A Few Reasons To Reject The Catholic Apocrypha

There is no evidence that the Septuagint of the first century contained the Apocrypha. The earliest Greek manuscripts, which contain them, date from the 4th Century. (Codex Sinaiticus, Codex Alexandrinus, Codex Vaticanus).
The earliest Greek manuscripts date to the time of Augustine, whose influence is reflected in the codex manuscripts. In addition, none of the Greek Manuscripts contain all the Apocryphal books. No Greek manuscript has the exact list of Apocryphal books accepted by the Council of Trent (1545-63) 14 reasons to reject them.
1. There is not sufficient evidence that they were reckoned as canonical by the Jews anywhere.
2. The LXX design was literary, to build the library of Ptolemy and the Alexandrians.
3. All LXX manuscripts are Christian and not Jewish origin. With a 500 years difference between translation and existing manuscripts. Enough time for Apocryphal books to slip in.
4. LXX manuscripts do not all have the same apocryphal books and names.
5. During the 2nd Century AD the Alexandrian Jews adopted Aquila’s Greek version of the OT without apocryphal books.
6. The manuscripts at the Dead Sea make it clear no canonical book of the OT was written later than the Persian period.
7. Philo, Alexandrian Jewish philosopher (20 BC-40 AD), quoted the Old Testament prolifically, and even recognized the threefold classification, but he never quoted from the Apocrypha as inspired.
8. Josephus (30-100 AD.), Jewish historian, explicitly excludes the Apocrypha; numbering the books of the Old Testament as 22 neither does he quote the apocryphal books as Scripture.
9. Jesus and the New Testament writes never once quote the Apocrypha, although there are hundreds of quotes and references to almost the entire book of the Old Testament.
10. The Jewish scholars of Jamnia (90 AD) did not recognize the Apocrypha. And yes it did exist. Some want to push this date back later than 90 A.D.
11. No canon or council of the Christian church recognized the Apocrypha as inspired for nearly four centuries. And even then their position was not clearly affirming these books as equal in authority. (Which is why I wonder why people are so vehement to say that Jerome changed his mind.)
12. Many of the great fathers of the early church spoke out against the Apocrypha—for example, Origen, Cyril of Jerusalem, and Athanasius.
13. Jerome (AD 340-420) The great scholar and translator of the Latin Vulgate rejected the Apocrypha as part of the canon. Did he change his mind, or did he accept them as advantageous but not scripture? I’m asking.
14. Not until 1546 AD in a polemical action at the counter-Reformation Council of Trent (1545-63), did the apocryphal books receive full canonical status by the Roman Catholic Church.

Advertisements
Leave a comment

14 Comments

  1. Regarding Jesus and the Deuterocanon: http://www.scripturecatholic.com/deuterocanon.html

    I’ve also asked my friend Joe to stop by. I hope he has time. Either way, he has written quite extensively on the Deuterocanon. I recommend you check out his posts (34 of them).

    Peace to you on your journey

    Reply
  2. Garrison

     /  July 12, 2012

    Those three codices are the earliest complete manuscripts we have of the LXX. From what I can tell, the very oldest manuscripts are fragmentary and missing much more than just the deuterocanonicals or only include the Pentateuch.
    1. Not quite relevant. Anyway, the assertion is too broad.
    2. I’m not really sure what this has to do with anything, but I don’t think it’s true, exactly. For example, Philo ascribed divine inspiration to its translators.
    3. A speculation. It is likely given the situation, as I mentioned at the beginning, that these books were in the original LXX.
    4. As mentioned before, they also lack other books, too.
    5. That’s 2nd cen. Judaism. The Church was well distinct from and certainly not taking cues from the Jews of the period.
    6. Do they? I’ve seen no one assert this. Apocryphal and pseudepigraphal literature (including the deuterocanon) comprise 30% of the corpus. I think that points to at least a high view on their status if not more.
    7 and 8. Neither of these men constitute the whole of Jewish thought or even have the authority to determine the Jewish canon, let alone a Christian one.
    9. Jesus and the NT never quote many books from the OT, but Jude does quote from Enoch and the Assumption of Moses, neither of which are canonical or even said to be inspired. Irrelevant.
    10. Most of the scholarship I’ve seen actually disputes a Council of Jamnia ever existed. Again, why would Christians of the time look to the Jews, from whom those who were Jewish had been expelled and of whom those who were Gentiles were not a part, to determine their canon? They rejected Christ, therefore they had no authority over the Church.
    11. False. They did refer to them as Scripture. http://matt1618.freeyellow.com/deut.html#Ecumenical Councils
    As for “equal in authority”, that is debatable, but their inspiration is not.
    12 and 13. False. Here is a list of Fathers with quotations (including Jerome) attesting to the inspiration of these books: http://matt1618.freeyellow.com/deut.html
    14. The fact that the Church has ruled definitively and infallibly on a subject does not mean that that definition did not exist before or was not truth before. I doubt you would say the Council of Nicaea was “polemical” in declaring against Arius. Trent, indeed, was called in reaction to the Reformation and did declare much of it heretical. Such is the authority of the Church.

