In light of this, contemplate on the significance of Jesus’ words on the occasion of this feast: "Is it not written in your law, 'I said, "You are gods"'? If it calls them gods to whom the word of God came, and scripture cannot be set aside, can you say that the one whom the Father has consecrated and sent into the world blasphemes because I said, 'I am the Son of God'? (John 10:34-36." Jesus, standing near the Temple during the feast of Hanukkah, speaks of His being "set apart," just as Judas Maccabeus "set apart" (consecrated that is) the Temple in 1 Maccabees 4:36-59 and 2 Maccabees 10:1-8.
In other words, Jesus made a connection that was obvious to His Jewish hearers by regarding the Feast of Hanukkah and its account in Maccabees as an image or type of His own consecration by the Father. The Lord looks at the Feast of Hanukkah from the so-called "apocryphal" books of 1 and 2 Maccabees precisely as He treats accounts of the manna (John 6:32-33; Exodus 16:4, the Bronze Serpent (John 3:14); Numbers 21:4-9), and Jacob's Ladder (John 1:51; Genesis 28:12) - as inspired, prophetic, scriptural images of Himself. This pattern can be noticed throughout the New Testament. Jesus never made any dissimilarity between the deuterocanonical books and the rest of the Old Testament.
In other words, Jesus made a connection that was obvious to His Jewish hearers by regarding the Feast of Hanukkah and its account in Maccabees as an image or type of His own consecration by the Father. The Lord looks at the Feast of Hanukkah from the so-called "apocryphal" books of 1 and 2 Maccabees precisely as He treats accounts of the manna (John 6:32-33; Exodus 16:4, the Bronze Serpent (John 3:14); Numbers 21:4-9), and Jacob's Ladder (John 1:51; Genesis 28:12) - as inspired, prophetic, scriptural images of Himself. This pattern can be noticed throughout the New Testament. Jesus never made any dissimilarity between the deuterocanonical books and the rest of the Old Testament.
THIRD FALLACY: They contain fabulous statements, and statements which contradict not only the canonical Scriptures, but themselves; as when, in the two Books of Maccabees, Antiochus Epiphanes is made to die three different deaths in as many different places.
GOAL OF THE FALLACY: To develop another attempt to make a distinction between the deuterocanonical books and "true Scripture, the myth which says that the deuterocanonical books are composed of historical, geographical, and moral errors which make them as uninspired Scripture is formulated.
THE TRUTH: On the contrary, the Church educates that to have a genuine comprehension of Scripture, one has to consider what the author was actually trying to emphasize, the manner he was trying to emphasize it, and what is incidental to that emphasis.
For example, when Jesus starts the parable of the Prodigal Son saying, "There was once a man with two sons," He is not exposed to be a bad historian when it is established that the man with two sons He illustrates is not actually existent. Similarly, when the prophet Nathan tells King David the story of the "rich man" who stole a "poor man's" ewe lamb and slaughtered it, the prophet is not a fraud if he cannot provide the carcass or identify the two men in his narrative. The inexistent ewe lamb, theft, rich and poor men told in the story were used in a metaphor to rebuke King David’s adulterous relationship with Bathsheba.
In the same way, both Judith and Tobit compose of a number of historical and geographical errors, not because they're displaying bad history and erroneous geography, but because they are unparalleled devout stories that don't pretend to be remotely fascinated with teaching history or geography, any more than the Resurrection accounts in the Gospels are attracted in astronomy. Undeniably, the author of Tobit goes out of his way to clarify that his hero is imaginary. The author creates Tobit the uncle of Ahiqar, a character in ancient Semitic folklore like "Jack the Giant Killer" or "Aladdin." To cut it short, Catholics are not glancing at the narrative on Tobit and Judith to acquire a history lesson.
In the case of Judith lying to King Holofernes in order to save her people, which are indisputably a moral and theological "errors", one must be reminded that she was acting in the light of Jewish understanding as it had built until that time. This means that she perceives her trickery as suitable, even praiseworthy, because she gets rid of dangerous enemy of her people. By fooling Holofernes according to her purpose and by imploring God to bless this scheme, she was not doing something strange to Jewish Scripture or Old Testament morality. Similarly, when the Hebrew midwives duped Pharaoh about Moses’ birth, they lied and were justified in lying because Pharaoh did not have a right to the truth. Otherwise if they told the truth, the latter would have killed Moses. If the book of Judith is to be eliminated from the canon on this ground, so must Exodus, if we are to consider the non-Catholics criterion of canonicity.
Concerning Raphael, it is much more doubtful that the author intended, or that his spectators understood him to mean, "Angels lie. So should human." On the contrary, Tobit is a classic illustration of an "entertaining angels unaware" story (compare with Hebrew 13:2). Everyone is aware who Raphael is all along. When Tobit beseeched God for help, God instantly grant him by sending Raphael. Nevertheless, as is often the case, God's relief was not discerned at first. Raphael introduced himself as "Azariah," which means "Yahweh helps," followed by his family background, all with names meaning things like "Yahweh is merciful," "Yahweh gives," and "Yahweh hears." (see Tobit 5:13-14) and its footnote). By using the name "Yahweh helps," Raphael isn't so much "lying" about his real name as he is bringing to light the deepest truth about who God is and why God sent him to Tobit, but not about chunks of history or geography or the fun on using a pseudonym that the author of Tobit aims to impart.
With respect to Antiochus Epiphanes, 1) There were at least two Antiochus' accounted in the Scripture:
1 Maccabees 1:10 There sprang from these a sinful offshoot, Antiochus Epiphanes, son of King Antiochus, once a hostage at Rome. He became king in the year one hundred and thirty-seven of the kingdom of the Greeks.
1 Maccabees 10:1 In the year one hundred and sixty, Alexander, who was called Epiphanes, son of Antiochus, came up and took Ptolemais. He was accepted and began to reign there.
FOURTH FALLACY: The apocrypha wasn't included at first in the Septuagint, but was appended by the Alexandrian Jews, and was not listed in any of the catalogues of the inspired books till the 4th century Hilary (bishop of Poictiers, 350 A.D.) rejected the apocrypha (Prologue to the Psalms, Sec. 15)
THE TRUTH: Before Jesus’ time, the Jews did not have a sharply defined, universal canon of Scripture - some groups used only the first five books of the Old Testament (the Pentateuch); some used only the Palestinian canon (39 books); some used the Alexandrian canon (46 books), and some, like the Dead Sea community, used all these and more. Both Palestinian and Alexandrian canons were more standard compared with others with wider acceptance among orthodox Jews, but for Jews there was no universally defined canon to include or exclude the “deuterocanonical” books around 100 A.D.
The Apostles commissioned by Jesus, however, used the Septuagint (the Old Testament in Greek which contained the Alexandrian canon) most of the time and must have accepted the Alexandrian canon. For example, an enormous percentage (at least 86 percent) of Old Testament quotes in the Greek New Testament come directly from the Septuagint, exclusive of numerous linguistic references. Acts 7 provides an interesting piece of evidence that justifies the Apostolic use of the Septuagint. In Acts 7:14 St. Stephen narrates that Jacob went to Joseph with 75 people. The Masoretic Hebrew version of Genesis 46:27 accounts “70,” while the Septuagint’s reports “75,” the number Stephen used. Following the Apostles’ example, Stephen obviously used the Septuagint. Other ancient Christian documents, like the Didache and Pope St. Clement’s Letter to the Corinthians, dislcose that the apostles’ successors not only used the Septuagint, but quote from all of the books in the Alexandrian canon as the authoritative word of God.[3]
Let’s check the two books in question which are Sirach and 2 Maccabees. Sirach begins with a brief foreword by the author's grandson saying, in part, that he is translating grandfather's book, its significance and that, "You therefore are now invited to read it in a spirit of attentive good will, with indulgence for any apparent failure on our part, despite earnest efforts, in the interpretation of particular passages." (see the 3rd paragraph of the preface). In the same manner, the editor of 2 Maccabees remarked on its introduction the toughness of composing the book and closes with a sort of motion saying, "I will bring my own story to an end here too. If it is well written and to the point, that is what I wanted; if it is poorly done and mediocre, that is the best I could do." (2 Maccabees 15:37-38)
A number of factors can be articulated in response to this contention:
First, it is irrational to think that these usual oriental expressions of humility really represent anything besides a sort of shrug of politeness and the traditional downplaying of one's own talents, something common among ancient writers in Middle Eastern cultures. St. Paul's declaration of himself, for example as "one born abnormally" or as being the “chief of sinners” which he mentions in the present, not necessarily makes his writings rubbish.
Second, St. Paul write ups show some stronger and explicit examples of disclaimers with regard to inspired status of his writings, yet non-Catholics would never feel the urgency to remove these Pauline writings from the New Testament canon. Take for example of his statement in 1 Corinthians 1:16 that he can't recall whom he baptized. Basing it with "It sounds more like the Holy Spirit talking" criterion of biblical inspiration that Protestants apply to the deuterocanonical books, St. Paul would fail the test here, when jumping to his next statement (1 Corinthians 1:15). 1 Corinthians 7:40 gives an uncertain statement that could, based on the principles of this myth, be understood to mean that St. Paul wasn't firm that his teaching was inspired or not.
