/christianity/ - Christian Theology

>>3340

The books were removed after the counter reformation.

>1517: Luther begins the Reformation by nailing the 95 theses to the Castle Church door

>1546: papists canonize apocryphal books as part of the counter-reformation

>2019: random faggots on the internet parrot the talking point that Luther removed those books from the canon

>>3342

Based and fact-pilled

>>3341

Long after the Counter Reformation at that. Even in the late 16th century Lutheran Bibles had all of the same books as the Catholic canon and even some that were only accepted by certain branches of Orthodoxy like 3 Maccabees and 4 Esdras. They just put them in a different section and put an introduction to them saying they weren't on the same level as the main 66 books.

>>3373

Evangelical Protestantism (like Luther) is Orthodoxy

>>3342

Source: my butthole

Thank you for your service anon

They are not Scripture. They never were Scripture.

>>3340

Originally St. Jerome was not going to translate the apocrypha and put it into the Vulgate

[-]

>>3423

Even in his translation, he put prefaces before all of those books saying they're not on the same level as the others. That being said, scripture or not, you all should read 1 and 2 Maccabees to get a better understanding of the historical backdrop of the New Testament.

Lel @ all the brainlets going IT WASNT LUTHER DOE

it was his actions that made the following removals possible so he is rightfully the poster child for all of it

>>4278

>Removals

See >>3342

>>4297

False. Early Christians used the so called Apocrypha long before Luther.

[I]t is written that 'all things were made through the Word,' and 'without Him was not made one thing,’ [John 1:3] and again, 'One Lord Jesus, through whom are all things,’ [1 Cor 8:9] and in Him all things consist,’ [Col 1:17] it is very plain that the Son cannot be a work, but He is the Hand of God and the Wisdom. This knowing, the martyrs in Babylon, Ananias, Azarias, and Misael, arraign the Arian irreligion. For when they say, 'O all ye works of the Lord, bless ye the Lord,', they recount things I heaven, things on earth, and the whole creation, as works; but the Son they name not. For thy say not, ‘Bless, O Word, and praise O Wisdom; to shew that all other things are both praising and are works’; but the Word is not a work nor of those that braise but is praised with the Father and worshipped and confessed as God.’ [Daniel 3:57-Three Youths] Athanasius the Great: Discourses Against the Arians, 2:71 (A.D. 362), in NPNF2, IV:387.

One example from a Father taken as being against the apocrypha so called

>>4298

And another from Irenaeus even earlier

And Jeremiah4770 the prophet has pointed out, that as many believers as God has prepared for this purpose, to multiply those left upon earth, should both be under the rule of the saints to minister to this Jerusalem, and that [His] kingdom shall be in it, saying, “Look around Jerusalem towards the east, and behold the joy which comes to thee from God Himself. Behold, thy sons shall come whom thou hast sent forth: they shall come in a band from the east even unto the west, by the word of that Holy One, rejoicing in that splendour which is from thy God. O Jerusalem, put off thy robe of mourning and of affliction, and put on that beauty of eternal splendour from thy God. Gird thyself with the double garment of that righteousness proceeding from thy God; place the mitre of eternal glory upon thine head. For God will show thy glory to the whole earth under heaven. For thy name shall for ever be called by God Himself, the peace of righteousness and glory to him that worships God. Arise, Jerusalem, stand on high, and look towards the east, and behold thy sons from the rising of the sun, even to the west, by the Word of that Holy One, rejoicing in the very remembrance of God. For the footmen have gone forth from thee, while they were drawn away by the enemy. God shall bring them in to thee, being borne with glory as the throne of a kingdom. For God has decreed that every high mountain shall be brought low, and the eternal hills, and that the valleys be filled, so that the surface of the earth be rendered smooth, that Israel, the glory of God, may walk in safety. The woods, too, shall make shady places, and every sweet-smelling tree shall be for Israel itself by the command of God. For God shall go before with joy in the light of His splendour, with the pity and righteousness which proceeds from Him.”

note 4779: The long quotation following is not found in Jeremiah, but in the apocryphal book of Baruch iv. 36, etc., and the whole of Baruch v.

http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf01.ix.vii.xxxvi.html

>>4299

>>4298

Yes, even the pre-Christian Hebrews used them. But as inspired scripture? From personally reading them, some of the books quite frankly come off as fairly dubious in several regards, and some Early Church Fathers agree. In particular, the chasing off of a demon with fish liver and other substances in Tobit, reads more like something out of a Grimm's fairy tale, than anything biblical. Some of the ahistorical inaccuracies in Judith and the Maccabees book add to this, especially the portrayal of the death of Antiochus in 2 Maccabees 9, which comes off as something a bullied teenager would write about their tormentor if they got their hands on a Death Note. That's not even mentioning 2 Maccabees 12:38-45, which Catholics and Orthodox use as one of their "smoking guns" for the concept of prayer for the dead, and Catholics use this in particular to bolster their doctrine of purgatory. Yet, in light of the rest of the proper biblical canon, it makes no sense.

Firstly, there are parables spoken by Jesus himself, such as the parable of the Wise and Foolish Virgins, that strongly convey the fact that, once your dead, that's it. Your shot at redemption is done. You better have your papers stacked before that point. Not to mention how the following verse would play out if 2 Macabees 12:38-45 were canon:

"Then the King will say to those on His right, ‘Come, you who are blessed by My Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world. For I was hungry and you gave Me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave Me something to drink, I was a stranger and you took Me in, I was naked and you clothed Me, I was sick and you looked after Me, I was in prison and you visited Me…oh yeah, and you people in the back there…yeah you…you honestly shouldn't even be here, but a whole bunch of people prayed for you constantly, soooooooo y'all get a free pass, I guess."

And then there's the inconvenient fact that 2 Macabees 12:38-45 outright contradicts Catholic doctrine on Purgatory. How? Correct me if I'm wrong, but if I recall correctly, Purgatory is only for those with unconfessed Venial Sins, whereas those with unconfessed and unforgiven Mortal Sins are on a one-way ticket to Hell. Those who die, and are subsequently prayed for in 2 Macabees 12:38-45 are found to have been the only ones who have been allowed by God to fall in battle because they were discovered to have each had a pagan idol hidden under their tunics, revealing their betrayal of God. I don't know about you, but being struck down by God because of your secret pagan loyalty sounds like a Mortal Sin to me. Under the Catholic doctrine of purgatory, praying for such ones should be pointless, yet they are clearly prayed for and offerings are made to blot out their sins to save them.

So if this verse flies in the face of Catholic dogma, why did the Catholic Church at the time approve such scripture as inspired canon, and continue to use such a verse as "Bam! See? Prayers for the dead and Purgatory! Right there!"? Honestly, the Catholic Church's adoption of the deuterocanon/apocrypha as officially inspired scripture, in response to the Reformation, comes off as nothing more than a petty "Take that! How 'bout them apples?!?" to the Protestants.

Meanwhile, Luther's placing of the apocryphal books in between the Old and New Testaments seems quite sensible, for the sake of preserving them for some of their edifying aspects, while marking them out as not being on the same level as scripture, and the fact that they were either written or took place during the intertestamental period.

Also, consider that all of the verses from the New Testament that are quoted from the Old Testament, and the Old Testament verses that unquestionably point to Jesus as the Messiah all come from the canonical Old Testament. I do not recall anything in the apocrypha that came off as brazenly Messianic and pointing to Jesus in an obvious way. Thus the "The Jews took them out cause they bolstered Jesus as the Messiah" theory doesn't fly either.

More detailed info:

http://www.biblequery.org/Bible/BibleCanon/WhatAboutTheApocrypha.html

http://www.justforcatholics.org/a109.htm

>>4304

>2 Maccabees 12:38-45, which Catholics and Orthodox use as one of their "smoking guns" for the concept of prayer for the dead

Even if this text is not inspired, it proves that there were prayers for the dead during the Old Testament. Another testimony of the practice is Sirach 7:33: "A gift hath grace in the sight of every man living; and for the dead detain it not." Also Tobit 4:17: "Pour out thy bread on the burial of the just, but give nothing to the wicked." Also Jeremias 16:7: "there shall be no bread broken in mourning for them for consolation over the dead: they shall not give one to drink a cup for consolation over his father or his mother." Also 1 Samuel 31:13 and 2 Samuel 1:12 tell us about the custom of the Jews to fast about the deceased.

>>4304

>But as inspired scripture?

No. While the Fathers had a variety of opinions regarding the canon of Scripture, many of them did not consider the Apocrypha canon. Jerome is the one most frequently mentioned, but others include John of Damascus, Gregory of Nazianzus, and Cyril of Jerusalem. Even Athanasius, in his Festal Letter, says the following

>But for greater exactness I add this also, writing of necessity; that there are other books besides these not indeed included in the Canon, but appointed by the Fathers to be read by those who newly join us, and who wish for instruction in the word of godliness. The Wisdom of Solomon, and the Wisdom of Sirach, and Esther, and Judith, and Tobit, and that which is called the Teaching of the Apostles, and the Shepherd

http://newadvent.org/fathers/2806039.htm

What's particularly interesting about this is that Roman Catholics will often say that this letter is the earliest document that defined the New Testament canon(which it isn't; Origen's homilies is the earliest one that we know of) and use that as evidence to support the claim that the authority of the Church is equal to the authority of Scripture since it is what defines Scripture. Yet they always ignore the passage quoted above where Athanasius explicitly contradicts the Catholic canon. Granted, Athanasius contradicts the Protestant canon as well since he excludes Esther from the canon.

What are your opinions on the Wisdom of Solomon?

I think there's a pretty clear Christological prophecy in the second chapter.

>>4309

a

po

cry

phal

>>4304

Except no Early Church Father ever critiqued the so called apocrypha. And guess what Tobit is used in Polycarp's letter in a group of citations from Canonical Scriptures, so that if any indicates he takes Tobit as canonical or Inspired. The ironic thing is here you provide zero evidence for my point as well, which is the Early Christians accepted them as Inspired in contradiction to Protestant revisionist history. Saying they bad because it doesnt line up with your preconceived presuppositions of what is Biblical doesnt equal them as dubious to the early Church Fathers. It's that simple.

Even worse for you, Hebrews 13 literally cites Maccabees and this cannot be waved away as normal allusion to normal texts. Why? Because it is within the context of speaking of Old Testament heroes of faith. Protestant scholar Peter T O Brien even acknowledges the allusion to this so called apocrypha there. Here the context also follows that that account is very significant to the author of Hebrews or even seen as on par with Inspired OT Scripture.

>>4306

This is false. Because even as Protestant scholar John Meade notes, a Father can include within the list of Inspired Scripture, non canon books. Protestants dont do this and this is what we find in Cyril of Jerusalem, Athanasius, John of Damascus and oops even Jerome in his late phase which will later be shown

1)Origen

2. You begin by saying, that when, in my discussion with our friend Bassus,I used the Scripture which contains the prophecy of Daniel when yet a young man in the affair of Susanna, I did this as if it had escaped me that this part of the book was spurious. You say that you praise this passage as elegantly written, but find fault with it as a more modern composition, and a forgery; and you add that the forger has had recourse to something which not even Philistion the play-writer would have used in his puns between prinos and prisein, schinos and schisis, which words as they sound in Greek can be used in this way, but not in Hebrew. In answer to this, I have to tell you what it behoves us to do in the cases not only of the History of Susanna, which is found in every Church of Christ in that Greek copy which the Greeks use, but is not in the Hebrew, or of the two other passages you mention at the end of the book containing the history of Bel and the Dragon, which likewise are not in the Hebrew copy of Daniel; but of thousands of other passages also which I found in many places when with my little strength I was collating the Hebrew copies with ours. For in Daniel itself I found the word "bound" followed in our versions by very many verses which are not in the Hebrew at all, beginning (according to one of the copies which circulate in the Churches) thus: "Ananias, and Azarias, and Misael prayed and sang unto God," down to "O, all ye that worship the Lord, bless ye the God of gods. Praise Him, and say that His mercy endureth for ever and ever. And it came to pass, when the king heard them singing, and saw them that they were alive." Or, as in another copy, from "And they walked in the midst of the fire, praising God and blessing the Lord," down to "O, all ye that worship the Lord, bless ye the God of gods. Praise Him, and say that His mercy endureth to all generations." [The Song of the Three Children, found in Daniel 3 of the Catholic Bible] But in the Hebrew copies the words, "And these three men, Sedrach, Misach, and Abednego fell down bound into the midst of the fire," are immediately followed by the verse, "Nabouchodonosor the king was astonished, and rose up in haste, and spake, and said unto his counsellors." For so Aquila, following the Hebrew reading, gives it, who has obtained the credit among the Jews of having interpreted the Scriptures with no ordinary care, and whose version is most commonly used by those who do not know Hebrew, as the one which has been most successful. Of the copies in my possession whose readings I gave, one follows the Seventy, and the other Theodotion; and just as the History of Susanna which you call a forgery is found in both, together with the passages at the end of Daniel, so they give also these passages, amounting, to make a rough guess, to more than two hundred verses. Origen,To Africanus, 5 (ante A.D. 254), in ANF,IV:386

>>4325

Here Origen refers to himself as using the Greek Daniel which is Scripture which mentions the Susanna episode. Even the beginning notes that this part which is of the Apocrypha so called, is used in the churches and throughout the letter, he defends their use as Scripture. This contradicts the Protestant link above that claims Origen as rejecting the Apocrypha so called. In fact he doesnt at all as plainly shown here, including the Song of the 3 Children and Bel and the Dragon.

And in Against Celsius how does Origen cites Sirach,

"But he ought to know that those who wish to live according to the teaching of Sacred Scripture understand the saying, 'The knowledge of the unwise is as talk without sense,' [Sirach 21:18] and have learnt 'to be ready always to give an answer to everyone that asketh us a reason for the hope that is in us.’ [1 Pt 3:15] " Origen, Against Celsus, 7:12 (A.D. 248),in ANF, IV:615

As "Sacred Scripture". This opposes the first link posted by the the Protestant. Why? Because Protestants dont take this as Inspired Scripture even if earlier Protestant bibles include them in a separate section.

And Origen even refers to Macabees as Inspired Scripture too

But that we may believe on the authority of holy Scripture that such is the case, hear how in the book of Maccabees, where the mother of seven martyrs exhorts her son to endure torture, this truth is confirmed; for she says, ' ask of thee, my son, to look at the heaven and the earth, and at all things which are in them, and beholding these, to know that God made all these things when they did not exist.' [2 Maccabees 7:28]" Origen, Fundamental Principles, 2:2 (A.D. 230),in ANF, IV:270

Is Maccaabees "Holy Scripture" to Protestants? Of course not. Yet, Origen cites this, contra the Protestant deception of history

>>4306

Next, Athanasius to prove my point eventhough one example has been provided and remained unaddressed.

"[T]he sacred writers to whom the Son has revealed Him, have given us a certain image from things visible, saying, 'Who is the brightness of His glory, and the Expression of His Person;' [Heb 1:3] and again, 'For with Thee is the well of life, and in Thy light shall we see lights;' [Ps 36:9] and when the Word chides Israel, He says, 'Thou hast forsaken the Fountain of wisdom;' [Baruch 3:12] and this Fountain it is which says, 'They have forsaken Me the Fountain of living waters' [Jer 2:13]" [3] Athanasius the Great: Defense of the Nicene Faith,2 (A.D. 351), in NPNF2, IV:158.

Oops, this is one so called Apocrypha classed under the "sacred writers". This is not the Protestant view. Athanasius Festal letter also includes this particular epistle, as Canonical Old Testament Scripture. Something many Protestants will never tell you

And another example of a\n apocrypha so called cited as Inspired

[I]t is written that 'all things were made through the Word,' and 'without Him was not made one thing,’ [John 1:3] and again, 'One Lord Jesus, through whom are all things,’ [1 Cor 8:9] and in Him all things consist,’ [Col 1:17] it is very plain that the Son cannot be a work, but He is the Hand of God and the Wisdom. This knowing, the martyrs in Babylon, Ananias, Azarias, and Misael, arraign the Arian irreligion. For when they say, 'O all ye works of the Lord, bless ye the Lord,', they recount things I heaven, things on earth, and the whole creation, as works; but the Son they name not. For thy say not, ‘Bless, O Word, and praise O Wisdom; to shew that all other things are both praising and are works’; but the Word is not a work nor of those that braise but is praised with the Father and worshipped and confessed as God.’ [Daniel 3:57-Three Youths] Athanasius the Great: Discourses Against the Arians, 2:71 (A.D. 362), in NPNF2, IV:387.

Again, in a collage that begins with two actual canonical Scripture citations.

And him on Wisdom, a book not in his canon list,

"But if this too fails to persuade them, let them tell us themselves, whether there is any wisdom in the creatures or not? If not how is it that the Apostle complains, 'For after that in the Wisdom of God the world by wisdom knew not God?’ [1 Cor 1:21] or how is it if there is no wisdom, that a 'multitude of wise men' [Wisdom 6:24] are found in Scripture? for 'a wise man feareth and departeth from evil;’ [Prov 14:16] and 'through wisdom is a house builded;’ [Prov 24] and the Preacher says, 'A man's wisdom maketh his face to shine;' and he blames those who are headstrong thus, 'Say not thou, what is the cause that the former days were better than these? for thou dost not inquire in wisdom concerning this.’ [Eccl 8:1,7:10] But if, as the Son of Sirach says, 'He poured her out upon all His works; she is with all flesh according to His gift, and He hath given her to them that love Him,'[Sirach 1:8,9]" [7] Athanasius the Great: Discourses Against the Arians, 2:79 (A.D. 362), in NPNF2, IV:391

Wisdom and Sirach, cited with canonical Scripture without any indication of distinction from them.

>>4326

Next off, Cyril of Jerusalem

For thou knowest that the words which come next in the Creed teach thee to believe in Him "Who ROSE AGAIN THE THIRD DAY, AND ASCENDED INTO HEAVEN, AND SAT DOWN ON THE RIGHT HAND OF THE FATHER." I suppose then certainly that thou rememberest the exposition; yet I will now again cursorily put thee in mind of what was then said. Remember what is distinctly written in the Psalms, God is gone up with a shouts; remember that the divine powers also said to one another, Lift up your gates, ye Princes(Ps. xxiv. 7), and the rest; remember also the Psalm which says, He ascended on high, tie led captivity captive(Ps. lxviii. 18); remember the Prophet who said, Who buildeth His ascension unto heaven(Amos ix. 6); and all the other particulars mentioned yesterday because of the gainsaying of the Jews. 25. For when they speak against the ascension of the Saviour, as being impossible, remember the account of the carrying away of Habakkuk: for if Habakkuk was transported by an Angel, being carried by the hair of his head (Bel and the Dragon, 36, or Daniel 14:36), much rather was the Lord of both Prophets and Angels, able by His own power to make His ascent into the Heavens on a cloud from the Mount of Olives. Wonders like this thou mayest call to mind, but reserve the preeminence for the Lord, the Worker of wonders; for the others were borne up, but He bears up all things. Remember that Enoch was translated (Heb. 11:5); but Jesus ascended: remember what was said yesterday concerning Elias, that Elias was taken up in a chariot of fire (2 Kings ii:11); but that the chariots of Christ are ten thousand-fold even thousands upon thousands (Ps. ixviii. 17. ): and that Elias was taken up, towards the east of Jordan; but that Christ ascended at the east of the brook Cedron: and that Elias went as into heaven (1 Mac. 2:58); but Jesus, into heaven: and that Elias said that a double portion in the Holy Spirit should be given to his holy disciple; but that Christ granted to His own disciples so great enjoyment of the grace of the Holy Ghost, as not only to have It in themselves, but also, by the laying on of their hands, to impart the fellowship of It to them who believed. Cyril of Jerusalem, Catechetical Lectures, Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Second Series, Volume 7, Lecture 14:24-25 p. 101

Here, he considers what is written in LXX Daniel as what actually happened to Habakkuk, a canonical OT Prophet. He is not even implied to be of lesser authority than the Pslamist at all and is cited with OT canonical books without distinction of status such as Pslams and Hebrews. And oops, Maccabees is also cited here too, without any indication of lesser status or non Inspired status at all

>>4328

Cont from Cyril,

2. The Divine Nature then it is impossible to see with eyes of flesh: but from the works, which are Divine, it is possible to attain to some conception of His power, according to Solomon, who says, "For by the greatness and beauty of the creatures proportionally the Maker of them is seen" (Wis 13:5). He said not that from the creatures the Maker is seen, but added proportionably. For God appears the greater to every man in proportion as he has grasped a larger survey of the creatures: and when his heart is uplifted by that larger survey, he gains withal a greater conception of God. 3. Wouldest thou learn that to comprehend the nature of God is impossible? The Three Children in the furnace of fire, as they hymn the praises of God, say "Blessed art thou that beholdest the depths, and sittest upon the Cherubim" (Song of the Three Children, 32, or in Daniel 3, between verses 23 and 24, there are 68 verses, of which this is verse 32. This is part of the Deuterocanonical portion). Tell me what is the nature of the Cherubim, and then look upon Him who sitteth upon them. And yet Ezekiel the Prophet even made a description of them, as far as was possible, saying that every one has four faces, one of a man, another of a lion, another of an eagle, and another of a calf; and that each one had six wings (Ezek. 1:6-11), and they had eyes on all sides; and that under each one was a wheel of four sides. Nevertheless though the Prophet makes the explanation, we cannot yet understand it even as we read. But if we cannot understand the throne, which he has described, how shall we be able to comprehend Him who sitteth thereon, the Invisible and Ineffable God? To scrutinize then the nature of God is impossible: but it is in our power to send up praises of His glory for His works that are seen. Cyril of Jerusalem, Catechetical Lectures, NPNF2, Lecture IX:2-3, Volume 7, p. 51.

Oops, he considers Wisdom to be actually canonical too. He cites it in the manner of canonical OT like Ezekiel and thus it is literally Inspired to him alongside the so call Apocryphal parts of Daniel

Learn then thine own weakness; learn from this instance the mightiness of God: for He hath numbered the drops of rain [Job 36:27], which have been poured down on all the earth, not only now but in all time. The sun is a work of God, which, great though it be, is but a spot in comparison with the whole heaven; first gaze steadfastly upon the sun, and then curiously scan the Lord of the sun. Seek not the things that are too deep for thee, neither search out the things that are above thy strength: what is commanded thee, think thereupon [Sir. 3:21-22]. Cyril of Jerusalem, Catechetical Lectures, Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Second Series, Lecture VI:4, Volume 7, p. 34.

Here, notice how the way Sirach is cited is the same as how Job is cited. No distinction to indicate unispired status at all.

>>4329

Next, Gregory Nanzanzius

Here am I, my pastors and fellow-pastors, here am I, thou holy flock, worthy of Christ, the Chief Shepherd,(1 Pet 5:4) here am I, my father, utterly vanquished, and your subject according to the laws of Christ rather than according to those of the land: here is my obedience, reward it with your blessing. Lead me with your prayers, guide me with your words, establish me with your spirit. "The blessing of the father establisheth the houses of children," (Sirach 3:9) and would that both I and this spiritual house may be established, the house which I have longed for, which I pray may be my rest for ever, (Psalm 132:13,14) when I have been passed on from the church here to the church yonder, the general assembly of the firstborn, who are written in heaven (Heb. 12:23). St. Gregory Nazianzen: In Defense of His Flight to Pontus, VIII, NPNF2, Vol. 7, p. 227.

Notice how Sirach is cited in the same manner as other Canon Scripture? No indication of uninspired status

And how shall we preserve the truth that God pervades all things and fills all, as it is written "Do not I fill heaven and earth? saith the Lord (Jer. 23:24)" and "The Spirit of the Lord filleth the world" (Wisdom 1:7) if God partly contains and partly is contained. For either He will occupy an empty Universe, and so all things will have vanished for us, with this result, that we shall have insulted God by making Him a body…. St. Gregory Nazianzen: The Second Theological Oration, VIII, NPNF2, Vol 7, p. 291.

Here, Gregory cites Wisdom and it is connected with a prior citation of Jeremiah, a CANON Scripture with the formula used for Inspired writings, "as it is written". Both together. Again showing how he takes this Apocrypha so called as Inspired Scripture

Then the last and gravest plague upon the persecutors, truly worthy of the night; and Egypt mourns the firstborn of her own reasonings and actions which are also called in the Scripture the "Seed of the Chaldeans" (Judith 5:6) removed, and the children of Babylon dashed against the rocks and destroyed; (Psalm 138:9). and the whole air is full of the cry and clamour of the Egyptians. St. Gregory Nazianzen: The Second Oration on Easter, XV, NPNF2, p. 428.

Oops, Judith is cited as Inspired Scripture here, joined with Pslams

>>4330

Finally from John Damascus himself

And hence it is that in the Old Testament the use of images was not common. But after God (Jn 1:14, Tit. 3:4) in His bowels of pity became in truth man for our salvation, not as He was seen by Abraham in the semblance of a man, nor as He was seen by the prophets, but in being truly man, and "after He lived upon the earth and dwelt among men, (Bar. 3:37) worked miracles, suffered, was crucified, rose again and was taken back to Heaven, since all these things actually took place and were seen by men, they were written for the remembrance and instruction of us who were not alive at that time in order that though we saw not, we may still, hearing and believing, obtain the blessing of the Lord. St. John of Damascus, An Exposition of the Orthodox Faith, Book IV, Chapter XVI, NPNF2, p. 88

Baruch here is cited in a manner of prophecy because it is clearly written before Christ's Incarnation yet it says "He lived upon the earth and dwelt among men", showing its prophetic value and thus against the notion that it is uninspired.

And if this is not clear enough, John Damascus makes it even clearer elsewhere,

Some, again, have a prophetic sense, and of these some are in the future tense: for instance, He shall come openly, (Psalm 50:3) and this from Zechariah, Behold, thy King cometh unto thee, (Zech. 9:9) and this from Micah, (Mic. 1:3) Behold, the Lord cometh out of His place and will came down and tread upon the high places of the earth. But others, though future, are put in the past tense, as, for instance, This is our God: "Therefore He was seen upon the earth and dwell among men," (Baruch 3:37) and The Lord created me in the beginning of His ways for His works (Prov. 8:22), and Wherefore God, thy God, anointed thee with the oil of gladness above thy fellows, and such like. (Psalm 14:7) St. John of Damascus, An Exposition of the Orthodox Faith, Book IV, Chapter XVII, NPNF, p. 90

Here Baruch is included in citations of Canonical OT books, as prophecy of Christ.

The divine Scripture likewise saith that 'the souls of the just are in God's hand’ [Wisdom 3:1] and death cannot lay hold of them." John Damascene, Orthodox Faith, 4:15 (A.D. 743), in NPNF2, IX:87

>>4331

And from Jerome who is said to reject even the Inspired status of the so called Apocrypha,

Does not the SCRIPTURE say: 'Burden not thyself above thy power' [SIRACH 13:2] Jerome, To Eustochium, Epistle 108 (A.D. 404), in NPNF2, VI:207

Remember, this is from his mature phase

"I would cite the words of the psalmist: 'the sacrifices of God are a broken spirit,’ [Ps 51:17] and those of Ezekiel 'I prefer the repentance of a sinner rather than his death,’ [Ez 18:23] AND THOSE OF BARUCH,'Arise, arise, O Jerusalem,’ [Baruch 5:5] AND MANY OTHER PROCLAMATIONS MADE BY THE TRUMPETS OF THE PROPHETS." Jerome, To Oceanus, Epistle 77:4 (A.D. 399), in NPNF2, VI:159

Whoops, Jerome including Baruch amongst the Prophets

"Yet the Holy Spirit in the thirty-ninth(9) psalm, while lamenting that all men walk in a vain show, and that they are subject to sins, speaks thus: "For all that every man walketh in the image."(Psalm 39:6) Also after David's time, in the reign of Solomon his son, we read a somewhat similar reference to the divine likeness. For in the book of Wisdom, which is inscribed with his name, Solomon says: "God created man to be immortal, and made him to be an image of his own eternity."(Wisdom 2:23) And again, about eleven hundred and eleven years afterwards, we read in the New Testament that men have not lost the image of God. For James, an apostle and brother of the Lord, whom I have mentioned above–that we may not be entangled in the snares of Origen–teaches us that man does possess God's image and likeness. For, after a somewhat discursive account of the human tongue, he has gone on to say of it: "It is an unruly evil … therewith bless we God, even the Father and therewith curse we men, which are made after the similitude of God."(James 3:8-9) Paul, too, the "chosen vessel,"(Acts 9:15) who in his preaching has fully maintained the doctrine of the gospel, instructs us that man is made in the image and after the likeness of God. "A man," he says, "ought not to wear long hair, forasmuch as he is the image and glory of God."(1 Cor. 11:7) He speaks of "the image" simply, but explains the nature of the likeness by the word "glory."

7. Instead of THE THREE PROOFS FROM HOLY SCRIPTURE which you said would satisfy you if I could produce them, BEHOLD I HAVE GIVEN YOU SEVEN"— Jerome, Letter 51, 6, 7, NPNF2, VI:87-8

Here again, the uncanonical books are listed as HOLY SCRIPTURE and cited as such with canonical ones

"And in the proverbs Solomon tells us that as "the north wind driveth away rain, so doth an angry countenance a backbiting tongue.(Prov. 25:23)" It sometimes happens that an arrow when it is aimed at a hard object rebounds upon the bowman, wounding the would-bewounder, and thus, the words are fulfilled, "they were turned aside like a deceitful bow," (Psalm 128:57) and in another passage: "whoso casteth a stone on high casteth it on his own head." (Sir. 27:25) Jerome, To Rusticus, Epistle 125, 19 (A.D. 404), in NPNF2, VI:251

Here Sirach is cited after a CANONICAL book, with no indication of uninspired status

These things, dearest daughter in Christ, I impress upon you and frequently repeat, that you may forget those things which are behind and reach forth unto those things which are before (Phil. 3:12). You have widows like yourself worthy to be your models, Judith renowned in Hebrew story (Jud. 13) and Anna the daughter of Phanuel (Lk 2) famous in the gospel. Both these lived day and night in the temple and preserved the treasure of their chastity by prayer and by fasting. One was a type of the Church which cuts off the head of the devil (Jud. 13:8) and the other first received in her arms the Saviour of the world and had revealed to her the holy mysteries which were to come (Lk 2:36-38). Jerome, to Salvina, Letter 79:10, 400 AD, NPNF2, VI:168.

Here, more the same, the uncanonical books, cited AS INSPIRED

>>4325

>>4326

>>4327

>>4328

>>4329

>>4330

>>4331

>>4332

These would be easily shortened to just one post, had it not been for the words of the very men Protestants claim to deny the Scriptural status of Apocrypha so called. But in every instance notice how they cite even the ones outside their own canon list, the Apocrypha as Inspired. Had Luther or Calvin done the same as this, no problem but this is not even the case at all. They dont even consider Inspired these Apocrypha so called

>>4309

Apocryphal to Protestants who hate the truth and distort history

>>4305

In Samuel, it's not fast about but fasting FOR

>>4326

>Protestants dont take this as Inspired Scripture even if earlier Protestant bibles include them in a separate section.

The Orthodox don't take this as inspired Scripture even if their bibles still include them and not even in a separate section. Also, the Orthodox still cite these books just as the fathers you quoted, this doesn't prove the Orthodox believe in the inspired status of these books.

But why are we talking about the Fathers of the Church? Even the Apostles in the inspired books of the New Testament quote and use uninspired books of the Old Testament: the "Assumption of Moses" is used by Apostle Jude (verse 9) and "Enoch" is used by Apostle Jude (verses 14-15) and Apostle Peter (2 Peter 2:4). Also Apostle Paul refers to the Jewish tradition by naming Jannes and Jambres, sons of Balaam and teachers of Moses in 2 Timothy 3:7.

>>4336

Protestants are the orthodox

>>4336

Except the Orthodox do and the way of citation even shows the status given to those so called Apocryphal books. This is not the same as Protestant use of those books where there is a clear avoidance of them as Inspired at all.

Books like "Assumption of Moses" or Enoch hold greater importance to the Jews of the NT times than that of how even a Prot may consider Luther's writings. Why? Because those books are considered traditions of what happened to these OTfigures. There's a reason why some Church Fathers actually take Hermas and 1Clement as Inspired, because they see that same sense of importance.

>>4338

>Because those books are considered traditions of what happened to these OTfigures.

True. But my point is that the Apostles referred to these traditions as authoritative despite that none of us considers the "Assumption of Moses" and "Enoch" inspired books. Authoritative is not the same as inspired.

>There's a reason why some Church Fathers actually take Hermas and 1Clement as Inspired.

No, this is not so. They take Hermas and 1 Clement as books of the Bible, not as inspired books.

Let us remember that the Greek word 'the bible' means 'the books', that is 'the books of the Church' – all books, both inspired and uninspired. The Fathers (and the Church) took Hermas and 1 Clement as books of the Bible, because these books were actually books of the Church.

Very soon the Church accumulated many more books written by saint people. So it became impractical to consider all of them books of the Bible. Therefore, only the inspired books of the New Testament remained in the Bible. Nevertheless, all books written by saints can be considered uninspired books of the New Testament. On the other hand, the uninspired books of the Old Testament weren't too many, so it was easy to make some good selection of them and to include them in the Christian Bibles as αναγιγνωσκόμενα, that is "readable, worthy to be read". The different Churches, however, have made slightly different selections of these books. We don't even have a strict canon which of these books to include in the Bibles.

>>4341

>Authoritative is not the same as inspired.

This. You can find many instances where the Fathers cite earlier Fathers as authoritative, yet they do not consider their writings to be inspired. For example, St. Cyril of Jerusalem in his 12th Catechetical cites St. Justin Martyr's Dialogue with Trypho alongside Psalms:

Since then before His appearance in flesh, the sea saw Him and fled, and Jordan was turned back(Psalm 114:3), the Lord took to Himself His body, that the sea might endure the sight, and Jordan receive Him without fear. This then is one cause; but there is also a second. Through Eve yet virgin came death; through a virgin, or rather from a virgin, must the Life appear: that as the serpent beguiled the one, so to the other Gabriel might bring good tidings(Dialogue with Trypho chapter 100).

>>4341

None of your statements here line up with Patristic Canon Theory. This is because for one, the Traditions used by the Apostles dont even line up with how Protestants view books like Judith. They have no place on the level of describing the history of the Prophets or even the theological lore as they do to Jews.

Secondly, calling a "non inspired" book a Bible makes no sense at all. Even scholars like John Meade recognizes this. Hence he notes Scriptural books to the Fathers, may also include non Canon books. This isnt the same as saying non canon Scripture are NOT Inspired and is the most sensible way to account for the indistinguishable nature of their citation from Canonical books, as I shown.

The example of Shepherd of Hermas is used here, because the book is essentially a prophetic vision which surprise surprise, is something mystical in nature and would be of the nature of something like Enoch to Second Temple Jews. This explains the indistinguishable nature of its citation from Scripture in Irenaeus. Yes, it could be claimed it's because "scripture" may denote any writing in Latin, but updated analysis now show why this is untenetable.

1Clement's authority in some like Didymus? Easy, seen as Apostolic in nature given close ties to the Apostles, a key criterion in determining a canon NT book.

But of course the fatal flaw in your point is simple, no example of distinguished citation is ever provided nor can the sameness to Canon books in citation ever accounted for. Saying "bible" includes uninspired books, is not looking at the data and explaining it. Especially when appeals to other authors dont take the form of "the sacred scriptures said" or as prophecy, or as something intergreted into a bunch of Biblical citations.

