that cell phones are a major contributor to car crashes.
The New York Times reports on a car crash where the driver was using a phone.
Is this a citation? No.
The department of transportation releases a report that states cell phones are a major contributor to crashes.
The New York Times reports on a crash where the driver was using a phone and says "according to the DOT, cell phones are a major cause of crashes". Is this a citation? Yes.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?