No such action

From Kristos Vocabulary Booster

The action specified by the URL is not recognized by the wiki

Return to Main Page.

In article <090.36.14.05.368829000@srcbs.org>, basicallyblues says...
>
>
>
>Stephen Adams wrote:
>
>>I'm not Matthew, but the answer is, catholic yes, Roman, no. The
>>books of the OT that Protestants call "Apocrypha" or
>"Deuterocanonical"
>>are accepted by the vast majority of Christians in the world, Roman
>>Catholic & Orthodox. The books were removed by the radical reformers.
>
>
>Well here's some arguments against their inclusion in the canon:

So you say. But upon further review, we find that they are _not_ 'arguments',
just unsupported assertions with a generous sprinkling of nonsense disguised as
history.

>
>While in some cases they have certain historical value, any claim for
>canonicity on the part of these writings is without any solid
>foundation.

Here is an unsupported (and unsupportable) assertion...

> The evidence points to a closing of the Hebrew canon
>following the writing of the books of Ezra, Nehemiah, and Malachi in
>the fifth century B.C.E.\

Followed immediately by some nonsense disguised as history. No, 'Blue', there is
NO EVIDENCE THAT SUCH A CANON EVEN EXISTED THAT EARLY! Not among the Jews, nor
among anyone else. The Jews did not close their Canon until _after_
Christiantiy. And they seem to have done it _in reaction_ to Christianity.

> The Apocryphal writings were never included in
>the Jewish canon of inspired Scriptures and do not form part of it
>today.

WHAT 'Canon'? They did not _have_ a Canon back then. But they _did_ translate
all four books of Maccabees into Greek, and also Judith and Esther and
Ecclesiasticus and the Wisdom of Solomon and Tobit. And they way they _used_
these books is hard to distinguish from the way they used the Kethubim.

>The first-century Jewish historian Josephus shows the recognition given
>only to those few books (of the Hebrew canon) viewed as sacred,
>stating:
>
> "We do not possess myriads of inconsistent books, conflicting with
>each other. Our books, those which are justly accredited, are but two
>and twenty [the equivalent of the 39 books of the Hebrew Scriptures
>according to modern division], and contain the record of all time."
>He thereafter clearly shows an awareness of the existence of Apocryphal
>books and their exclusion from the Hebrew canon by adding: "From
>Artaxerxes to our own time the complete history has been written, but
>has not been deemed worthy of equal credit with the earlier records,
>because of the failure of the exact succession of the
>prophets."-Against Apion, I, 38, 41 (8).

And when did he write this? AFTER Christianity. So this does not support you. On
the contrary: this is a very LATE witness to the existence of a Canon among the
Jews, and it tells us NOTHING about how long it had been around.

>As reagrds their inclusion in "Septuagint." Arguments in favor of
>the canonicity of the writings generally revolve around the fact that
>these Apocryphal writings are to be found in many early copies of the
>Greek Septuagint translation of the Hebrew Scriptures, which
>translation was begun in Egypt about 280 B.C.E.

No, that is NOT what they revolve around. That is another poor straw-man
argument, the type of argument you so often resort to.

> However, since no
>original copies of the Septuagint are extant, it cannot be stated
>categorically that the Apocryphal books were originally included in
>that work.

This too, is nonsense disguised as history. Ther eare no original copies of OT
Scripture left around, either. So if we follwo _your_ reasoning, we have to deny
taht the 22 books are Canon, too.

> Many, perhaps most, of the Apocryphal writings were
>admittedly written after the commencement of the translation work of
>the Septuagint and so were obviously not on the original list of books
>selected for translation by the translating body. At best, then, they
>could rate only as accretions to that work.

So what? The original "translating body" only translated the Pentateuch. Will
you deny the Prophets canonicity on the basis of this reasoning too?

>Additionally, while the Greek-speaking Jews of Alexandria eventually
>inserted such Apocryphal writings into the Greek Septuagint and
>apparently viewed them as part of an enlarged canon of sacred writings,

Aha! FINALLY a historical fact of interest!

>the statement by Josephus quoted earlier shows that they were never
>brought into the Jerusalem or Palestinian canon

So what? Why should we regard the Palestinian Canon as final?

> and were, at the most,
>viewed as only secondary writings and not of divine origin.

You miss the significane of your own reasoning! It is among _Palestinian_ Jews
taht they were so regarded. But why should we take their opinion as final?

> Thus, the
>Jewish Council of Jamnia (about 90 C.E.) specifically excluded all such
>writings from the Hebrew canon.

So what? They made this decision _after_ separating themselves from God by
killing Christ. And by then, Christ had already taken all authority away from
the Pharisees and Sadducees and given it to the APostles.

>The need for giving due consideration to the Jewish stand in this
>matter is clearly stated by the apostle Paul at Romans 3:1, 2.

This has nothing to do with it.

>Additional ancient testimony. One of the chief external evidences
>against the canonicity of the Apocrypha is the fact that none of the
>Christian Bible writers quoted from these books.

But this isn't true, either. We have rehashed this issue many times in this NG.
The most you can claim is that they never quoted it with the formulaic
"Scripture says". But that is all, and that is not very much. Nehemiah is never
quoted either. Are you going to deny that Nehemiah should be in the Canon, too?

> While this of itself
>is not conclusive, inasmuch as their writings are also lacking in
>quotations from a few books recognized as canonical, such as Esther,
>Ecclesiastes, and The Song of Solomon, yet the fact that not one of the
>writings of the Apocrypha is quoted even once is certainly significant.

It would be significant -- if it were TRUE. But it is FALSE. Compare, for
example, Mt 11:28-30 with Sir 51:23, 26-27, or Lk 12:12-21 with Sir 11:18-19.
While not clear _direct_ quotations, they are close enough to make it look like
Christ is quoting Sirach indirectly.

And Paul also quotes Sirach, sometimes pretty directly. See, for example, Sir
7:38 and compare with Rom 12:15.

>Not without weight also is the fact that leading Bible scholars and
>"church fathers" of the first centuries of the Common Era, on the
>whole, gave the Apocrypha an inferior position.

More nonsense disguised as history! It is NOT true that the 'leading' scholars
and fathers gave it an inferior position. On the contrary: they were quite
split. Irenaeus, Terullian, Clement of Alexandria and Cypriam quote them exactly
as any other Old Testament Scripture. Origen and Jerome did not. But by calling
only the latter 'leading', you are practicing a thinly disguised version of
circular reasoning.

> Origen, of the early
>third century C.E., as a result of careful investigation made such a
>distinction between these writings and those of the true canon.
>Athanasius, Cyril of Jerusalem, Gregory of Nazianzus, and Amphilocius,
>all of the fourth century C.E., prepared catalogs listing the sacred
>writings in accord with the Hebrew canon and either ignored these
>additional writings or placed them in a secondary class.

That is not true. If you ever actually _read_ these Fathers you would see that
they quoted the Deuterocanonicals, and quoted them the same way they quoted the
proto-canonical books.

>Jerome, who is described as "the best Hebrew scholar" of the early
>church and who completed the Latin Vulgate in 405 C.E., took a definite
>stand against such Apocryphal books and was the first, in fact, to use
>the word "Apocrypha" explicitly in the sense of noncanonical as
>referring to these writings.

And this is one of the reasons he had so many enemies, and even after his heroic
translation of the Hebrew books, it took a few centuries before his work was
accepted.

[snip]
>The trend toward including these additional writings as canonical was
>primarily initiated by Augustine (354-430 C.E.),

More nonsense disguised as history. No, it began with Irenaeus.

[snip]

>Dominican
>Cardinal Cajetan, foremost Catholic theologian of his time (1469-1534
>C.E.) and called by Clement VII the "lamp of the Church," also
>differentiated between the books of the true Hebrew canon and the
>Apocryphal works, appealing to the writings of Jerome as an authority.

But Cajetan did not repeat Jerome's mistake: he made a distinction, but did NOT
reject the Deuterocanonicals.

>It is to be noted as well that the Council of Trent did not accept all
>the writings previously approved by the earlier Council of Carthage but
>dropped three of these: the Prayer of Manasses and 1 and 2 Esdras (not
>the 1 and 2 Esdras that, in the Catholic Douay Bible, correspond with
>Ezra and Nehemiah). Thus, these three writings that had appeared for
>over 1,100 years in the approved Latin Vulgate were now excluded.

That was silly of them, wasn't it?

>The internal evidence of these Apocryphal writings weighs even more
>heavily against their canonicity than does the external.

No, it does not.

> They are
>completely lacking in the prophetic element.

So what? Will you exclude Proverbs for the same reason?

> Their contents and
>teachings at times contradict those of the canonical books and are also
>contradictory within themselves. They are rife with historical and
>geographic inaccuracies and anachronisms.

In case you have not noticed, the proto-canonical books are often accused of the
same faults.

>The writers in some cases are
>guilty of dishonesty in falsely representing their works as those of
>earlier inspired writers.

Again: in case you have not noticed, the proto-canonical books are often accused
of the same faults. Do you _really_ believe Psa 137 was written by David? And
what about the later chapters of Proverbs? Do you really believe they were all
written by Solomon, even when they denounce Solomon's own practices?

[snip]


--
---------------------------
Subudcat se sibi ut haereat Deo
quidquid boni habet, tribuat illi a quo factus est.
(St. Augustine, Ser. 96)

((( s.r.c.b-s is a moderated group. All posts are approved by a moderator. )))
((( Read http://srcbs.org for details about this group BEFORE you post. )))