Elsewhere St. Paul clarifies that particular teachings he's passing along are "not I, but the Lord" speaking (1 Corinthians 7:10), whereas in other cases, "I, not the Lord" am speaking (compare with 1 Corinthians 7:12). Comparably, this is a greatly more direct "disclaimer of inspiration" than the indirect deuterocanonical passages quoted above, yet nobody disputes that St. Paul's writings should be removed from the Scripture, as some say the whole of the deuterocanon should be removed from the Old Testament, simply on the potency of these modest passages from Sirach and 2 Maccabees.
Elsewhere St. Paul clarifies that particular teachings he's passing along are "not I, but the Lord" speaking (1 Corinthians 7:10), whereas in other cases, "I, not the Lord" am speaking (compare with 1 Corinthians 7:12). Comparably, this is a greatly more direct "disclaimer of inspiration" than the indirect deuterocanonical passages quoted above, yet nobody disputes that St. Paul's writings should be removed from the Scripture, as some say the whole of the deuterocanon should be removed from the Old Testament, simply on the potency of these modest passages from Sirach and 2 Maccabees.
St. Paul's writings in this case are retained because people acknowledge that a writer can be writing under inspiration even when he doesn't realize it and doesn't claim it, and that inspiration is not such an off-guard affair as "direct dictation" by the Holy Spirit to the author. Indeed, it is acknowledged that the Spirit can inspire the writers to create true statements about themselves, such as when St. Paul tells the Corinthians he couldn't recall whom he had baptized.
As the old proverb says, "What's sauce for the apostolic goose is sauce for the deuterocanonical gander." The writers of the deuterocanonical books can be truthful about themselves, believing that writing is easier said than done, translating is difficult, and that they are not sure they have accomplished an excellent task - without such admissions calling into question the inspired status of their output. This myth ascertains nothing other than the Catholic doctrine that the books of Sacred Scripture actually were arranged by human beings who remained fully human and free, even as they wrote under the direct inspiration of God.
FIFTH FALLACY: Early Church Fathers, such as St. Athanasius and St. Jerome (who translated the official Bible of the Catholic Church), denied the deuterocanonical books as Scripture, and the Catholic Church inserted these books to the canon at the Council of Trent.
THE TRUTH: Contrary to this specific myth, no Church Father (Jerome and Cyril were not Popes but Church Fathers)[4] is infallible. That charism is kept exclusively to the pope, in an extraordinary sense and, in an ordinary sense, corporately to all the lawful bishops of the Catholic Church who are in full communion with the pope and are teaching definitively in an ecumenical council. Second, the Catholicism comprehension of doctrine develops, which means that doctrines which may not have been clearly defined sometimes get defined.
A classic example of this is the doctrine of the Trinity, which was not defined until A.D. 325 at the Council of Nicaea, nearly 300 years after Jesus’ ministry on earth. In the long run, the Church could find a few Fathers writing before Nicaea who, in good faith, articulated theories about the nature of the Godhead that were portrayed inadequate after Nicaea's characterization. This does not make them heretics though but simply misses layups (as in Michael Jordan layups) once in awhile. Similarly, the canon of Scripture, though it more or less assumed its present structure inclusive of the deuterocanonical books - by about A.D. 380, however was not dogmatically defined by the Church for another thousand years.
Within these thousand years, it was quite on the cards for advocates to have some pliability on how they viewed the canon, which was applied to the handful of Church Fathers and theologians who articulated reservations about the deuterocanon. Their personal opinions about the deuterocanon were just that: private opinions.
A classic example of this is the doctrine of the Trinity, which was not defined until A.D. 325 at the Council of Nicaea, nearly 300 years after Jesus’ ministry on earth. In the long run, the Church could find a few Fathers writing before Nicaea who, in good faith, articulated theories about the nature of the Godhead that were portrayed inadequate after Nicaea's characterization. This does not make them heretics though but simply misses layups (as in Michael Jordan layups) once in awhile. Similarly, the canon of Scripture, though it more or less assumed its present structure inclusive of the deuterocanonical books - by about A.D. 380, however was not dogmatically defined by the Church for another thousand years.
Within these thousand years, it was quite on the cards for advocates to have some pliability on how they viewed the canon, which was applied to the handful of Church Fathers and theologians who articulated reservations about the deuterocanon. Their personal opinions about the deuterocanon were just that: private opinions.
This myth starts to fall apart when pointing out that the overwhelming majority of Church Fathers and other early Christian writers looked at the deuterocanonical books as having exactly the same inspired, scriptural status as the other Old Testament books. This acceptance can be traced back in The Didache, The Epsitle of Barnabas, the Council of Rome, the Council of Hippo, the Third Council of Carthage, the African Code, the Apostolic Cosntitutions, and the writings of Pope St. Clement I (Epistle to the Corinthians, St. Polycarp of Smyrna, St. Irenaeus of Lyons, St. Hippolytus, St. Cyprian of Carthage, , Pope St. Damasus I, the , St. Augustine, and Pope St. Innocent I.
Finally, in his later years St. Jerome did indeed accept the Deuter-ocanonical books of the Bible. In fact, he tirelessly defended by shielding their status as inspired Scripture, writing as he says, "What sin have I committed if I followed the judgment of the churches? But he who brings charges against me for relating the objections that the Hebrews are wont to raise against the story of Susanna, the Son of the Three Children, and the story of Bel and the Dragon, which are not found in the Hebrew volume (canon, that is), proves that he is just a foolish sycophant. For I wasn't relating my own personal views, but rather the remarks that they [the Jews] are wont to make against us" (Against Rufinus 11:33 [A.D. 402]). In earlier correspondence with Pope Damasus, Jerome regarded the deuterocanonical books scriptural, he said that Jews he knew did not embrace them as canonical. He recognized the Church’s authority in defining the canon. When Pope Damasus and the Councils of Carthage and Hippo incorporated the deuterocanon in Scripture, that was good enough for St. Jerome. He "followed the judgment of the churches."
Martin Luther, however, did not, which brings people to the "remarkable dilemmas" trusting the Protestant Reformers' private opinions about the deuterocanon, which has been emulated by the rest of non-Catholics claiming to be Christians. He likewise threw out a goodly chunk of the New Testament. For example, he did not regard James’ write up as the writing of an Apostle believing that it is flatly against St. Paul and all the rest of Scripture in attributing justification to works (preface to James' Epistle). In the same way, in other writings he highlights this denunciation of James from the New Testament, calling it "an epistle full of straw for it has nothing of the nature of the gospel about it" (preface to the New Testament).
Luther cherry picked the canon to choose those writings that have the same opinion with his theology. Aside from the Epistle, Luther removed Hebrews, Jude, and Revelation from the canon, consigning them to a quasi-canonical status [5]. It was only by an accident of history that these books were not expelled by Protestantism from the New Testament as Sirach, Tobit, 1 and 2 Maccabees and the rest were expelled from the Old. In the same way, it is largely the unawareness of this sad history that constarins many to discard the deuterocanonical books.
In conclusion, the judgment of the churches pertaining to the canonicity of deuterocanonical books is rendered throughout history as it was rendered in Acts 15 by means of a council of bishops in blending with St. Peter. The books of the Bibles were accepted according to whether they did or did not measure up to standards based entirely on Sacred Tradition and the divinely entrusted authority of the Body of Christ in council and in agreement with Peter.
Neither did the Council of Trent nor the Council of Florence add a thing to the Old Testament canon but simply accept and officially approve the ancient practice of the Apostles and early Christians by dogmatically defining a collection of Old Testament Scripture inclusive of deuterocanon that had been there since before Jesus time, used by our Lord and His apostles, inherited and taken by the Fathers, devised and repeated by different councils and popes for centuries and read in the liturgy and prayer.
When certain people decided to trim some of this canon down in order to match their theological opinions, the Church moved to prevent it by defining (both at Florence and Trent) that this very same canon was, in fact, the canon of the Church's Old Testament and constantly had been.
PAGES
|
|
[1] Steve Rudd , 21 reasons why the Apocrypha is not inspired, http://www.bible.ca/catholic-apocrypha.htm
[2] How does the Catholic Bible differ from the Protestant Bible?, From the Evangeline Scripts, Diocese of Lake Charles, LA, http://www.stjameshopewell.org/questions/question_bible.html
[3] Why Catholics Have Seven More Books of the Bible http://www.cuf.org/2004/04/the-complete-bible-why-catholics-have-seven-more-books/
[4] Who were the Church Fathers? http://www.catholic.com/quickquestions/who-were-the-church-fathers )
[4] Dave Armstrong (9-25-04), Luther’s Outrageous Assertions About Certain Biblical Books (Protestant Scholars’ Opinions and “Debate” With John Warwick Montgomery), http://www.patheos.com/blogs/davearmstrong/2004/09/luthers-outrageous-assertions-about-certain-biblical-books-protestant-scholars-opinions-and-debate-with-john-warwick-montgomery.html
[4] Dave Armstrong (9-25-04), Luther’s Outrageous Assertions About Certain Biblical Books (Protestant Scholars’ Opinions and “Debate” With John Warwick Montgomery), http://www.patheos.com/blogs/davearmstrong/2004/09/luthers-outrageous-assertions-about-certain-biblical-books-protestant-scholars-opinions-and-debate-with-john-warwick-montgomery.html
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment