This is handy: a recent reading history (actually a skimming history)

My recent reading history--but mostly skimming

Way Out of the Tunnel? Three Hundred Years of Research on the Apocrypha: A Preliminary Approach, - Peter Toth

The Scope of the Old Testament Canon - Christopher Heard

The Question of Canon: Challenging the Status Quo in the New Testament Debate. By Michael J. Kruger. Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2013. Pp. 252. Paper, $24.00 - Michael W. Holmes

Book Review: Canon Formation: Tracing the Role of Sub-collections in the Biblical Canon - Clark R Bates

Septuagint, Sages, and Scripture Studies in Honour of Johann Cook Edited by - Markus Witte

The Canons of the New Testament - Leslie Baynes

The Canon and the Testaments - S. A. Wassen

Tradition, Scripture, and Interpretation: A Sourcebook of the Ancient Church  - Drake Williams

Deuterocanonical Books in Latin Tradition, in Houghton, ed., Oxford Handbook of the Latin Bible (2023)

Happy Anniversary Vatican II

Today is the anniversary of the convening of Vatican II, October 11, 1962. 60th anniversaries don't get the hoop-la of 50th, but the document and changes (1962-1965) are still being analyzed, discussed and argued about. It was an attempt to put a 2,000 year old religion with 4,000 year old roots into the contemporary world. Maybe it was just the 60s and all we associate with those changes or maybe Pope John XXIII (who didn't live very long) really will go down in history as the man who made all Christians study more, speak differently and challenge authority about everything.

Of all the changes I will just address the language. Latin was (and still is) the official language of the Roman Catholic Church, but Vatican II without changing any content did completely change understanding of the lay person by introducing the vernacular (native or heart language) into public worship.

 
Christians evangelizing after the Resurrection of Jesus originally spoke Greek--it was a "world" language. Jesus and his disciples didn't speak or read Hebrew, but spoke Aramaic, a Hebrew dialect and used a Greek version of the Scriptures (Septuagint), what we now call the Old Testament. That worked pretty good for a few centuries, but by then Latin was the language of influence, literature and business everyone used in the Roman kingdom. St. Jerome is known for his massive efforts to get the Holy Scriptures (both old and new) into the people's language--now called the Latin Vulgate. Pieces of scripture were always available in the native language, but that was for personal use, not public worship. And today, none of us whether we speak English, or German or Russian, would even recognize any of those translations from the Greek. That's how language is--always changing--and English has more words than any other western language. Because "the sun never set on the Union Jack" and the sailors took the King James Bible with them, English has more borrowed and foreign terms than any other language.

Now to today. The latest language squabble in the Church is that Pope Francis has decided to stop use of the Latin Mass, even though millions of devout Catholics think the documents of Vatican II never say NOT to use it, only that the vernacular is best used to encourage the faithful. They LOVE the Latin Mass. Latin is still used in all official documents concerning doctrine, worship, and law. So that change has made some Catholics really unhappy. And ironically, Francis' demands were issued in Latin. Pope Francis restricts celebration of traditional Latin Mass (catholiceducation.org)

We see constant changes in our language without a pope or church--this coming from Twitter, Tech, Academe, the prison population and particularly from Marxist based manipulation. Truth is now "my truth," and "racism" applies only to people of a large swath of Europe. "Community," "narrative," "gender," "transition," and even "Constitution" have been twisted and reconfigured to meet a political agenda. 

And yet so many intelligent, educated people can no longer define what a woman is! St. Jerome is rolling in the grave.

Reading about the mother of 7 sons

This morning I was reading 2 Mac: 7:20-31 

"Roman Catholics and Eastern Orthodox use the Septuagint(s) as the source of their “Old Testament” … Hebrew Scriptures. –Roman Catholics accept/ include 1, 2 Maccabees –Most Eastern Orthodox accept/ include 1,2,3 Maccabees –Some Non-Chalcedonian churches (e.g., Coptic, Syriac) accept/ include 1,2,3,4 Maccabees Protestants generally use the Palestinian Canon as the source of their “Old Testament” … Hebrew Scriptures. –The 39 books of the Protestant “Old Testament” represent the 24 books of the Hebrew Scriptures."  The Protestant Bible doesn't include this book or story.  It's gruesome, but the mother's heart and courage are wonderful.  (1603-602-OLLIMacc1HO.pdf (gmu.edu)

22 I do not know how you came into being in my womb. It was not I who gave you life and breath, nor I who set in order the elements within each of you. 23 Therefore the Creator of the world, who shaped the beginning of humankind and devised the origin of all things, will in his mercy give life and breath back to you again, since you now forget yourselves for the sake of his laws.” (2 Mac. 7:22–23; NRSV)

The Reformers and the Catholics--why are the Bibles different?