>>4350

Unfortunately that citation is simply authortiative interpretation, not authoritative citation of Scripture. So a difference is already discerned easily, making this point void

And here are examples from the most updated and comprehensive study by Meade and Gallagher in "Early Christian canon lists" on deuterocanon

1)Cyril

Cyril probably conceived the title 'Daniel' as including Susanna and Bel and the Dragon, and, therefore, he probably thought this longer version of the book was canonical. In a treatment of OT witness to the Holy Spirit, Cyril introduces a quotation ofTheodotion Daniel 13:45 ('God raised up the Holy Spirit upon a young lad') with the words 'for it has been written' (ylypa7r-ra< yap) (Cat. 16.31). In the next and concluding section of the same catechesis (16.32), Cyril says, 'And it was truly possible to select numerous texts from the Old Testament and to discourse more widely concerning the Holy Spirit: Cyril, therefore, includes Susanna (i.e. Daniel 13) as part of the book of Daniel and therefore as part of the canon of the Old Testament. Cyril alludes to Bel and the Dragon (Dan. 14:36) in Cat. 14.25. He recounts the story of an angel transporting Habakkuk from Judea to Babylon as support for the teaching of Christ's ascension into heaven(page 115)

Notice the authors' observation missed by the Protestants ITT, some deuterocanon can just be seen as parts of other Canon books. This accounts for why they are not listed down as canon and why they are cited as Scripture and of the Prophets. Saying "Biblical" but not Inspired or Biblical is just church writings, dont consider things like these, or even nature of citation. Just like one Prot who tries to do this with Cyril, but fail to see he is explaining authoritative interpretation which surprise, is literally a popular way to see Mary. It's not just Justin but Irenaeus and Tertullian too who see Mary as a New Eve.

>>4354

Another similar tendency in Cyril noted by Meade and Gallager,

189 In Cat. 16.28, Cyril introduces a short citation from Esdras B 19:20 (cf. Neh. 9:20) with cl "Eaopas c/>7Ja{v 'Ezra says'. There is no parallel text to this one in Esdras A. Certainty in this matter is precluded, though Cyril probably intended the two works known in the Greek tradition as Esdras A and Esdras B with the use of these titles, not Ezra and Nehemiah-page 114

Here in Ezra, thr authors show Cyril as citing from Esdras B, which contains verses not found in Edsras A, the Greek Ezra that corresponds with Hebrew Ezra, as Scripture. The authors conclude he probably has both in mind. Not the same as Biblical but not inspired!

191 Lit. 'with Baruch, and Lamentions, and the Epistle'. Cyril cites Baruch 3:36-8 introducing it with 'Hear the prophet saying .. .' (.t'l.1<ov, Tov 11pocf,~Tov MyovTos) (Cat. 11.15), probably indicating the prophet Jeremiah. In a spurious work attributed to Cyril, the author cites Baruch 3:38 with he introduction 'Jeremiah cries' ('l<p<µias (3oq.) (Homilia in occursum domini 11; Reischl and Rupp 1967b: 452). Many fourth-century Greek and Latin fathers appealed to these verses as a prophecy of the incarnation of the Son of God (cf., e.g., the sections on Amphilochius oflconium and Gregory ofNazianzus below).-pages 114-115

Here, notice how Baruch is introduced as inspired Scripture in Cyril's work. A question to Prots is how is inspired and uninspired distinguished if the Apocrypha so called are uninspired to them? Introducing them as they do to Inspired Scriptures

Is the worst way to do it!

20• Of the deuterocanonical books, Cyril uses sparingly Wisdom and Sirach. In Cat. 9.2, 16, Cyril cites Wis. 13:5 and attributes it to Solomon 'according to Solomon who says' (Kara rov .Eo>.oµwVTa Tov MyovTa). In Cat. 11.19, Cyril cites Sir. l:30a and 3:22a without attribution or introductory formula. In Cat. 6.4, he cites Sir. 3:21-2a without attribution or introductory for-mula. He may allude to these works a few more times according to Biblia Patristica, but he only cites them in these places-page 116

Here Meade and Gallager reserve judgement on whether Cyril thinks these are Inspired. But as shown, the context of these citations indicate he sees them as Inspired.

Hence Cyirl considers Wisdom, Esdras B, Sirach, Maccabees, Susanah, Baruch, Bel and the Dragon as Inspired

>>4325

>>4326

>>4327

>>4328

>>4329

>>4330

>>4331

>>4332

>>4354

I can guarantee you that nobody is reading all this. We are on a chan style imageboard.

Share the thesis of your argument, and give us the reference for this source that you're copy pasting from. Engage in concise debate over particular points.

You are not helping your case.

Are you the same guy who went on about "the papyri" in the other thread(s?) on baptism?

>>4356

As I said, the reason why it has to be long is to show the citations from the Fathers themselves against the Protestant position. Dont want to read that? Explanations below which are brief are given for that

>>4358

Ok, let's revise your presentation

"The fathers themselves were against the Protestant position. They held to a view of (…), but Protestants usually say (…).

See proofs from their writings here: papistcarm.org/all-that-shit-you-posted.html"

>>4360

>papist carm

This is why I posted from actual scholarship on this isse aka Early Christian Canon Lists by John Meade and Edmund Gallagher. Collaborates all I written

>>4325

>>4326

>>4327

>>4328

>>4329

>>4330

>>4331

>>4332

These quotes don't mean much because whenever these Fathers actually listed the books that they considered to be inspired, they did not list the vast majority of the Deuterocanon; usually only Baruch and the Epistle of Jeremiah at best and that's because the Jews kept these in the same Book as Jeremiah and these Fathers wanted to stay as close to Jewish tradition, regarding the Old Testament canon, as possible. Why would they cite books which they didn't consider inspired as scripture? Who knows. Maybe they changed their minds one way or the other over the course of their lives, maybe they remembered certain passages wrong and believed they came from different books, this was the days before the Bible was neatly divided into different chapters and verses after all, or maybe, as >>4341 said, they considered the Deuterocanonical books to be authoritative for teaching, or even sacred, but not inspired(and yes, there is a difference.) Either way, taking a bunch of quotes from the Fathers and conjecturing that they must have considered the Deuterocanonical books to be canon because they cited them alongside inspired scripture while ignoring all of their statements saying they, or at least the majority of them, are not inspired doesn't accomplish anything.

Really, trying to use early Christian writings to argue for any position regarding the Old Testament canon isn't going to accomplish anything. Look at any of the ancient canon listings http://www.bible-researcher.com/canon8.html Very few of them align with the canon of any Christian denomination that still exists today. Heck, the only reason early Christian writings are useful for figuring out the canon of the New Testament is because some of them lived close enough to the apostolic period to verify that those books were, indeed, written by, or in the case of Mark and Luke, based on the testimony of, people that really saw and heard Jesus. The Church Fathers are too far removed from the period in which the Old Testament was written to be of any use in determining the canon.

For the record, let me just say that I don't have anything against the deuterocanon. I think they're great books that all Christians should read. But I don't think they're inspired like the other 39 books of the Old Testament are.

>oops oops oops guess what oops

This is gay as shit, mate. Did you just blow in from reddit or, even worse, /christian/?

>>4368

>This is why I posted from actual scholarship on this isse aka Early Christian Canon Lists by John Meade and Edmund Gallagher. Collaborates all I written

Is English your first language? That would explain why it feels like a lot of things ITT are getting lost in translation.

