Pages

Tuesday, January 6, 2009

Invincible Ignorance Exhibit A

The Catholic church, for years, tried its best to keep the Bible from getting into the common people's hands. They even killed people who tried to get the Word of God to the common man. However, the Word of God has always been available to anyone who seeks for it, as Christ promised. 


Sometimes Candy's lack of world history knowledge astounds me. None of it surprises me however.  Her perspective of the Church and the Bible is directly influenced by Samuel Gipp whom I wrote an entire series on here.

Contrary to what Candy thinks, it was the Catholic church that got the scriptures into the hands of the common man.  First of all the Catholic Church determined which books should be preserved and in the canon and then under the authority of the pope, the canon of the bible was closed.  That canon remained intact until Martin Luther and the Reformation.  So the Protestant bible is only 500 years or so old.  Prior to that, it was the Catholic version used by Christendom.

Secondly, the church preserved the written word with great perseverance. Before the printing press, scripture had to be COPIED BY HAND. The volumes were HUGE.  And although anti-Catholics like Candy will bash the church for having copies of the bible chained in the church, it wasn't to prevent the people from having access to them, but rather to make sure everyone could have access to them! Much like important volumes in the public library available to all but not available for check out and circulation.

Thirdly, the church kept the word of God alive ORALLY and in art and music because the great majority of people COULD NOT READ! The beautiful art in the great churches and cathedrals wasn't just there for atmosphere - it's there to help the people learn the bible stories and to inspire them.

Fourthly, I would point out that prior to the printing press, and a mass distribution system, producing cheap, easy to produce and distribute copies of the bible, owning a bible would have been prohibitive anyway, which is another reason I think sola scriptura is erroneous.

Here is an excerpt from How We Got the Bible - Henry Graham:
Now one could go on at any length accumulating evidence as to the fact of monks and priests reproducing and transmitting copies of the Bible from century to century, before the days of Wycliff and Luther; but there is no need, because I am not writing a treatise on the subject, but merely adducing a few proofs of my assertions, and trying to show how utterly absurd is the contention that Rome hates the Bible, and did her best to keep it a locked and sealed book and even to destroy it throughout the Middle Ages. Surely nothing but the crassest ignorance or the blindest prejudice could support a theory so flatly contradicted by the simplest facts of history. The real truth of the matter is that it is the Middle Ages which have been a closed and sealed book to Protestants, and that only now, owing to the honest and patient researches of impartial scholars amongst them, are the treasures of those grand centuries being unlocked and brought to their view. It is this ignorance or prejudice which explains to me a feature that would be otherwise unaccountable in the histories of the Bible written by non-Catholics. I have consulted many of them, and they all, with hardly an exception, either skip over this period of the Bible's existence altogether or dismiss it with a few off-hand references. They jump right over from the inspired writers themselves, or perhaps from the fourth century, when the Canon was fixed, to John Wycliff, 'The Morning Star of the Reformation', leaving blank the intermediate centuries, plunged, as they imagine, in worse than Egyptian darkness. But I ask—Is this fair or honest? Is it consistent with a love of truth thus to suppress the fact, which is now happily beginning to dawn on the more enlightened minds, that it was the monks and clergy of the Catholic Church who, during all these ages, preserved, multiplied, and perpetuated the Sacred Scriptures? The Bible on its human side is a perishable article. Inspired by God though it be, it was yet, by the Providence of God, written on perishable parchment with pen and ink; liable to be lost or destroyed by fire, by natural decay and corruption, or by the enemies, whether civilised or pagan, that wasted and ravaged Christendom by the sword, and gave its churches and monasteries and libraries to the flames. Who, I ask, but the men and women, consecrated to God by their vows and devoted to a life of prayer and study in monasteries and convents, remote from worldly strife and ambition—who but they saved the written Word of God from total extinction, and with loving and reverent care reproduced its sacred pages, to be known and read of all, and to be handed down to our own generation, which grudges to acknowledge the debt it owes to their pious and unremitting labours?
When was the Old Testament compiled? Some would decide for about the year 430 B.C., under Esdras and Nehemiah, resting upon the authority of the famous Jew, Josephus, who lived immediately after Our Lord, and who declares that since the death of Ataxerxes, B.C. 424, 'no one had dared to add anything to the Jewish Scriptures, to take anything from them, or to make any change in them.' Other authorities, again, contend that it was not till near 100 B.C. that the Old Testament volume was finally closed by the inclusion of the 'Writings'. But whichever contention is correct, one thing at least is certain, that by this last date—that is, for 100 years before the birth of Our Blessed Lord—the Old Testament existed precisely as we have it now.

Of course, I have been speaking so far of the Old Testament, in Hebrew, because it was written by Jewish authority in the Jewish language, namely, Hebrew, for Jews, God's chosen people. But after what is called the 'Dispersion' of the Jews, when that people was scattered abroad and settled in many other lands outside Palestine, and began to lose their Hebrew tongue and gradually became familiar with Greek, which was then a universal language, it was necessary to furnish them with a copy of their Sacred Scriptures in the Greek language. Hence arose that translation of the Hebrew Old Testament into Greek known as the Septuagint. This word means in Latin 70, and is so named because it is supposed to have been the work of 70 translators, who performed their task at Alexandria, where there was a large Greek-speaking colony of Jews. Begun about 280 or 250 years before Christ, we may safely say that it was finished in the next century; it was the acknowledged Bible of all the 'Jews of the Dispersion' in Asia, as well as in Egypt, and was the Version used by Our Lord, His Apostles and Evangelists, and by Jews and Gentiles and Christians in the early days of Christianity. It is from this Version that Jesus Christ and the New Testament writers and speakers quote when referring to the Old Testament.

But what about the Christians in other lands who could not understand Greek? When the Gospel had been spread abroad, and many people embraced Christianity through the labours of Apostles and missionaries in the first two centuries of our era, naturally they had to be supplied with copies of the Scriptures of the Old Testament (which was the inspired Word of God) in their own tongue; and this gave rise to translations of the Bible into Armenian and Syriac and Coptic and Arabic and Ethiopic for the benefit of the Christians in these lands. For the Christians in Africa, where Latin was best understood, there was a translation of the Bible made into Latin about 150 A.D., and, later, another and better for the Christians in Italy; but all these were finally superseded by the grand and most important version made by St Jerome in Latin called the 'Vulgate'—that is, the common, or current or accepted Version. This was in the fourth century of our era. By this time St Jerome was born, there was great need of securing a correct and uniform text in Latin of Holy Scripture, for there was danger, through the variety and corrupt conditions of many translations then existing, lest the pure scripture should be lost. So Jerome, who was a monk, and perhaps the most learned scholar of his day, at the command of Pope St Damascus in 382 A.D., made a fresh Latin Version of the New Testament (which was by this time practically settled) correcting the existing versions by the earliest Greek MSS. he could find. Then in his cell at Bethlehem, between (approximately) the years 392-404, he also translated the Old Testament into Latin directly from the Hebrew (and not from the Greek Septuagint)—except the Psalter, which he had previously revised from existing Latin Versions. This Bible was the celebrated Vulgate, the official text in the Catholic Church, the value of which all scholars admit to be simply inestimable, and which continued to influence all other versions, and to hold the chief place among Christians down to the Reformation


AddThis Social Bookmark Button

50 comments:

unknown anon said...