The fastest growing church in Columbus is Rock City, formed in 2011.

I was baptized in Church of the Brethren, a "New Testament church." on Palm Sunday in 1950 and have been a "sola scriptura" Lutheran since Palm Sunday 1976 when I was confirmed.  I was probably 70 years old before I saw a Catholic Bible at a used book store, and wondered why the Church had "added" things mine didn't have (I probably had 6 translations all with the same list and books). This controversy was thoroughly investigated by St. Francis de Sales (1567-1622) when he was quite young--being only about 27 when he began this work. Since "sola scriptura" is basic to most Protestant, "Bible only," non-denominational and Restoration churches, it's worth a look to see what was said post-reformation. Which scripture?  His work was intended to present the Catholic faith to French Protestants some years after Catholics in their region had been persecuted and driven out.  It is reported that he brought 70,000 Christians who had no knowledge of the faith, back into the fold.

For me, one of the most interesting parts (free on the internet, although in print there may be better translations) is "which Bible" should we claim as authoritative?  The one the church used for 15 centuries (and still does), or the one the Reformers decided to revise? The Old Testament canon that Jesus referred to as "scripture," has been changed, although I don't think there was an official body who determined canon--the Jews didn't agree either in the time of Jesus. This is the link to Chapter 7 of "The Catholic Controversy," and the ones preceding it are excellent also. He gives both sides--but pretty much demolishes the argument for removing these Old Testament books and revising the canon to suit 16th century ideas.
http://www.goodcatholicbooks.org/francis/catholic-controversy/protestant-scripture.html#CHAPTER_VII

"The Council of Trent gives these books as sacred, divine and canonical: Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, Josue, Judges, Ruth, the four Books of Kings, two of the Paralipomenon, two of Esdras ( a first, and a second, which is called of Nehemias), Tobias, Judith, Esther, Job, one hundred and fifty Psalms of David, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, the Canticle of Canticles, Wisdom ,Ecclesiasticus, Isaias, Jeremias with Baruch, Ezechiel, Daniel, Osee, Joel, Amos, Abdias, Jonas, Micheas, Nahum, Habacuc, Sophonias, Aggeus, Zacharius, Malachy, two of Machabees, first and second: of the New Testament, four Gospels, -S. Matthew, S. Mark, S. Luke, S. John,-the Acts of the Apostles by S. Luke, fourteen Epistles of S. Paul,-to the Romans, two to the Corinthians, to the Galatians, to the Ephesians, to the Philippians, to the Colossians, two to the Thessalonians, two to Timothy, to Titus, to Philemon, to the Hebrews,-two of S. Peter, three of S. John, one of S. James, one of S. Jude, and the Apocalypse. The same books were received at the Council of Florence, and long before that at the third Council of Carthage about twelve hundred years These books are divided into two ranks. For of some, both of the Old and of the New Testament, it was never doubted but that they were sacred and canonical: others there are about whose authority the ancient Fathers doubted for a time, but afterwards they were placed with those of the first rank." (chapter 3)

I was familiar with what the 19th and 20th century seminaries had done with higher criticism and how theologians had cast doubt on the authority of  scripture, but according to St. Francis,  the reformers used a similar method--bit by bit, chipping away at the passages that underscored the theology and Christology they didn't like. Why he asks is the Holy Spirit given to individuals and nobodies to interpret privately the Bible, but not the Church?

"Why shall one allow Calvin to cut off Wisdom or the Machabees, and not Luther to remove the Epistle of S. James or the Apocalypse, or Castalio the Canticle of Canticles, or the Anabaptists the Gospel of S. Mark, or another person Genesis and Exodus? If all protest that they have interior revelation why shall we believe one rather than another, so that this rule supposed to be sacred on account of the Holy Spirit, will be violated by the audacity of every deceiver.  

Recognise, I pray you, the stratagem. They have taken away all authority from Tradition, the Church, the Councils, what more remains? The Scripture. The enemy is crafty: if he would take all away at one stroke he would cause alarm. He starts a certain and infallible method of getting rid of it bit by bit, and very gradually: that is, this idea of interior inspiration, by which everybody can receive or reject what seems good to him. And in fact consider a little how the process works itself out. Calvin removes and erases from the canon Baruch, Tobias, Judith, Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, Machabees; Luther takes away the Epistle of S. James, of S. Jude, the Second of S. Peter, the Second and Third of S. John, the Epistle to the Hebrews; he ridicules Ecclesiastes, and holds Job a fable. In Daniel, Calvin has erased the Canticle of the Three Children, the history of Susanna and that of the dragon of Bel; also a great part of Esther. In Exodus, at Geneva and elsewhere among these reformers, they have cut out the twenty-second verse of the second chapter, which is of such weight that neither the Seventy nor the other translators would ever have written it if it had not been in the original. Beza casts a doubt over the history of the adulteress in the Gospel of S. John (S. Augustine warns us that already the enemies of Christianity had erased it from their books; but not from all, as S. Jerome. says)." . . . Chapter 5 

"But before I quit this subject, I pray you, reformers tell me whence you have taken the canon of the Scriptures which you follow? You have not taken it from the Jews, for the books of the Gospels would not be there, nor from the Council of Laodicea, for the Apocalypse would not be in it; or from the Councils of Carthage or of Florence, for Ecclesiasticus and the Machabees would be there. Whence, then, have you taken it? In good sooth, like canon was never spoken of before your time. The Church never saw canon of the Scriptures in which there was not either more or less than in yours. What likelihood is there that the Holy Spirit has hidden himself from all antiquity, and that after 1500 years he has disclosed to certain private persons the list of the true Scriptures?" Chapter 6

Why do Protestants, Catholics, and Orthodox Christians use different Bibles?

It's an important question, especially since there are non-denominational and fundamentalist Christian churches that claim to base their faith only on the Bible (and some only on King James Version) and not on historical church teachings or traditions (although they all have their own traditions which govern polity, sacraments, music, Sunday School, etc.)  Technically, there was no Bible for the first almost 400 years of Christianity, but there was written sacred scripture of the Jews, and that was primarily in three languages, Hebrew, Greek and Aramaic. So Jesus read and preached and taught from a "Bible" we Protestants don't use--the Septuagint, or Greek Old Testament. That scripture includes the following:

• Tobit (or Tobias) emphasizes the importance of the sanctity of marriage, parental respect, angelic intercession, as well as prayer, fasting, and alms giving for the expiation of sins, as noted in the Archangel Raphael's speech in Tobias 12:9.

• Sirach offers both moral instruction and a history of the patriarchs and leaders of Israel.

• First and Second Maccabees are historical works which describe the end of persecution by the Seleucid King Antiochus IV Epiphanes through Mattathias and his sons the Maccabees. And so began the independent Hasmonean Dynasty of Israel from 165 to 63 BC. The Rededication of the Temple by Judas Maccabeus (1 Maccabees 4:36-59, 2 Maccabees 10:1-8) is commemorated yearly during the Feast of Hannukah. First Maccabees was first written in Hebrew, but only the Greek version has been preserved. In addition to its historical value, Second Maccabees affirms the theology of martyrdom and resurrection of the just (7:1-42), intercessory prayer of the living for the dead (12:44-45), as well as intercessory prayer of the saints for those still on earth (15:12-16).

• Judith describes the deliverance of the Jews from the hands of Holofernes, general to Nebuchadnezzar of Babylon.

• The Book of Wisdom is witness to the trend in late post-exilic Jewish thought that looked forward to life after death: immortality is a reward of the just (3:1-4, 19). The book also notes that all living creatures reflect the perfection of the Creator (Wisdom 13:5).

• The Book of Baruch, the scribe to Jeremiah, describes the prayers of the Babylonian Exiles and includes the Letter of Jeremiah.

  Martin Luther in his 1534 translation differed from St. Augustine and considered the Apocryphal books "good for reading" but not part of inspired Scripture. The King James Bible of 1611 included the Apocrypha but in a separate section. While there are no direct quotations in the New Testament from the Apocrypha, there are also no direct quotations from Judges, Ruth, Esther, Ecclesiastes, Song of Songs, Ezra, Nehemiah, Obadiah, Nahum, or Zephaniah. http://biblescripture.net/Canon.html