>>4374

Literally a large chunk of non argument. In fact I made it clear several times, a book can be Inspired without being canon as John Meade says. Even worse as I shown by citing Meade and Gallagher who are both Evangelical Protestants, there is a clear tendency in the Fathers to consider some deuterocanon as part of already established Canonical books. Such as Susannah and Bel and the Dragon. This makes sense. Irenaeus thinks Baruch is of Jeremiah as early as the Second Century. But you refused to acknowledge this. At least you done so for Baruch and Jeremiah's Epistle. That adds to 4 deuterocanons as Inspired Scripture by many Fathers. And the best explanation for the lack of books like Wisdom and Maccabbees in canon? It's because the Fathers are following Jewish tradition. The Tradition of following the 22 Alphabet of Hebrew, not because the deuterocanon are Uninspired.

Also good job completely ignoring the HOW the fathers I shown quoted the deuterocanon which are OUTSIDE the canon. Indistinguishable from citing CANONICAL books. Trying to say they think it is sacred but uninspired is not an argument because there are no patristic citations of past figures that consider them as prophecy, words of a prophet or introduced in a manner that is of Canon Scripture or even better, never in a manner where it is intergreted in a whole cluster of Scriptural citations. One person brought up a citation of Justin from Cyril but guess what? The manner it is presented clearly not as indistinguishable from the Pslam cited first, but as the popular interpretation of Mary as the New Eve.

Explaning these fathers as forgetful or somehow changing their minds is also no argument. That's just a conjecture which is uncertain and cannot be proved at all.

>>4378

https://www.google.com/url?sa=i&source=web&cd=&ved=2ahUKEwjXxZzij5jiAhUC3Y8KHc5iBoEQzPwBegQIARAC&url=https%3A%2F%2Fseptuagintstudies.wordpress.com%2F2017%2F07%2F12%2Fa-short-note-on-ancient-canon-theory%2F&psig=AOvVaw0NtcgoarBlpv3YHE0UvaF7&ust=1557823731185353

Now, when this same author cites books as scripture that do not appear in his canon list or possibly includes them in his magnum opus, the Hexapla, what should we conclude? I suggest that rather than redefining the ancient’s canon, which he has already given us clearly in his list, perhaps we should reconsider the ancient’s attitude toward Scripture in general. That is, we may need to consider the probability that an ancient’s canon list does not include all the books which he considered to be Scripture and the ancient’s scope of scriptural books is actually wider than his canon list. In his Hexapla, therefore, he could theoretically include books not in his list alongside books that are. He can cite as Scripture from books that are included in his list alongside books which are not. But his exclusive canon is clear from the list that he has left us.

Here this statement is easily proved from looking at what the fathers say when a deuterocanon is cited. In so many instances, citation is indistinguishable from Canonical books. When this is considered and the desire to follow the 22 letters of the Hebrew alphabet, this starts to make sense and aligns with the evidence, rather than unprovable conjectures made to project false presuppositions into the text, as Prots ITT have been doing.

>>4379

Any honest and sane individual will also notice my points are descriptive of citations, not conjecture, unlike the speculations made by >>4374

>>4380

Gaslighting

>>4385

That is the truth. Get over it

>>4386

"no u"

Ok, guys, so far we have a lot of quotes showing that the Fathers cited many books from the Deuterocanon as authoritative. So, according to one of the anons,

>>4358

>As I said, the reason why it has to be long is to show the citations from the Fathers themselves against the Protestant position.

There are different kinds of Protestants. Some would agree that these books are good, even if not inspired. The Protestants don't consider these books as authoritative but considering that the Protestants do not think that the Church is able to produce authoritative statements, I find this position logical.

The same anon says that from the way the Fathers have cited these books it follows that they have considered these books inspired:

>>4352

>calling a "non inspired" book a Bible makes no sense at all.

I find this argument weak for the following two reasons:

1. Similarly to the the quoted Fathers above, the present day Orthodox cite the books of the Deuterocanon indistinguishably to the books of the Protocanon. Despite that, the Orthodox do not consider the books of the Deuterocanon inspired.

2. More importantly, some of the Fathers (St. Cyril of Jerusalem, St. Athanasius, St. Jerome, St. Epiphanius, St. John of Damascus, St. Gregory of Nazianzus) list as given by God only the books of the Jewish canon, arranged according to the 22 letters of the Hebrew alphabet. Despite that, these saints use books that are not included in their lists of canonical books. I don't see how the quotations by these saints can be used in order to prove that they considered the books of the Deuterocanon inspired when they specifically say this is not so.

>>4396

Orthodox, consider the Deuterocanon as Inspired Scripture. In fact, scholarship pretty much note this time and time again. So you simply just dont know this which is assuming the best, even after all that has been shown.

And again, practically zero Protestant cite the deuterocanon as Prophecy, as Sacred, as something in a string of Canonical Scripture citation. It's not inspired Scripture, period. This contrasts the Church Fathers who take them as such and cites them as such. Not because they are incoherent but because as John Meade says, the books that are Scripture to a father may also include non Canon books which is the Orthodox position today also follows by according these books Inspired status, just lower than the other canonical books. Some deuterocanons are also part of Canonical books, which is why they arent mentioned in Canon lists, they are assumed part of the canon book.

https://oca.org/questions/scripture/canon-of-scripture

The Old Testament books to which you refer—know in the Orthodox Church as the “longer canon” rather than the “Apocrypha,” as they are known among the Protestants—are accepted by Orthodox Christianity as canonical scripture. These particular books are found only in the Septuagint version of the Old Testament, but not in the Hebrew texts of the rabbis.

These books—Tobit, Judah, more chapters of Esther and Daniel, the Books of Maccabees, the Book of the Wisdom of Solomon, the Book of Sirach, the Prophecy of Baruch, and the Prayer of Manasseh—are considered by the Orthodox to be fully part of the Old testament because they are part of the longer canon that was accepted from the beginning by the early Church.

The same Canon [rule] of Scripture is used by the Roman Catholic Church. In the Jerusalem Bible (RC) these books are intermingled within the Old Testament Books and not placed separately as often in Protestant translations (e.g., KJV).

Oh let me guess, the OCA just means authoritative but not Inspired?

Of course some delegate lower level of authority to these books, as the Russian Orthodox bible does but nowhere is Inspiration denied at all. They simply follow the Fathers on the matter

>>4396

I think it's safe to say that our little papist friend doesn't have a strong understanding of English. He's just going to keep misunderstanding what you say, either intentionally or unintentionally, and keep attacking paper tigers. You two are arguing past each other at this point.

>>4403

>provide no explanation

>provide no scholarship on the topic

This is the state of Protestant apologetics

>>4404

Also on Hermas, I made the point that it can be said some Fathers took it as canonical, as Irenaeus did

https://www.academia.edu/11525360/Hermas_Authority_in_Irenaeus_Works_A_Reassessment

Here is the latest argument for why it is Scripture. At the last few pages this is elaborated

>>4402

http://www.pravoslavieto.com/docs/eng/Orthodox_Catechism_of_Philaret.htm

31. How many are the books of the Old Testament?

St. Cyril of Jerusalem, St. Athanasius the Great, and St. John Damascene reckon them at twenty-two, agreeing therein with the Jews, who so reckon them in the original Hebrew tongue. (Athanas. Ep. xxxix. De Test.; J. Damasc. Theol. lib. iv. c. 17.)

32. Why should we attend to the reckoning of the Hebrews?

Because, as the Apostle Paul says, unto them were committed the oracles of God; and the sacred books of the Old Testament have been received from the Hebrew Church of that Testament by the Christian Church of the New. Rom. iii. 2.

33. How do St. Cyril and St. Athanasius enumerate the books of the Old Testament?

As follows: 1, The book of Genesis; 2, Exodus; 3, Leviticus; 4, the book of Numbers; 5, Deuteronomy; 6, the book of Jesus the son of Nun; 7, the book of Judges, and with it, as an appendix, the book of Ruth; 8, the first and second books of Kings, as two parts of one book; 9, the third and fourth books of Kings; 10, the first and second books of Paralipomena; 11, the first book of Esdras, and the second, or, as it is entitled in Greek, the book of Nehemiah; 12, the book of Esther; 13, the book of Job; 14, the Psalms; 15, the Proverbs of Solomon; 16, Ecclesiastes, also by Solomon; 17, the Song of Songs, also by Solomon; 18, the book of the Prophet Isaiah; 19, of Jeremiah; 20, of Ezekiel; 21, of Daniel; 22, of the Twelve Prophets.

34. Why is there no notice taken in this enumeration of the books of the Old Testament of the book of the Wisdom of the son of Sirach, and of certain others?

Because they do not exist in the Hebrew.

35. How are we to regard these last-named books?

Athanasius the Great says that they have been appointed of the Fathers to be read by proselytes who are preparing for admission into the Church.

>>4411

Following what John Meade says, there is literally nothing in here that says the deuterocanon arent Scripture. It just means they are not canonical or are secondary to the main canon. All the cathechism does is follow Patristic style of listing the canonical books without destroying the Inspired status of the deuterocanon outside.

For this to work, Meade's thesis must be dismantled. You havent done this. Second, where are the distinction between apocrypha so called and Canon Scripture in the citations of the fathers? None! In fact throughout here, you and Protestants fail to give any adequate explanation for this. The closest is just unwarrented conjecture that isnt proven, which proceeds to claim my description clearly based on evidence of "conjecture" despite not presenting anything to dismantle my claim.

You, being a crypto Protestant should just be honest and abandon tradition. Stop praying to saints. Stop believing in synergism. Stop your eucharist. Stop praying for the dead. Only then you join the Protestants. I bet you hate venerating icons and saints, like a crypto Prot

>>4412

>John Meade

You write a lot about John Meade but I know nothing about him so I can't understand you well. Can you recommend some reading about him or by him?

>where are the distinction between apocrypha so called and Canon Scripture in the citations of the fathers? None! In fact throughout here, you and Protestants fail to give any adequate explanation for this.

The Fathers have been taught by their spiritual Fathers that books like Sirach or Wisdom of Solomon are fully Biblical books of the Old Testament. Why shouldn't they cite them? These books have always been integral part of the Orthodox bibles. But I've already written that "authoritative" is not the same as "inspired". "Authoritative"="acknowledged as right by the Church". For example if the Fathers refer to the canons of various councils as authoritative, does this mean that these decisions are inspired biblical texts? On the other hand, most Protestants do not acknowledge that the Holy Spirit can guide the Church to make authoritative decisions, so it is only logical that they don't use as much the deuterocanonical books.

But since you are looking for a distinction in the citations of the inspired and the non inspired books by the Fathers, I can give you such a distinction. The inspired Biblical books of the Old Testament often have a mysterious spiritual meaning. For example apostle Paul says that that Agar/Ishmael and Jerusalem/Isaac are foreshadows of the Old Israel (slaves under the law) and the New Israel (sons under the grace). Or, that the going through the sea during the Exodus is a foreshadow of the baptism and the manna is a foreshadow of the Eucharist. The Fathers also speak about this mysterious meaning. For example Joshua is a foreshadow of Jesus (in Hebrew Joshua and Jesus are two forms of the same name and in Greek the names are identical), crossing the Jordan river is the baptism, the extermination of the seven tribes in Canaan is the extermination of seven of the eight passions (the eighth being Egypt, the gluttony).

On the other hand, the non inspired Biblical books do not have a mysterious spiritual meaning. These books say exactly what they say, so they are easier to understand. This is why according to St. Athanasius these books are "appointed by the Fathers to be read by those who newly join us" – not because the subject-matter of these books is more suitable for new or prospective Christians, but rather because these books are easier to understand while the fuller understanding of the inspired books of the Old Testament is more strongly dependent on the grace of the Holy Spirit.

>>4413

Just look >>4379 where I linked to his blogpost where he explains Patristic Canon theory. That is literally what I had been arguing for all this time.

When you said the Fathers were taught to take this as biblical, you are half right. You are half wrong when you deduce from this that it doesnt mean Inspired. Had you said of lower authority without denying Inspired status, I will let it go as I literally have zero problem with that at all. But you say they arent inspired. That's my issue.

Ok so you say "mysterious" meaning as a criterion for distinguishing Inspired Canon from non inspired Deuterocanon. That could easily be seen as lower Inspired status for the deuterocanon in the first place. This makes sense when they arent exegeted that way and yet are still treated in the same manner of sacred writing. Otherwise we are left with confusion. Worse still we have one key element of OT patristic exegesis for Baruch 3:12 in Athanasius, the presence of the Logos speaking or in the text, as Reformed Protestant scholar Hans Boersma notes in his book about sacramental exegesis. But ok, Baruch is seen as part of Jeremiah so let's use another example, Cyril does similar, paralleling Elias and Christ with Maccabees. John Damascus does similar in using Baruch to prophecize Christ!

A key element of Patristic exegesis of the Bible is also mimesis of Biblical figures and Gregory Nanzanzius does this and apart from the Canonical books, he also quotes Sirach in doing his mimesis. Jerome also. It is all Biblical figures plus Judith he asks one lady to imitate.

So no, I dont buy your argument here, crypto Prot

>>4414

>Just look >>4379 where I linked to his blogpost where he explains Patristic Canon theory.

Thank you.

>>4412

>For this to work, Meade's thesis must be dismantled. You haven't done this.

I don't understand. As far as I can tell his thesis is not different than mine. Meade says that

>we may need to consider the probability that an ancient’s canon list does not include all the books which he considered to be Scripture and the ancient’s scope of scriptural books is actually wider than his canon list.

But this is exactly what I say. Only I use the word "Bible" instead of "Scripture" because "Scripture" is ambiguous (there is no such word in Greek or Latin; or rather there is but it means simply "writings"). There is a fixed canon list of books – the list of the inspired books (Meade says nothing about inspiration). However, the Bible (or the Scripture, if you want), is not limited only to the books of the canon list.

>>4414

>That could easily be seen as lower Inspired status for the deuterocanon in the first place.

There are different theories about what exactly "inspired book" means. When I say "inspired book" I mean a book where God and human author unite in such a way that God is the author proper of the whole book and the human author also is the author proper of the whole book. (Such union of God and man may seem absurd, but Christ proves that this is possible – he is fully God, he is fully man and he is still one.) This notion of inspiration does not allow for higher and lower statuses (this would be a Biblical Arianism).

On the other hand, maybe you have in mind some different notion of inspiration. For example maybe you will say that the Holy Spirit has enlightened the authors of the deuterocanonical books. If you say so, I will not object. I will object only if you say that God has not only influenced the authors of the deuterocanonical books but he is author proper of these books.