Sadly, it's really NOT invincible ignorance. Her ignorance is totally vincible. It is easily overcome with the most basic of research skills.

Jennie said...

Just because someone disagrees with Roman Catholic versions of history doesn't mean they are ignorant. Much history is hidden from catholics because it contradicts the Church's claim to power.

It is not true that the Roman Catholic church determined which books should be preserved. Long before any church council, God's people knew His word and which books were His. God didn't need a council of men to approve what He had inspired and which
his true sheep recognized.
The inspired books were carefully copied by hand and lovingly preserved by the local churches. Peoples who loved His word taught
their children and disciples to read and didn't leave them in ignorance. See http://atschool.eduweb.co.uk/sbs777/vital/kjv/part1-2.html

It isn't true that the catholic version was the only one used by christendom. Churches established all over the world, including Europe and Britain and Asia that where established by the earliest missionaries in the 1st century, had the scriptures and when later Roman Catholic emissaries came to try to subject the descendants of these believers to the popes, these people refused to submit because they recognized the alien nature of Rome. This happened in Britain and Ireland and with the Waldenses and albigenses and many others. They had preserved God's word by hand and many had memorized huge portions of it. See their history here:http://www.wayoflife.org/articles/jones00.htm
http://www.tagnet.org/davenportsda/waldense.htm
Everywhere the gospel went, common literacy generally followed, but after the popes began to control the church in the middle ages, literacy for her followers declined and the dark ages began. Dissenters were persecuted and fled to safety when they could, such as the Waldenses to the valleys of Piedmont.
Rome only came into the education of the common people within the last two hundred years. Why should people HAVE to be taught by pictures and songs like children when it is so simple to teach them to read as the protestants did because they loved the liberty of the gospel more than the power of the pope?

Dr MikeyMike said...

Jennie,

March on, Christian soldier!

And by that, I actually mean for you to "march on" to a Western Civ and Culture class that is not at whatever un-Nationally Credited Bible College you seem to enjoy quoting. Seriously, though - you need to actually read some stuff produced by scholarly, credited researchers. What you are doing right now is comparable to going to a Ku Klux Clan website for information on minorities and Jews.

Ultimately, you can do whatever you want to do. In the meantime, you are sort of.. humiliating yourself. Seriously, what next? Are you going to start linking us to Jack Chick?

Now you are probably thinking, "Why are you picking on me?! I know I'm smart! I know history.." But apparently you don't. To understand your grasp of history, we need to look no further than this:

Churches established all over the world, including Europe and Britain and Asia that where established by the earliest missionaries in the 1st century, had the scriptures and when later Roman Catholic emissaries came to try to subject the descendants of these believers to the popes, these people refused to submit because they recognized the alien nature of Rome. This happened in Britain and Ireland and with the Waldenses and albigenses and many others.

I do not currently have the time to address this entire issue in this post, so I will point to your understanding of Christianity in Britain. Truthfully, rather than there being missionaries in Britain who were later accosted by the tyrannical Roman Catholic Church, the Roman Catholic Church actually sent them their missionary:

Although southern Britain had been a Roman province, in 407 the imperial legions left the isle, and the Roman elite followed. Some time later that century, various barbarian tribes went from raiding and pillaging the island to settling and invading. These tribes are referred to as the "Anglo-Saxons", predecessors of the English. They were entirely pagan, having never been part of the Empire, and although they experienced Christian influence from the surrounding peoples, they were converted by the mission of St. Augustine sent by Pope Gregory the Great. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Christianity#Church_of_the_Early_Middle_Ages_.28476.E2.80.93800.29

Uh oh. I suppose the 'Christian influences from surrounding peoples' must be the innocent missionaries who were at work before ROME IMPOSED ITS WILL. Somehow I doubt that.

Let's look a little more at Augustine:

Augustine was the prior of a monastery [Benedictine] in Rome when Saint Gregory the Great chose him in 595 to lead a mission to Britain to convert the pagan King Æthelberht of the Kingdom of Kent to Christianity. Kent was probably chosen because it was near the Christian kingdoms in Gaul and because Æthelberht had married a Christian princess, Bertha, daughter of Charibert I the King of Paris who was expected to exert some influence over her husband. Before reaching Kent the missionaries had considered turning back but Gregory urged them on and, in 597, Augustine landed on the Isle of Thanet and proceeded to Æthelberht's main town of Canterbury.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Augustine_of_Canterbury

On a side note, the Canterbury Cathedral of 'Canterbury Tales' fame was founded by this particular Augustine.

Finally, I noticed that you like to throw about the Waldensies alot, along with many of the authors you site. You also point to any uprising in early Church history as if they were fledgling Protestants and meaningful. Come now.. Some of these heresies even modern-day Protestants would snug. Aerius, for instance, thought that Easter was based on some Jewish superstition. And for the Waldenses? Protestantism 0.1? Not hardly:

Some researchers argue that the group has existed since the time of the apostles, a claim disproven by modern scholarship.[1] The supporters of the ancient origin claim the Waldenses' name does not in fact come from Peter Waldo, as modern scholars contend, but from the area in which they lived. [8] They claim Peter Waldo in fact got his name by association with the Waldenses. This thought was current in the early 19th century:

"Some Protestants, on this occasion, have fallen into the snare that was set for them...It is absolutely false, that these churches were ever found by Peter Waldo...it is a pure forgery." [9]
"It is not true, that Waldo gave this name to the inhabitants of the valleys: they were called Waldenses, or Vaudes, before his time, from the valleys in which they dwelt." [10]
"On the other hand, he "was called Valdus, or Waldo, because he received his religious notions from the inhabitants of the valleys." [11] The claim of an ancient origin was for a long time accepted as valid by Protestant historians.[7] The alexandrine Nobles Lessons, written in Provençal, was thought at one time to have been composed in 1100, but all scholars now date it between 1190 and 1240.[12] Other scholars claimed Claudius, Bishop of Turin (died 840), Berengarius of Tours (died 1088), or other such men who had preceded Peter Waldo, as the founder of the sect.[7] In the nineteenth century, however, critics came to the conclusion that the poem and other Waldensian documents offered as proof had been altered.[7] For example, the respected Waldensian scholar Dr. Emilio Comba dismissed the theories related to the ancient origin of the Waldensians in the middle of the 19th century. [7]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waldenses


I am sure that you have something to offer our conversations, Jennie, but it is hard to take you seriously when all you do is site webpages that obviously have an anti-Catholic bias. Rather than look silly and close-minded, consider looking into scholarly articles or something not so biased next time.

Elena said...

Well let's go with your argument Jennie, that the Catholic Church is "hiding" things from their millions of members. In 2009, with internet access and a literate, educated population, just how exactly do you think they manage to hide a huge hunk of the history of Western Civilization?

The rest of your argument is consists of my most common nemesis, the strawman. No one is arguing that the Catholic Church wrestled away control of the canon from God. Nonsense. Rather I am saying and history supports that the church was the instrument that God used to inspire and gather sacred scripture together in the canon of the bible, and that canon stood untouched until the 16th century.

The early Christian missionaries of which you speak were indeed Catholic. Might want to read up on the life and times of St. Patrick for example.

Elena said...

Welcome Dr. MikeyMike!

Dr MikeyMike said...

Thanks! Glad to be here, Elena.

Jennie said...

DrMikeyMike,
I suppose you would also think that, since I believe in a 6 day creation, I should 'march on' to a secular or catholic university course that teaches evolution. This is the same as what you telling me I should do as regarding history. Evolutionists are fond of ridiculing creationists as if they are ignorant and as if there is no evidence for creationism, but just because they sound sure of themselves and are a majority doesn't make them right (Most great scientists of the past were creationists). "Broad is the way that leads to destruction, and there are many who go in by it." Matthew 7:13
Also evolutionists interpret evidence in a way that supports them, and ignore anything that supports the opposite view. (There is no evidence for evolution if you really look and see how the processes of fossilization, etc. occur, and they have been guilty of fraud many times, but apparently it's true that if you repeat a lie often enough people will believe it. You just have to have enough gall to do it.)
It's the same principle with history; historians can't possibly write every detail and include every story that ever happened, as I'm sure you will concede. So, all historians are writing from their own perspective and using the known events that support the view they are trying to record. Just because you don't like the records cited by the protestant historians, doesn't mean these men are ignorant charlatans, as you imply. Do you mean to say that you and the catholic historians you cite are all-knowing and ever-present, and can say that these christian people never existed or were not what many of their time have testified of them? These protestant historians are using scholarly methods just as your historians are, and have just as much material to support them.
Your arrogant, sarcastic attitude and ridiculing manner betray you just as the evolutionists' manner betrays them; they have nothing to stand on, so they resort to ridicule.
About the early dissenters and Waldenses, according to their contemporaries accounts, if you take the time to read what I linked to or look up other accounts, these people were really similar to the later puritans or reformers and Baptists in their beliefs, and no matter how much the Roman Catholic church tried to blacken their names, the true accounts still exist for all to see who want to see.
About the history of Christianity in Britain, it is true that missionaries as early as the time of the apostles came to europe and Britain and founded churches there. The Roman catholic missionaries (such as Augustine,or Austin, as he was also called) who came later found christians already there who would not submit to the popes. See http://www.reformation.org/vol1ch19.html
The same thing happened with Patrick (see http://www.the-highway.com/patrick_Bennett.html) who was born into a Christian family, not Catholic, and describes his own conversion and beliefs in the true gospel. There are two versions of the story of Patrick, with different dates and accounts given by the Catholic version. Which one is true? Read Patrick's own words (http://www.ancienttexts.org/library/celtic/ctexts/p01.html) and see if his account resembles Catholic beliefs at all.

Jennie said...

Elena,
It's easy to hide something, as the evolutionists do, by simply ignoring it, or even more often, by ridiculing anyone who believes in it, and casting aspersions on their scholarship.
About the canon, if the one that stood untouched for centuries included the apocrypha, then it contradicted the teachings of the earlier fathers, like Jerome, who said those books are not included in inspired scripture.
About Patrick, see the end of the above comment.

Kelly said...

So, all historians are writing from their own perspective and using the known events that support the view they are trying to record. Just because you don't like the records cited by the protestant historians, doesn't mean these men are ignorant charlatans, as you imply. Do you mean to say that you and the catholic historians you cite are all-knowing and ever-present, and can say that these christian people never existed or were not what many of their time have testified of them? These protestant historians are using scholarly methods just as your historians are, and have just as much material to support them.

As I have said in previous conversations with you, we are not speaking here about a Catholic specific view of history versus your "protestant" view of history. On our blog, we cite from Catholic historians, non-Catholic historians, non-religious based historians, and other generally accepted sources.

Even the modern Waldensians don't claim to date back to the apostolic age. It is only a small group of Baptist, who are themselves, a small group within Christianity.

You are certainly entitled to your beliefs, but we are not the ones citing an alternative version of history, here.

Elena said...

Elena,
It's easy to hide something, as the evolutionists do, by simply ignoring it, or even more often, by ridiculing anyone who believes in it, and casting aspersions on their scholarship.


OK, so a primary source that supports your world view would be?

Elena said...

About the canon, if the one that stood untouched for centuries included the apocrypha, then it contradicted the teachings of the earlier fathers,

Someone should have clued Jesus - he sure quoted from it enough.

Dr MikeyMike said...

Round 2.... FIGHT!

(Most great scientists of the past were creationists).

Many great past scientists also believed that the Earth was flat, surrounded by a series of crystalline spheres, and was at the center of the Earth. Were they wrong on that notion?

Furthermore, how did we get on the topic of Evolutionists? You are amusing me with your description of them. They sound, to me, like most anti-Catholic Protestants, like yourself:

Also evolutionists interpret evidence in a way that supports them, and ignore anything that supports the opposite view.

Oh wait. I see. You are comparing historians to evolutionists. My bad. But.. wait. That doesn't really make sense. Are you saying that we cannot trust historians that:

1. George Washington was the first President of the USA?
2. Christopher Columbus set foot on America? Forget the Moon-landing controversy!
3. Jazz didn't blossom in the 1920s?

I think some of the big differences, dear Jennie, in the sources that we linked to were that the publications that you posted were from the 1700s and 1800s and were from irreputable sites + the issue of bias (remember the whole learning about minorities from the Ku Klux Klan comment). Most accredited colleges, for example, do not let students use citations from publications that are more than 10 (sometimes 5) years old, simply because the information is outdated and new things have been discovered.

Also, you may have noticed that myself and others do not always quote Catholic scholars. I have yet to see you post something from an independent researcher. Please do so next time. I dunno, suprise me.

And don't think that history is always kind to Catholics. New research by independent researchers is showing the notion of the Inquisition has greatly been expanded upon and exaggerated over time.

As for the British History thing. I call you wrong, a liar, and a false prophet. Although it isn't necessarily your fault -- it's the people who have educated you. I point again to the site that I mentioned earlier saying that there were no Christian missionaries in Britain, but there was a Christian influence from the Roman occupiers (which were Catholic, though so was everyone at that period). I've heard about the ongoing attempt to Protestantize St. Patrick. I'm going to read your site and see what I can come up with.

Dr. MikeyMike, AWAY!!!!!

Elena said...

Jennie you might be interested in this article by Mark Shea (a Catholic convert!) regarding St. Jerome:

But last and most interesting of all in this stellar lineup is a certain Father already mentioned: St. Jerome. In his later years St. Jerome did indeed accept the Deuterocanonical books of the Bible. In fact, he wound up strenuously defending their status as inspired Scripture, writing, "What sin have I committed if I followed the judgment of the churches? But he who brings charges against me for relating the objections that the Hebrews are wont to raise against the story of Susanna, the Son of the Three Children, and the story of Bel and the Dragon, which are not found in the Hebrew volume (ie. canon), proves that he is just a foolish sycophant. For I wasn't relating my own personal views, but rather the remarks that they [the Jews] are wont to make against us" (Against Rufinus 11:33 [A.D. 402]). In earlier correspondence with Pope Damasus, Jerome did not call the deuterocanonical books unscriptural, he simply said that Jews he knew did not regard them as canonical. But for himself, he acknowledged the authority of the Church in defining the canon. When Pope Damasus and the Councils of Carthage and Hippo included the deuterocanon in Scripture, that was good enough for St. Jerome. He "followed the judgment of the churches."

Jennie said...

DrMikeyMike,

Is Wikipedia generally considered a scholarly source of historical information? It's ok for quickly looking up something if you're not familiar, but not to quote as an authoritative source.
William Jones, one of the protestant historians I cited, quotes and cites many other historians in his work, including Catholic and secular historians, though I fail to see why being 'secular' makes one more reputable than any other historian.
I also have seen no proof that secular or neutral sources support the Catholic stance. Maybe you could give me some specifics.


Elena,
I am not aware of any places where Jesus quotes from the apocrypha.

"OK, so a primary source that supports your world view would be?"
I'm not sure what you are specifically referring to; is it the creationist views, or the historical, or just Biblical in general? In any case, all of them are supported by the most primary source of all: God's Word.

Dr MikeyMike said...

ROUND 3.. and a half!!

I can prepared for this one actually. I used to have hesitations about Wikipedia until my English Lit. instructor told me that recent studies had confirmed that they were just as reliable as published Encyclopedia.

Again, I question the validity (as I mentioned earlier - do you want me to highlight where?) of William Jones for a couple of reasons. Notably, he is writing about the history of Christianity in the 1700s. As a Protestant Presbyterian minister, he is going to have his biases, not to mention the lack of research developments that we now have in the present. Not to mention he is writing in the United Kingdom, which during this time period extreme prejudice towards Catholics was rampant (which is seen in the variety of laws passed through parliament restricting the ways that Catholics could own land and receive a formal education).

For your curiosity on the validity of Wikipedia (though I doubt you will actually read it or give it 2 cents worth of thought):

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/4530930.stm

Elena said...

Primary source - definition

Elena said...

I am not aware of any places where Jesus quotes from the apocrypha.

Obviously

Jennie said...

Elena,
I didn't ask for the defintion of primary source, I asked for a specific subject you wanted me to comment on. I can't give a source for such a general idea as my entire world view, except, as I said before, the Bible, which shapes all my views. I do have a degree in Art Education, so I'm not ignorant, though it's been a long time since my school days.

Saying 'obviously' doesn't give me any information to work with. If you want to disseminate truth, you need to be more forthcoming, and not just make a snide remark that may just be covering up a lack of an answer.

Jennie said...

Kelly,
I'll give information as I find it.
I am quoting from the sources I have been reading recently, and as there are so many historians and history books, its hard to know which ones are good sources. I just look up things that I'm interested in and read them.
I also haven't seen you all quoting from many non-catholic sources specifically in our conversations, but mainly catholic ones , which are just as biased as you think my sources are. Being biased isn't the problem, as long as you are also honest and willing to look at other views.

Dr MikeyMike said...

Bias is a problem if it twists the facts to support its claim.

There have been mentions from other sources that are non-Catholic. I have already posted the study that said Wikipedia is fairly reliable. The topics have citations from the scholarly sources that the information comes from. If there is no citation, simply throw it out.

Elena said...

I didn't ask for the defintion of primary source, I asked for a specific subject you wanted me to comment on.

How about the ACTUAL TOPIC OF THIS THREAD! If you have samples of early scripture that WAS NOT CATHOLIC I sure would like to know about it.

I would also be very interested in the writing of any working class students from the first thousand years that show a decidedly unCatholic bend!

Elena said...

Saying 'obviously' doesn't give me any information to work with.

Well you didn't ask. You seemed to be saying that because YOU weren't aware of them, they must not exist. Nonetheless here are examples.


Jesus and the Gospel writers referenced the Deuterocanonicals in the following instances:

Matthew 6:12, 14-15---"Forgive us our debts, as we forgive our debtors; if you forgive others their transgressions, your heavenly Father will forgive you. But if you do not forgive others, neither will your heavenly father forgive your transgressions."
Sirach 28:2---"Forgive your neighbor's injustice; then when you pray, your own sins will be forgiven."

Luke 1:17 (describing John the Baptist)---"He will go before him in the spirit and power of Elijah to turn the hearts of fathers towards children and the disobediant to the understanding of the righteous, to prepare a people fit for the Lord."
Sirach 48:10---"You are destined, it is written, in time to come, to put an end to wrath before the day of the Lord, to turn back the hearts of fathers towards their sons, and to re-establish the tribes of Jacob."

Luke 1:28, 1:42---"And coming to her, he said, 'Hail, favored one! The Lord is with you!'.....Most blessed are you among women, and blessed is the fruit of your womb."
Judith 13:18---"Then Uzziah said to her: 'Blessed are you, daughter, by the Most High God, above all the women of the earth; and blessed be the Lord God, the Creator of heaven and earth.

Luke 1:52---"He has thrown down the rulers from their thrones, but lifted up the lowly."
Sirach 10:14---"The thrones of the arrogant God overturns, and establishes the lowly in their stead."

Luke 12:19-20---"I shall say to myself, 'Now as for you, you have so many good things stored up for many years, rest, eat, drink, be merry!' But God said to him, 'You fool, this night your life will be demanded of you; and the things you have prepared, to whom will they belong?'"
Sirach 11:19---"When he says: 'I have found rest, now I will feast on my possessions,' he does not know how long it will be till he dies and leaves them to others."

Luke 18:22---"When Jesus heard this, he said to him, 'There is still one thing left for you: sell all that you have and distribute it to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven.'"
Sirach 29:11---"Dispose of your treasure as the Most High commands, for that will profit you more than the gold."

John 3:12---"If I tell you about earthly things and you do not believe, how will you believe if I tell you about heavenly things?"
Wisdom 9:16---"Scarce do we guess the things on earth, and what is within our grasp we find with difficulty; but when things are in heaven, who can search them out?"

John 5:18---"For this reason the Jews tried all the more to kill him, because he not only broke the Sabbath, but he also called God his own Father, making himself equal to God."
Wisdom 2:16---"He judges us debased; he holds aloof from our paths as from things impure. He calls blest the destiny of the just and boasts that God is his Father."

John 10:29---"My Father, who has given them to me, is greater than all, and no one can take them out of the Father's hand."
Wisdom 3:1---"But the souls of the just are in the hand of God, and no torment shall touch them."

Paul and James allude to them as well:

Romans 2:11---"There is no partiality with God."
Sirach 35:12---"For he is a God of justice, who knows no favorites."

Romans 9:21---"Or does not the potter have a right over the clay, to make out of the same lump one vessel for a noble purpose andanother fo an ignoble one?"
Wisdom 15:7---"For truly the potter, laboriously working the soft earth, molds for our service each several article: both the vessels that serve for clean purposes, and their opposites, all alike; as to what shall be the use of each vessel of eiother class, the worker in clay is the judge."

Romans 11:24---"For who has known the mind of the Lord, or who has been his counsellor?"
Wisdom 9:13---"For what man knows God's counsel, or who can conceive what the Lord intends?"

1 Thessalonians 2:16---"(The enemies of Christ persecute us), trying to prevent us from speaking to the Gentiles that they may be saved, thus constantly filling up the measure of their sins. But the wrath of God has finally begun to come upon them."
2 Maccabees 6:14---"Thus, in dealing with other nations, the Lord patiently waits until they reach the full measure of their sins before he punishes them; but with us he has decided to deal differently"

James 1:13---"No one experiencing temptation should say, 'I am being tempted by God'; for God is not subject to temptation to evil, and he himself tempts no one."
Sirach 15:11-12---"Say not: 'It was God's doing that I fell away'; for what he hates he does not do. Say not: 'It was he who set me astray'; for he has no need of wicked man."

James 5:2-3---"Your wealth has rotted away, your clothes have become moth-eaten, your gold and silver hav corroded, and that corrosion will be a testimony against you; it will devour your flesh like a fire."
Judith 16:17---'The Lord Almighty will requite them; in the day of judgement he will punish them: he will send fire and worms into their flesh, and they shall burn and suffer forever."

From Catholic Answers

Kelly said...

I also haven't seen you all quoting from many non-catholic sources specifically in our conversations, but mainly catholic ones , which are just as biased as you think my sources are.

Jennie,

Please review the entries to which I have previously referred you. Off the top of my head, entries which contain several non-Catholic sources include The Elusive Valdois, The Know-Nothings, The Catholic Cult, and Catholic Atrocities. A Study of Checking Citations is also relevant.

Most of my posts are explaining Catholic theology, and so I do rely on Catholic sources there. For those entries which are more about history, I intentionally use a variety of sources in order to avoid the sort of charges that you are making.

Diana said...

It appears that we have a second case of invincible ignorance (concerning how to do research) on our hands.

Robin aka Joyfulprayz said...

I have started reading history and am ASTOUNDED to find out that the original canon of the Bible contained the 'forbidden books' that we Baptists are taught about.

It is so eye-opening. Jennie - I encourage you to read, read, read.

Jennie said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Jennie said...

Robin,
From what I read about the apocrypha in the original King James bible, it was included not as scripture but as reference material, and was later removed.
If you read the apocryphal books, you will likely find some things that are good, along with alot of things that contradict the Bible and it's teachings and purpose. This was recognized all through church history by those who valued God's word above all.

Jennie said...

Diana,
I find the snide remarks of several people on this thread very insulting, but am trying to ignore it and just discuss the facts.
Protestant sources are just as valid as any other and represent just as much scholarship, so you all can cut the insults.

Jennie said...

DrMikeyMike,
'Bias is a problem if it twists the facts to support its claim.'
I agree. The question is, who is twisting the facts?

Elena,
'How about the ACTUAL TOPIC OF THIS THREAD! If you have samples of early scripture that WAS NOT CATHOLIC I sure would like to know about it.'
The Bible

'I would also be very interested in the writing of any working class students from the first thousand years that show a decidedly unCatholic bend!'
The Apostles
St. Patrick
many other men called to be preachers of the gospel throughout history were working class men

Elena said...

The verses from the apocrypha that you quoted don't sound very close to the verses Jesus spoke, but sound more like things from the Old testament that are ideas repeated many times there. If the apocryphal books sound similar, it is probably because of the great familiarity of the Jews with the scriptures and the ideas taught in them. Those are not direct quotes that you cited, but common themes in scripture.

Jesus spoke Aramaic which is written into the Hebrew, which we are comparing to text written several centuries in Hebrew before that and then all if it is translated into present day modern English... and you want to quibble that the words aren't verbatim... common Jennie...

And we do not accept any research from the bigoted and unChristian site Jesus is Lord. If you are trying to compel and persuade us you are going to have to do better than that. Much better. Please find me a primary source from the early Christian church that repudiates the Deuterocanonical books. And I mean directly from a neutral historical site, and not taken out of context by an anti-Catholic site.

Elena said...

If you read the apocryphal books, you will likely find some things that are good, along with alot of things that contradict the Bible and it's teachings and purpose. This was recognized all through church history by those who valued God's word above all.

Once again prove it. I want proof from primary sources from throughout the centuries that the Deuterocanonical books were rejected by Christians including the Early Church Fathers. I will not accept any sources from anti-Catholic sources.

Good luck.

Jennie said...

Diana,
Here are some Catholic sources I have read that I posted for Elena on another thread.
Here are some catholic sources I have read recently:
Many of your blog archives;
historicalchristian.com archives;
Other catholic blogs you have linked to;
Following are the sources I have read and saved on my computer (I've also read some I did not save so don't have a record of unless I wade through my history file and find them):
http://www.zeitun-eg.org/ecfidx.htm

http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/1010.htm

http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0134.htm

http://www.catholicfaithandreason.org/fathersoneucharist.htm

http://www.bringyou.to/apologetics/s2.htm

http://archive.salvationhistory.com/online/intermediate/course2_lesson3.cfm#The%20Annunciation

http://www.theotokos.org.uk/pages/appdisce/montfort.html

http://zuserver2.star.ucl.ac.uk/~vgg/rc/aplgtc/hahn/m4/ma.html

http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/2005/0510fea5.asp

http://www.ewtn.com/faith/teachings/marymenu.htm (some of it)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mariology

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mariology
http://haydock1859.tripod.com/id249.html

http://www.ewtn.com/vexperts/showmessage.asp?Pgnu=1&Pg=Forum4&recnu=1&number=442714

http://www.americancatholic.org/Messenger/May2006/traditions.asp

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04153a.htm

http://www.chnetwork.org/journals/justification/justify_6.htm

http://socrates58.blogspot.com/2006/03/biblical-theological-primer-on-mary.html

http://www.intermirifica.org/Mary/ark.htm

Elena said...

The Apostles
St. Patrick
many other men called to be preachers of the gospel throughout history were working class men


St. Patrick (who was also Bishop of Ireland) and the Apostles were Catholic.

You said the "word" was spread by Christian families thorughout the centuries because families taught their children to read. I am saying that the poor and working classes did not read and illiteracy rates were high.

So i want proof from a primary source of a working class Christian children, oh let's say anytime before the printing press and the Reformation, via letters, or other written works.

Once again, good luck.

Jennie said...

Elena,
If you consider anything protestant as anti-catholic, then you can't rationally learn anything about the other side's views, because you disregard them.
I've read catholic sources, some of which are uncomplimentary to protestants, but I expect that and read them anyway.

Dr MikeyMike said...

A short post between classes.

I agree. The question is, who is twisting the facts?

Some people believe that we never set foot on the moon. Despite NASA being able to produce video/audio footage, moon rocks, and a variety of other proofs - some people still believe the contrary.

Who is twisting the facts? In terms of Christian history, the sources you give along with you personal statements present an alternate history that is not congruent to what is taught in public schools, on the history channels, or being presented by independent researchers.

I am already expecting your next retort, "Well, public schools are crap! They teach a skewed history!" or.. "The researchers are biased.." or.. "What does History Channel know?" (which would actually be a good argument -- History Channel is sometimes off on its details)..

At this point, I'm beginning to ponder if you are like the 'Moon Conspiracy' people -- I will show you a moon rock, but it still will not be good enough.

Kelly said...

These apocryphal books include many unscriptural ideas along with some good things, so were not considered scriptural by the early church.

These books are from the Jewish Septuagint. They were written in Greek, and written in the period of time between the close of the Old Testament canon and the start of the New Testament canon.

Jews accept them as valid, as this is where Hanukkah comes from, as well as the practice of praying for the dead, which we share.

According to the Jewish Encyclopedia, Jews did not begin to use a different translation until the 10th century. Jesus would have listened to the Septuagint being read in the synagogue.
http://jewishencyclopedia.com/view.jsp?artid=1035&letter=B#3077

According to this book (cut and paste):
http://books.google.com/books?id=YB-Tco0BL5YC&pg=PA211&l
pg=PA211&dq=cambridge+university+library+waldensian+bible&source
=web&ots=OGuDWHSr4s&sig=YSg4ofXtnX3IltTl5fhqYqHfI6Q&hl=en&sa=X&oi
=book_result&resnum=8&ct=result#PPA215,M1

At least some of the deuterocanonical books were included in Waldensian Bibles.

Elena said...

If you consider anything protestant as anti-catholic, then you can't rationally learn anything about the other side's views, because you disregard them.

If it weren't for strawmen and red herrings you wouldn't have much to say Jennie.

I don't consider "protestant" as "anti-catholic." In fact if you did your homework on this blog or on my other blog you would know that. Nonetheless there is a certain segment of Protastantism that is indeed anti-Catholic (such as Candy and the Jesus is Lord crowd). I do not accept them as authoritative one bit and if you expect your arguments to be compelling and persuasive HERE you'll have to step up your game with some primary sources.



I've read catholic sources, some of which are uncomplimentary to protestants, but I expect that and read them anyway.

Maggii said...

No one is saying that all Protestant resources are Anti-Catholic and unreliable sources ...what is being said is that Jesus is Lord( a Protestant site) IS anti-catholic and NOT a reliable source in any way shape or form( not 'because" it is Protestant...but because it is filled with misinformation about the Catholic church and outright LIES about the Catholic church)...the same with Jack Chick ...if you are going to use those as sources for your information you will not be taken seriously here. You may as well be using the National Enquirer as a source.

Jennie said...

I apologize about the link to Jesus-is-Lord; I had done a quick search on the apocrypha and landed on their page about it. I have never been there before and never looked at their other pages; the one about the apocrypha looked pretty innocent, but their home page is offensive.

Kelly said...

Thank you, Jennie, I appreciate that. Jesus-Is-Lord is one of Candy's favorite resources, so we are very familiar with it here.

Jennie said...

Elena,
My comment about literacy was not meant to start a firestorm, but just an offhand reference to my understanding of the general effects of Bible-belief vs. Catholicism on literacy. My comment was based on all the things I've absorbed from many different sources over a whole lifetime, as well as a few things I've read recently about protestant colonists in America, the Waldensians, and others; my understanding is that, in general, protestants, or Bible-only christians, have, especially in the past, placed much more emphasis on memorizing and reading scripture than catholics have and therefore have placed more emphasis on teaching reading and scripture to their children and converts.
After looking at some sources yesterday, which I will post below, I don't change my overall view, but I see that it is much more complex than can be explained in the way I did. For instance, the early christians probably did not learn to read more than the general populace, but did place much emphasis on listening to long portions of scripture read by their pastors or elders. The Waldenses and others did teach their children to memorize long portions of scripture and some learned to read and became missionaries so they could preach the word to others. American colonists like the pilgrims did place high value on teaching their children to read so they could read and learn scripture. Those are just a few examples.
Catholics seem to have placed more value on songs and images to learn, and not on the written word, and not on preaching so much either. But God's word is the most important thing, whether you hear it or read it; it must be stressed and valued above all other teaching.

Here are some sources I read from:

By the mid-18th century, the ability to read and comprehend translated scripture led to Wales having one of the highest literacy rates. This was the result of a Griffith Jones's system of circulating schools, which aimed to enable everyone to read the Bible in Welsh. Similarly, at least half the population of 18th century New England was literate, perhaps as a consequence of the Puritan belief in the importance of Bible reading. By the time of the American Revolution, literacy in New England is suggested to have been around 90 percent.
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Literacy)

Interestingly, in 1893, a company of Vaudois migrated to the United States and founded the town of Valdeses, Burke County, North Carolina. At the time, a local newspaper wrote:

"All the little Waldensian children are taught to read and write at a very early age, and their knowledge of the scriptures would put to shame many of our church people of maturer years. They speak both French and Italian very fluently, and are all apparently very bright and intelligent and very anxious to learn the language of this new country."
(cited in a review of Wylies book History of the Waldenses, on Amazon.com)

http://www.valdese.com/article_demorest_100195.htm

http://www.bereanbeacon.org/history/history/the_waldenses_and_valleys.htm

http://www.amazon.com/Books-Readers-Early-Church-Christian/dp/0300069189

http://www.amazon.com/Guardians-Letters-Transmitters-Christian-Literature/dp/0195135644/ref=pd_sim_b_5

http://www.faqs.org/childhood/Ke-Me/Literacy.html

http://books.google.com/books?id=QZovusQ1SjYC&pg=PA85&lpg=PA85&dq=protestant+literacy+vs.+catholic+literacy&source=web&ots=wZICxANfBG&sig=rM4XV8AlTSnC4bezN72YGmH_omo&hl=en&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=3&ct=result#PPA86,M1

http://books.google.com/books?id=yRGq56s45SYC&pg=PA13&lpg=PA13&dq=protestant+literacy+vs.+catholic+literacy&source=web&ots=-hgyILpG0s&sig=VhJj9DcX4XiiPjfBNy7_DW_k6wc&hl=en&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=10&ct=result#PPA12,M1

http://books.google.com/books?id=qGFQ36UDJt0C&pg=PA61&lpg=PA61&dq=protestant+literacy+vs.+catholic+literacy&source=web&ots=A60YVu0pg1&sig=nk60upXDbcWR-u_ePV3KQ3eXASs&hl=en&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=9&ct=result

http://books.google.com/books?id=mY3zX8uAm1kC&pg=PA204&lpg=PA204&dq=protestant+literacy+vs.+catholic+literacy&source=bl&ots=nrysSnSHIh&sig=aH9woQ7lNMg_IpMn7a6WhsizZ2U&hl=en&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=4&ct=result#PPA204,M1

http://books.google.com/books?id=2aEJfsXY57cC&pg=PA3&lpg=PA3&dq=Could+early+Christians+read%3F&source=web&ots=cQO3CC1PQa&sig=4fn1_jSTCa6no3k78u51yovdxZg&hl=en&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=9&ct=result#PPA3,M1

Jennie said...

DrMikeyMike,
Do you mean you really think we landed on the moon? Come Now. :)

Jennie said...

Here I'll repost my apocrypha comment without the offensive material.
Elena (and Robin, see the sites on the apocrypha),
I found a site that explains why protestants don't include the apocrypha in the Bible.
These apocryphal books include many unscriptural ideas along with some good things, so were not considered scriptural by the early church.
Also, I found some verses from the Old Testament that sound alot more like the verses Jesus and Paul quoted from.
The verses from the apocrypha that you quoted don't sound very close to the verses Jesus spoke, but sound more like things from the Old testament that are ideas repeated many times there. If the apocryphal books sound similar, it is probably because of the great familiarity of the Jews with the scriptures and the ideas taught in them. Those are not direct quotes that you cited, but common themes in scripture.

http://www.essortment.com/all/whatapocrypha_rgcf.htm

1 sam 2:7-8

psalm 113:7-8

psalm 147:6

Malachi 4:6

deut. 10:17

Job 37:24

Isaiah 29:16

Isaiah 64:8

Isaiah 40:13

Dr MikeyMike said...

Jennie,

Your last post was probably your best. Thank you for that.

DrMikeyMike,
Do you mean you really think we landed on the moon? Come Now. :)


If we hadn't, then how did we get 'Alf'?! Sure he says he's a 'Martian' - but I think he's the sort of guy who pads his resume :P.

I've absorbed from many different sources over a whole lifetime, as well as a few things I've read recently about protestant colonists in America, the Waldensians, and others; my understanding is that, in general, protestants, or Bible-only christians, have, especially in the past, placed much more emphasis on memorizing and reading scripture than catholics have and therefore have placed more emphasis on teaching reading and scripture to their children and converts.

For the most part, I'll agree with that. That's not to say, however, that it was meant to stay that way, or is supposed to stay that way. It's a Catholic's duty to be familiar with sacred scripture and to read it. Sadly, not enough Catholic parents take the time to do it themselves or do this with their children. Hopefully, that is changing. Catholic Bible studies are becoming quite common where I'm at.

Catholics seem to have placed more value on songs and images to learn, and not on the written word, and not on preaching so much either. But God's word is the most important thing, whether you hear it or read it; it must be stressed and valued above all other teaching.

I disagree with this statement. You would have been partially correct to say this would have been the case before the invention of the printing press, simply because these were ways to better spread the gospel to a primarily illiterate populace. However, as Bible's became more readily available - there really was no excuse not to.

I also don't agree with your statement on preaching. There are plenty of 'Catholic preachers', some of them are better than others. Perhaps they are different from the TBN, stereotypical evangelical preachers -- but they are there all the same. However, our services are not centered on a homily. There are other things going on that are just as important and reverent. Interestingly enough, there are a lot of St.'s and other figures who have been described as notable preachers throughout history. Many of them popped up around the Crusades (correct me if I'm wrong, ladies, but was Peter the Hermit one of the? Bernard of Clairveux?)

I do not disagree with any of the imformation you posted from the 'Literacy' topic from Wikipedia. Some things to consider. It's awesome that the Welsh were literate. Also remember, during this time period the English Parliament had enacted strong laws against 'Dissenters', including Catholics. This made it -incredibly- hard for Catholics to own businesses, property, and receive a formal education, amongst other things. So, English Catholics were legally kept from being literate for the most part (there were notable exceptions --- Alexander Pope, being one). This probably attributed to the continued reliance of song, art, and other things in teaching the faith to Catholics in the UK, though I don't really have any evidence of that.

A few final points.

You bring up the Waldesians again, and this time probably correctly. Arguing for their literacy and grasp on linguistics is probably correct. However, the gist I was getting for the majority of this argument were that these Waldesians were among the 'true Christian peoples' who the 'Church of Rome' imposed upon until the Reformation came about. This has been refuted already. These literate Waldesians (sp?) have no connections at all with early literate people.

Finally, I am a bit perturbed by this:

But God's word is the most important thing, whether you hear it or read it; it must be stressed and valued above all other teaching.

At face value, I agree with this. Where I begin to disagree is the fact that most Protestants restrict God's Word to the scriptures. History has proven this false. We believe that God's Word, indeed, compiled the Scriptures --- but that God's Word is not confined to the Scriptures. God's Word has been revealed through the Holy Spirit to many individuals on Earth, which have subsequently been translated into traditions and other practices that have found their way into Canon.

To NOT do that would be foolish, and we've had many examples of that. The Jewish people had the Law of Moses during the time of Elijah, but that didn't stop God from communicating to Elijah.

To restrict God's Word to the Bible and Only the Bible would be placing limitations on an omnipresent, omniscient being.

That's only one argument.

As for the apocrypha bit, I'll let the other ladies tackle that one. The've been doing their research. I -can- tell you though that the boreanbeacon.com website is just as anti-Catholic as JesusisLord or whatever.

unknown anon said...

The idea that Catholics have not promoted and developed literacy through the ages is mistaken at best.
Catholics developed and maintained a large university system, the "Cathedral school" and the monastic system, even at the same time the arts were used to educate the illiterate.

Kelly said...

I started a new post on the literacy question. The comments are going a bit long on this one, so I thought we could use a fresh post.

Jennie said...

Here is a page I found on 'The Sufficiency of Scripture' which has a section on the apocrypha not being accepted by the Jews as scriptural:
http://www.reformedreader.org/ssss.htm

Old Testament
1. The Jews had a canon of faith which was the same as the Protestant canon of faith.

2. Philo the Jewish philosopher (20BC-AD40) never once quotes from the Apocrypha

3. Josephus the Jewish historian (AD30-100) specifically identifies the 22 books which equate to the Protestant canon (Antiquities, Against Apion 1:8).

4. The Jews acknowledged the cessation of prophecy with Malachi ca.400BC

5. Christ's division of Scripture (Luke 24:44) into the three classes accepted by the Jews (the Law, the Prophets and the Psalms) endorses the Jewish canon.

6. To the Jews were committed 'the very words of God' (Romans 3:2) and Christians receive these oracles from them.

The whole page is very good if you want to know what protestants believe about Sola Scriptura and why.

Elena said...

1) They were included in the Septuagint (the Greek translation of the Old Testament from the third century B.C.), which was the "Bible" of the Apostles. They usually quoted the Old Testament scriptures (in the text of the New Testament) from the Septuagint.

2) Almost all of the Church Fathers regarded the Septuagint as the standard form of the Old Testament. The deuterocanonical books were in no way differentiated from the other books in the Septuagint, and were generally regarded as canonical. St. Augustine thought the Septuagint was apostolically-sanctioned and inspired, and this was the consensus in the early Church.

3) Many Church Fathers (such as St. Irenaeus, St. Cyprian, Tertullian) cite these books as Scripture without distinction. Others, mostly from the east (for example, St. Athanasius, St. Cyril of Jerusalem, St. Gregory Nazianzus) recognized some distinction but nevertheless still customarily cited the deuterocanonical books as Scripture. St. Jerome, who translated the Hebrew Bible into Latin (the Vulgate, early fifth century), was an exception to the rule (the Church has never held that individual Fathers are infallible).

4) The Church Councils at Hippo (393) and Carthage (397, 419), influenced heavily by St. Augustine, listed the deuterocanonical books as Scripture, which was simply an endorsement of what had become the general consensus of the Church in the west and most of the east. Thus, the Council of Trent merely reiterated in stronger terms what had already been decided eleven and a half centuries earlier, and which had never been seriously challenged until the onset of Protestantism.

5) Since these Councils also finalized the 66 canonical books which all Christians accept, it is quite arbitrary for Protestants to selectively delete seven books from this authoritative Canon. This is all the more curious when the complicated, controversial history of the New Testament Canon is understood.

6) Pope Innocent I concurred with and sanctioned the canonical ruling of the above Councils (Letter to Exsuperius, Bishop of Toulouse) in 405.

7) The earliest Greek manuscripts of the Old Testament, such as Codex Sinaiticus (fourth century), and Codex Alexandrinus (c.450) include all of the deuterocanonical books mixed in with the others and not separated.

8) The practice of collecting these books into a separate unit dates back no further than 1520 (in other words, it was a novel innovation of Protestantism). This is admitted by, for example, the Protestant New English Bible (Oxford University Press, 1976), in its "Introduction to the Apocrypha," (p.iii).

9) Protestantism, following Martin Luther, removed the deuterocanonical books from their Bibles due to their clear teaching of doctrines which had been recently repudiated by Protestants, such as prayers for the dead (Tobit 12:12, 2 Maccabees 12:39-45 ff.; cf. 1 Corinthians 15:29), intercession of dead saints (2 Maccabees 15:14; cf. Revelation 6:9-10), and intermediary intercession of angels (Tobit 12:12,15; cf. Revelation 5:8, 8:3-4). We know this from plain statements of Luther and other Reformers.

10) Luther was not content even to let the matter rest there, and proceeded to cast doubt on many other books of the Bible which are accepted as canonical by all Protestants. He considered Job and Jonah mere fables, and Ecclesiastes incoherent and incomplete. He wished that Esther (along with 2 Maccabees) "did not exist," and wanted to "toss it into the Elbe" river.

Apocrypha by Dave Armstrong

Kelly said...

Jews are not sola scriptura. From Judaism 101:

"In addition to the written scriptures we have an "Oral Torah," a tradition explaining what the above scriptures mean and how to interpret them and apply the Laws. Orthodox Jews believe G-d taught the Oral Torah to Moses, and he taught it to others, down to the present day. This tradition was maintained only in oral form until about the 2d century C.E., when the oral law was compiled and written down in a document called the Mishnah.

Over the next few centuries, additional commentaries elaborating on the Mishnah were written down in Jerusalem and Babylon. These additional commentaries are known as the Gemara. The Gemara and the Mishnah together are known as the Talmud. This was completed in the 5th century C.E."

The Septuagint was used until the 3rd century by the Jews. It was abandoned at that time, mostly because it was used by the Christians. I discussed this in my blog post The Catholic Bible.

Kelly said...

From Michael Barber:
The earliest and most explicit testimony of a Hebrew canonical list comes from Josephus:
“For we have not an innumerable multitude of books among us, disagreeing from and contradicting one another [as the Greeks have], but only twenty-two books, which contain all the records of all the past times; which are justly believed to be divine; and of them five belong to Moses, which contain his laws and the traditions of the origin of mankind till his death… the prophets, who were after Moses, wrote down what was done in their times in thirteen books. The remaining four books contain hymns to God, and precepts for the conduct of human life.”[25]

Though scholars have reconstructed Josephus’ list differently, it seems clear that we have in his testimony a list of books very close to the Hebrew canon as it stands today. Nonetheless, his canon is not identical to that of the modern Hebrew Bible.[26] Moreover, it is debatable whether or not his canon had a tripartite structure.[27] Thus, one should be careful not to overstate the importance of Josephus. For one thing, Josephus was clearly a member of the Pharisaic party and, although he might not have liked to think so, his was not the universally accepted Jewish Bible—other Jewish communities included more than twenty-two books.[28]

http://singinginthereign.blogspot.com/
2006/03/loose-canons-development-of-old.html

Michael Barber is a Catholic professor, but if you check his footnotes, none of the references he gives are Catholic sources.