How so? I read nothing in their Bible that changes that. No. Augustine was instrumental in casting it out. And all the Magisterial reformers were slavishly devoted to Augustine. In fact, I would make the arguement that the Reformation of the 16th century was not a back-to-the-Bible movement, but rather a back-to-Augustine movement, and I'm no longer just talking about Biblical canon.
As to the first point, the Book of Enoch is the issue (for me anyway) - there are some really wild things in that book that don't jibe with reality and therefore force an "allegorical" interpretation, like the Catholics use with Genesis 1 and 2.
I agree with you regarding Augustine, and think it's an interesting point. I did not look at it that way before, and I thank you for it.
Theologically, it has struck me that the Protestant religion, or at least the portions of it that I have encountered, is what I describe as "All Paul, all the time." Paul's interpretations seem to pervade every aspect of everything.
Now, the trouble (for me, again), is that when Peter says that "Paul is confusing", I think that Peter is being generous. Paul is contradictory in parts, not just with himself, or with James (in particular), but also the implications of some things Paul says conflict with Jesus.
In my experience, wherever those conflicts arise, Protestants always go with Paul. In every one of those cases, I always go with Jesus. So even when I do "Bible Alone" thinking, to try to not annoy a Protestant interlocutor for the sake of annoying him (I won't bring up Mary, Purgatory, the Papacy, Transubstantiation, prayers to Saints, calling priests "Father" - the old chestnuts of discord - unless he does, then I'll mostly defend all of the Catholic positions), I still end up at loggerheads, because Jesus speaks of degrees of sin (James contradicts Jesus with his "break one law, break 'em all" argument), and Jesus very clearly speaks of judgment based on deeds, and on the importance of deeds, over and over and over again (while Paul is interpreted to mean faith alone).
To me it's a no-brainer that when Jesus speaks, that trumps everything automatically, and that if anybody is going to be read literally, it should be him.
This is so obvious to me I am surprised that there is not a sect of Christianity devoted to that very proposition (there seems to be one devoted to everything else!)
I try not to judge Augustine for what I perceive to be his obnoxious character, but it's fair to say that because I think he's a bad role model, I don't give his doctrines any more than a feather's weight. I find the whole Augustinian and Aquinan justification of violence by officialdom as being in persistent, violent opposition to what God actually gave as law, which (again further) causes me to not bother with Augustine. He's not God, and he says things that I think are pretty stupid.
Obviously, this further estranges me from common ground with Protestants, because I place Paul's letter at the bottom of New Testament authority, and I think Augustine was a jerk with pretty bad ideas.
I suppose to complete the trifecta, Jerome's opinion about Jewish ideas about the canonicity of their Scripture does not strike me as being anything more than the opinion of a guy. The opinion of his employer - Pope Damacus - strikes me as having much greater persuasive authority in selecting what is canon than Jerome's. So, Jerome didn't think certain books were proper canon, because he was a demi-Judaizer whose linguistic ability with Hebrew was the result of extensive contact with Jewish language and thought - and he went a bit native - and was wrong. Pope Damacus was obviously the person with the greater authority to decide such things.
Why, then, the great importance placed on Jerome's (bad) opinion on the matter of canon? Because it gets where some people want to get. Why, then, they don't show the courage of their convictions about Jerome and use his Vulgate as THE authoritative text - given the authority they give his scholarship - is to me just a blatantly obvious case of special pleading.
In general, I would say that the ability of European Christians to translate Hebrew was uniformly bad from the fall of the Roman Empire until the 19th Century, when the post-revolutionary European states tolerated Jews and allowed them prominence in higher education. The notion that some medieval Englishmen or Frenchmen, in countries that had driven their Jews nearly all out, into Eastern Europe, had any particular skill in translating or understanding Hebrew is just preposterous. They didn't. It wasn't until Christians included Jews in the scholarship that the Christians had any creditable translations of Hebrew. Jerome's Vulgate was the best translation of the Hebrew in existence in Western Europe until the 20th Century scholarship brought educated Jews and a plethora of new manuscript discoveries to the fore.
As far as Greek goes, Western European Greek knowledge was not good either. The Byzantine Texts were NEW, which offered the possibility of breaking with some traditions arising from Latin translations. Truth is, to this day the most reliable translations of the Greek New Testament into English are done by Greeks. The Eastern Orthodox Bible New Testament is the most accurate translation into English, in my view, because the Greeks speak their language and understand its nuances better than any non-Greek speakers can, and because the Greek Orthodox have chosen the best manuscripts (and have that ephemeral apostolic authority and promise of grace to have the higher authority to make such a selection). In short, the Patriarchal Text IS the "correct" Greek manuscript of the New Testament, and using anything else is special pleading, in my eyes.
You are a scholarly and knowledgeable person. I think you are the sort of Protestant with whom I could have a real conversation about the aspects of our collective religion that I find interesting, and that you do too.
Everywhere else here it just turns into a fight over Mary and statues. I wouldn't mind actually discussing those things intelligently (in part because they're so peripheral to the way I practice the religion that I'm not really emotionally invested in them, but in larger part to demonstrate that there is in fact a very strong intellectual and factual argument FOR the Catholic practice), but I haven't found the sort of intellectual Protestant who is capable of doing it.
You clearly are that. I like that. I would like to have this discussion with you. I just had to scroll up to see your denomination. I was expecting to see "Lutheran", because I have found Lutherans to be the closest to Catholics (Anglicans would seem to be, but the political business regarding the Papacy and the history of England queer the relationship.) "Baptist" surprises me.
And pleases me. I have generally found Baptists to be the very hardest people to get along with or have a religious conversation with, precisely because of the lack of ability to place academic distance between themselves and the subject matter to be able to discuss it platonicaly or hypothetically.
Given, then, my decision earlier today on a couple of other threads to stink up the pool, shake the dust off my sandals and walk away from any further discussion, I am pleased by the thought of being able to have a really intelligent discussion with a well-educated Baptist.
Perhaps this is not the thread for it. Maybe a "A Baptist and a Catholic Talk over Tea" would be a better thread for it. Maybe I'll start that thread and address it to you.
Only if you're interested, of course.