    IC XC NIKA

    Garrison

    Reply
    • I will not respond to every point, but I will make a couple of comments.

      Garrison wrote “5. That’s 2nd cen. Judaism. The Church was well distinct from and certainly not taking cues from the Jews of the period.” Whether or not they have any say as to the Christian canon is not the point. Of course they do not. That would be ridiculous. The question is “what canon did Jesus recognize?” I think it would be very easy to prove that Jesus read the Apocryphal books. If it were possible to demonstrate that these books were not recognized by HIM as canonical then we have a closed case, right?

      There is good evidence that Jesus recognized the Hebrew Canon which exists today in its Protestant form.

      Again, We are using the Jews for this one reason: Jesus, as a Jew, endorsed certain books. The regard we have for Jesus leads us to accept any and all of those books endorsed by Him.

      One argument that the OT was a closed Canon, excluding the Apocrypha, during the life of Jesus: Jesus makes a reference to all of the blood from that of Abel to that of Zechariah in Luke 11:49-52. This statement runs from the first man to be killed in the Hebrew Canon to the last one in the Hebrew canon to be killed (Zechariah son of Jehoiada, in 2 Chron. 24:20-22).
      Zechariah was certainly not the last to be killed in any chronological scale: within the period of time represented by the Old Testament, the last chronologically was Uriah son of Shemaiah (Jer. 26:20-23). If the identification with the Zechariah of 2 Chron. 24 is correct, he was chosen because of his place in the recognized canon. So why did Jesus pick Abel? Because he was first to be killed in the Hebrew Canon. And why did he pick Zechariah, because he was the last to be killed in the OT Canon.

      This gives us a reasonable amount of certainty in believing that Jesus recognized the OT Canon that the Protestants have today as their OT canon, though ours in a different order. And as I already said, it would be easy to prove that Jesus was very familiar with the Apocryphal writings, but he never quotes them as Scripture, nor does any other NT writer. Those “prophets” that die in the apocryphal works are not given the status as those from the fore-mentioned Hebrew canon.

      The issue is Jesus, not the Jews per se. Jesus was a Jew, and trying to grapple with what they held during his lifetime is an important issue.

      Garrison also wrote:
      “9. Jesus and the NT never quote many books from the OT, but Jude does quote from Enoch and the Assumption of Moses, neither of which are canonical or even said to be inspired. Irrelevant.”

      This point completely fails to recognize the issue that there was a “body” of books; i.e. a canon . As I said above, the Hebrew canon was composed of 24 books (this same 24 is separated into 39 in the Protestant bible). The NT writers didn’t have to quote from each book if they made it totally obvious that they recognized all of them as divinely inspired. If Peter endorses Paul, he doesn’t have to quote from every letter to demonstrate his recognition of all of his works as scripture.

      Jesus recognized the Hebrew Canon, as such, and all of the writers quoted from this canon as an authoritative source. This source existed as a body of literature and therefore the fact that Esther isn’t quoted is insignificant since Esther is included in this body of literature that Jesus himself endorsed.

      Also, the issue is not whether someone is quoted; but whether someone is quoted “as scripture.” Enoch is not quoted as Scripture, and is not included in the accepted “body of literature” that we now call the Hebrew Canon. Paul quoted form pagan poets, not to authorize them but to use them to take familiar ideas and communicate the gospel through them evangelistically. Still in all, Paul did not quote them as scripture.

      Josh

      Reply
  3. Garrison

     /  July 12, 2012

    But Jews in second century Alexandria are not the same as those in first century Palestine. Remember: what those Jews had as their canon is irrelevant to this discussion because they are not Christians. If second century Christians had been polemicizing against the deuterocanon by saying it’s not Scripture (they weren’t), that would be one thing, but second century Jews have no bearing on the Church. In fact, second century Christians are saying the opposite, that these books ARE Scripture.
    Your argument that Jesus would only have recognized the Old Testament in its Protestant form without the deuterocanon is an argument from silence. Also, if the canon was settled before Jesus’ time, why in the world would the Jews need to hold a council sixty plus years after His death to settle this exact question.
    The note about Abel to Zechariah is interesting, but not conclusive. You have to actually show it is referring to the canon, not speculate about it. I do not call speculation “reasonable… certainty”.

    Since you failed to demonstrate that Christ recognized only the Hebrew canon as determined by later Protestants and Jews, your second premise fails as well.

    This argument is also problematic in that, as I said earlier, many Fathers quote these books as Scripture and refer to them as inspired, but none deny it. If the canon had been such a big deal that Christ would have rejected the deuterocanon as apocryphal and unscriptural, why would his earliest followers directly contradict him?

    By the guidance of the Holy Spirit, the Church has recognized from early in her history which books are inspired and which are not. These books are among those so recognized.

    Reply
    • Garrison,
      You said: “But Jews in second century Alexandria are not the same as those in first century Palestine. Remember: what those Jews had as their canon is irrelevant to this discussion because they are not Christians.”

      Remember: the issue is not with the Jews themselves but with Jesus. The council of Jamnia only reinforces our position about Jesus.

      You said: “Your argument that Jesus would only have recognized the Old Testament in its Protestant form without the deuterocanon is an argument from silence.”

      No it’s not! Jesus references the first and last prophets to die when, and only when, read according to the Hebrew Canon! That is not silence nor speculation. That one arguement is stronger than anyone the Catholics put forward; namely, Jesus’ reference of Abel to Zechariah suggests that the canon Jesus was familiar with was the Jewish OT canon that includes the books we have today. The Apocryphal works were known in Jesus’ day, and Jesus did not recognize any of the ones who died outside of the Hebrew Canon as prophets, nor did he ever quote them as scripture. Not only this, but chronologically, Zechariah wasn’t the last prophet to die as I stated earlier. Jesus’ reference to Zechariah is a clear indicator of his idea of what was included in the Scriptures he used. Again this is not silence, nor speculation.

      We, therefore, have a very good basis for believing that Jesus read and studied the Hebrew Canon. This is the canon:
      Torah: Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy

      Prophets: Joshua, Judges, Samuel (1/2), Kings (1/2), Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel,

      The Minor Prophets (= one book: Hosea, Joel, Amos, Obadiah, Jonah, Micah, Nahum, Habakkuk, Zephaniah, Haggai, Zechariah, Malachi)

      Writings: Psalms, Job, Proverbs, Ruth, Song of Solomon, Ecclesiastes, Lamentations, Esther, Daniel, Ezra-Nehemiah (= one book), Chronicles (1/2)

      Jesus’s quote for the first prophet is Abel from the beginning Genesis the first book, and the last prophet is quoted from 2 Chronicles, their last book in their canon.

      Josephus and Philo and even the council of Jamnia only reinforce THIS position.

      You said: “This argument is also problematic in that, as I said earlier, many Fathers quote these books as Scripture and refer to them as inspired, but none deny it.”

      None deny it??? Here is a quote from Jerome:
      “What the Savior declares was written down was certainly written down. Where is it written down? The Septuagint does not have it, and the Church does not recognize the Apocrypha. Therefore we must go back to the book of the Hebrews, which is the source of the statements quoted by the Lord, as well as the examples cited by the disciples…But he who brings charges against me for relating the objections that the Hebrews are wont to raise against the story of Susanna, the Song of the Three Children, and the story of Bel and the Dragon, which are not found in the Hebrew volume, proves that he is just a foolish sycophant…The apostolic men use the Hebrew Scripture. It is clear that the apostles themselves and the evangelists did likewise. The Lord and Savior, whenever He refers to ancient Scripture, quotes examples from the Hebrew volumes…We do not say this because we wish to rebuke the Septuagint translators, but because the authority of the apostles and of Christ is greater…”

      Jerome critiqued his position, but not in recognizing these books as divinely authoritative for doctrine.
      In fact all of these reject it as equally authoritative as scripture: Origen, Melito of Sardis, Athanasius, Cyril of Jerusalem, Gregory of Nazianzus, Hilary of Poitiers, Epiphanius, Basil the Great, Jerome, Rufinus and a host of others.

      “Here we close our commentaries on the historical books of the Old Testament. For the rest (that is, Judith, Tobit, and the books of Maccabees) are counted by St Jerome out of the canonical books, and are placed amongst the Apocrypha, along with Wisdom and Ecclesiasticus, as is plain from the Prologus Galeatus. Nor be thou disturbed, like a raw scholar, if thou shouldest find anywhere, either in the sacred councils or the sacred doctors, these books reckoned as canonical. For the words as well of councils as of doctors are to be reduced to the correction of Jerome. Now, according to his judgment, in the epistle to the bishops Chromatius and Heliodorus, these books (and any other like books in the canon of the bible) are not canonical, that is, not in the nature of a rule for confirming matters of faith. Yet, they may be called canonical, that is, in the nature of a rule for the edification of the faithful, as being received and authorised in the canon of the bible for that purpose. By the help of this distinction thou mayest see thy way clearly through that which Augustine says, and what is written in the provincial council of Carthage.” 129 Cardinal Caietan (Jacob Thomas de Vio), Commentary on all the Authentic Historical Books of the Old Tesdtament, In ult. Cap., Esther. Taken from A Disputation on Holy Scripture by William Whitaker (Cambridge: University, 1849), p. 48. See also B.F. Westcott’s A General Survey of the History of the Canon of the New Testament (Cambridge: MacMillan, 1889), p. 475.

      Plenty of other people down through the ages rejected the Apocrypha as divinely authorized for doctrine, which is exactly how the Roman Church takes it today.

      Reply
      • This is not completely true. While some of the names you list rejected some of the deuterocanon, they did not reject all of it. Also, some of them rejected certain N.T. books you would not reject. What does this prove? History does not get you a canon (can you tell I want you to read this : ) ).

  4. I was responding to a quote that said none of the fathers rejected them.

    I am all for recognizing the fallibility of the fathers because I recognize that many believed they were scripture.

    Reply
  5. Garrison

     /  July 12, 2012

    No. The Council of Jamnia, if it ever existed, was a council called to polemicize against Christians. Their decision is null and void as it pertains to the Church. Unless you want to assert that the Jews maintained the true belief in the canon against the Church, you must cease appealing to them. Jewish tradition is irrelevant for our purposes after Christ.

    Not every book in the Bible was authored by a prophet. I really think you’re making this passage say something much more than it actually does. Has anyone in the Church ever put forward the interpretation you give? If not, then it is irrelevant, especially if these books were “controversial”. It is not clear and is, in fact, an argument of silence to say Christ rejected the deuterocanon when there are no direct citations saying as such. It is speculation to say more.

    Please cite your quotation. I’m pretty sure it’s from Jerome’s Against Rufinus, but I can’t verify it if you don’t cite it. And you obviously did not look at the page I posted, so I will post it again with the relevant section on Jerome: http://matt1618.freeyellow.com/deut.html#St.%20Jerome,%20%5B347-419/420%20A.D%5D.

    You’re going to have to quote those Fathers you list denying the inspiration of the deuterocanon especially in the face of this evidence to the contrary: http://matt1618.freeyellow.com/deut.html

    Your view of the canon is not the same as these Fathers. They saw the canon more as what is read in their churches, but they still affirmed them as divinely inspired by referring to them as Scripture and using the stock phrase “it is written…”, which signifies a Scriptural quotation.

    If any did reject them in the face of the various ecumenical councils that are listed in the site I gave to you again, they were heretics, and their opinions on this matter are wrong, but you must cite them denying their inspiration and *not* their status in the canon.

    A side note, Protestants are the only Christians to reject the deuterocanon. All the ancient Churches (RCC, Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox, Assyrian Church of the East) accept them as Scripture. This is telling, no?

    Reply
    • Jamnia isn’t the argument. It never was. Jamnia only reaffirms what has already been established by Jesus in Luke 11:49-52. Many have this interpretation including John Piper.

      Jermoe has been quoted.

      I’m done with the Apocrypha for now. Thanks Garrison for your challenges and feedback.

      I now have to turn my attention to my second sermon on Ephesians 1.

      Thanks and I have enjoyed corresponding with you.

      Reply
  6. Pio

     /  July 12, 2012

    If I may point something out, Josh, you wrote: “Jesus’ reference of Abel to Zechariah suggests that the canon Jesus was familiar with was the Jewish OT canon that includes the books we have today.”

    There are many problems with the Protestant appeal to this argument, but here is just one I noticed yesterday. The writer of Hebrews notes in Hebrews 11:35 all of those we should imitate in faith going from Abel all the way to “others who were tortured, refusing to be released so that they might gain an even better resurrection.” It speaks of other people’s faith we should imitate after verse 35 but it is interesting he includes it since it is a clear reference to 2 Macc. 7:1, 5-9. If you argument is true, that Christ’s appeal to Abel to Zechariah means he decided on a canon, then the writer of Hebrews also decided on a canon, and this one would include 2 Maccabees. So it seems to me this argument backfires. Besides, if Jesus decided on the canon, why did the Apostolic Fathers believe the deuterocanonicals were Scripture, as the Protestant historian J.N.D. Kelly notes “It should be observed that the Old Testament thus admitted as authoritative in the Church was somewhat bulkier and more comprehensive than the twenty-two, or twenty-four, books of the Hebrew Bible of Palestinian Judaism…It always included though with varying degrees of recognition, the so-called Apocrypha, or deuterocanonical books…For the great majority, however, the deuterocanonical writings ranked as Scripture in the fullest sense.” (Kelly, Early Christian Doctrines, pp 53-55.) Much more can be said here but Garrison seems to be doing a great job already so I should probably be silent.

    Reply
    • J.N.D. Kelly confirms this:

      “The view which now commanded itself fairly generally in the Eastern church, as represented by Athanasius, Cyril of Jerusalem, Gregory of Nazianzus and Epiphanius was that the deutero-canonical books should be relegated to a subordinate position outside the canon proper.”

      first, Pio, this quote “others who were tortured, refusing to be released so that they might gain an even better resurrection,” is an ambiguous as to who it refers to, is it referring to Abel or Isaiah? Jesus was clearly, if you read him in context making a statement about the fist to last prophet to die, up until that time, from the foundation to the world. It is not merely the quote itself. Hebrews isn’t referencing or quoting Macc. there, conclusively either.

      In Luke Jesus clearly quotes the fist person to die in the Hebrew Canon and the last to die. The point is, that Jesus had the OT Canon as it stands today, without the Apocrypha. This is not established by Jamnia.

      A short historical survey:

      Historical Views of the Apocrypha

      For Apocrypha

      AD 1952: Semitic fragments of Tobit, Sirach and Psalm 151 plus Greek fragments of Letter of Jeremiah found among the Dead Sea Scrolls

      AD 1672: Council of Jerusalem affirms canonicity of Apocrypha
      AD 1611: Authorized Version printed with the Apocrypha
      AD 1566: Sixtus of Siena coins the term, “deuterocanonical”
      AD 1546: Council of Trent affirms canonicity of Apocrypha
      AD 1441: Council of Union affirms canonicity of Apocrypha
      AD 692: Second Council in Trullo affirms the Apocrypha

      AD 397: Council of Carthage affirms the Apocrypha

      AD 390: Augustine affirms the Apocrypha as canonical
      circa AD 350: Christian Bible codices include many of the books of the Apocrypha
      AD 200: Irenaeus references Wisdom of Solomon

      AD 230: Origen argues for using the Apocrypha

      Against Apocrypha:

      400 BC: End of the “golden age of prophecy” (Old Testament age)

      132 BC: Sirach alludes to an Old Testament canon
      100 BC: The Community Rule/Zadokite Fragments may ascribe inspiration only to Old Testament canon
      AD 40: Philo omits apocryphal books from his writings
      AD 90: 2 Esdras argues for closed Old Testament canon
      AD 95: Josephus argues for closed Old Testament canon in Against Apion
      AD 99: End of the New Testament age with no direct reference to Apocrypha in the New Testament
      AD 160: Melito of Sardis excludes all Apocrypha
      AD 230: Julius Africanus argues apocryphal Susanna is fake
      AD 230: Origen argues against most of the Apocrypha as canonical
      AD 300: Rabbinic consensus against canonization of all Apocrypha (t. Yadayim 2:13B)
      AD 350: Cyril of Jerusalem rejects almost all Apocrypha
      AD 360: Council of Laodicea excludes all Apocrypha
      AD 367: Athanasius writes that Apocrypha is edifying not canonical
      AD 380: Gregory of Nazianzus rejects Apocrypha from canon
      AD 405: Jerome rejects the Apocrypha as canonical
      AD 595: Gregory the Great writes that Apocrypha is edifying not canonical
      AD 740: John of Damascene rejects Apocrypha
      AD 1150: Numbers Rabbah rejects Apocrypha
      AD 1300: First known commentary on an apocryphal book (Wisdom of Solomon)
      AD 1382: John Wycliffe denies canonicity of Apocrypha
      AD 1534: Martin Luther writes Apocrypha is useful not sacred
      AD 1643: John Lightfoot writes of “the wretched Apocrypha”
      AD 1648: Westminster Confession excludes Apocrypha
      AD 1825: British and Foreign Bible Society drop Apocrypha from Bibles

      While this timeline is not exhaustive, it reveals that most of the earliest testimonies favor viewing the Apocrypha as edifying, not canonical (nor useless as to be omitted), and as inspiring, not inspired (in the canonical sense).

      Reply
  7. I didn’t cite this earlier, so here it is.

    What the Savior declares was written down was certainly written down. Where is it written down? The Septuagint does not have it, and the Church does not recognize the Apocrypha. Therefore we must go back to the book of the Hebrews, which is the source of the statements quoted by the Lord, as well as the examples cited by the disciples…But he who brings charges against me for relating the objections that the Hebrews are wont to raise against the story of Susanna, the Song of the Three Children, and the story of Bel and the Dragon, which are not found in the Hebrew volume, proves that he is just a foolish sycophant…The apostolic men use the Hebrew Scripture. It is clear that the apostles themselves and the evangelists did likewise. The Lord and Savior, whenever He refers to ancient Scripture, quotes examples from the Hebrew volumes…We do not say this because we wish to rebuke the Septuagint translators, but because the authority of the apostles and of Christ is greater…”(The Fathers of the Church (Washington: Catholic University, 1965), Volume 53, Saint Jerome, Against Rufinus, Book II.27, 33, pp. 151, 158-160).

    Reply
  8. Garrison

     /  July 13, 2012

    There are too many ellipses in your quotation from “Against Rufinus”. You leave out important information. For instance, you miss this: “for I explained not what I thought but what they commonly say against us. I did not reply to their opinion in the Preface, because I was studying brevity, and feared that I should seem to be writing not a Preface but a book. I said therefore, As to which this is not the time to enter into discussion.”

    But the Fathers did not consider a book outside the canon to lack divine inspiration. You continually ignore that. Instead you beg the question when you make statements like these: “While this timeline is not exhaustive, it reveals that most of the earliest testimonies favor viewing the Apocrypha as edifying, not canonical (nor useless as to be omitted), and as inspiring, not inspired (in the canonical sense).”

    No. You have not cited any Fathers saying such a thing. Saying they are non-canonical is not the same as saying they have no authority or that they are not Scripture. I will provide the link again for you to browse: http://matt1618.freeyellow.com/deut.html#St
    These quotations show clearly how the Fathers regarded the deuterocanon. Why won’t you read them?

    I have this to say, even if many Fathers did question the inspiration of these books, they would still be wrong if the Church ruled against them (I have yet to see you bring evidence any did). What has the Church repeatedly confirmed? That these books are Scripture. Even the East, which you appeal to as supporting your interpretation of history, upholds these books in the Council in Trullo, which is regarded as part of the Fifth Ecumenical Council by the Eastern Orthodox and their Greek Catholic brothers and sisters. The Oriental Orthodox and the Assyrian Church of the East also accept these books as canonical and inspired.

    You disregard historians (even one of your own!) who tell you flat out that your position is incorrect, that these books have been recognized by the Church throughout the centuries as being both inspired AND canonical. I realize that the Church’s decision means little to you as a Protestant, but it does refute your historical-critical attempt to denigrate the deuterocanon.

    Reply
    • Now it is the ellipses, huh. Yea, the point is still clear, at least it is to me.

      Many of the Fathers did question its inspiration, and if you are right concerning the magesterium, then yes, they are wrong. But what if you are wrong concerning the magesterium? That question is rhetorical.

      Speaking of disagreeing with one of “my” historians, and by “my” I mean “non-catholic;” you disagree with Brian Tierney who is a Catholic, who through historical inquiry thought that papal infallibility was a paper fiction. My point is that to disagree with one historian, and I suppose you mean the historian J.N.D. Kelly, is not that big a deal; remember I’m protestant 🙂 I actually agree with him on his conclusion though, at least I think I do. I quoted him in response to Mr. Pio.

      This is my last response on this subject and I have enjoyed it Garrison.

      Reply

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: