Why did Jehovah give the job of writing the BIBLE to the Catholics?

by gumby 39 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

  • z
    z


    Old Testament canon, texts, and versions > The canon > The Christian canon
    The Christian Church received its Bible from Greek-speaking Jews and found the majority of its early converts in the Hellenistic world. The Greek Bible of Alexandria thus became the official Bible of the Christian community, and the overwhelming number of quotations from the Hebrew Scriptures in the New Testament are derived from it. Whatever the origin of the Apocryphal books in the canon of Alexandria, these became part of the Christian Scriptures, but there seems to have been no unanimity as to their exact canonical status. The New Testament itself does not cite the Apocryphal books directly, but occasional traces of a knowledge of them are to be found. The Apostolic Fathers (late 1st–early 2nd centuries) show extensive familiarity with this literature, but a list of the Old Testament books by Melito, bishop of Sardis in Asia Minor (2nd century), does not include the additional writings of the Greek Bible, and Origen (c. 185–c. 254) explicitly describes the Old Testament canon as comprising only 22 books.
    From the time of Origen on, the Church Fathers who were familiar with Hebrew differentiated, theoretically at least, the Apocryphal books from those of the Old Testament, though they used them freely. In the Syrian East, until the 7th century the Church had only the books of the Hebrew canon with the addition of Ecclesiasticus, or the Wisdom of Jesus the son of Sira (but without Chronicles, Ezra, and Nehemiah). It also incorporated the Wisdom of Solomon, Baruch, the Letter of Jeremiah, and the additions to Daniel. The 6th-century manuscript of the Peshitta (Syriac version) known as Codex Ambrosianus also has III and IV Maccabees, II (sometimes IV) Esdras, and Josephus' Wars VII.
    Early councils of the African Church held at Hippo (393) and Carthage (397, 419) affirmed the use of the Apocryphal books as Scripture. In the 4th century also, Athanasius, chief theologian of Christian orthodoxy, differentiated “canonical books” from both “those that are read” by Christians only and the “Apocryphal books” rejected alike by Jews and Christians. In the preparation of a standard Latin version, the biblical scholar Jerome (c. 347–419/420) separated “canonical books” from “ecclesiastical books” (i.e., the Apocryphal writings), which he regarded as good for spiritual edification but not authoritative Scripture. A contrary view of Augustine (354–430), one of the greatest Western theologians, prevailed, however, and the works remained in the Latin Vulgate version. The Decretum Gelasianum, a Latin document of uncertain authorship but recognized as reflecting the views of the Roman Church at the beginning of the 6th century, includes Tobit, Judith, the Wisdom of Solomon, Ecclesiasticus, and I and II Maccabees as biblical.
    Throughout the Middle Ages, the Apocryphal books were generally regarded as Holy Scripture in the Roman and Greek churches, although theoretical doubts were raised from time to time. Thus, in 1333 Nicholas of Lyra, a French Franciscan theologian, had discussed the differences between the Latin Vulgate and the “Hebrew truth.” Christian-Jewish polemics, the increasing attention to Hebrew studies, and, finally, the Reformation kept the issue of the Christian canon alive. Protestants denied canonical status to all books not in the Hebrew Bible. The first modern vernacular Bible to segregate the disputed writings was a Dutch version by Jacob van Liesveldt (Antwerp, 1526). Luther's German edition of 1534 did the same thing and entitled them “Apocrypha” for the first time, noting that while they were not in equal esteem with sacred Scriptures they were edifying.
    In response to Protestant views, the Roman Catholic church made its position clear at the Council of Trent (1546) when it dogmatically affirmed that the entire Latin Vulgate enjoyed equal canonical status. This doctrine was confirmed by the Vatican Council of 1870. In the Greek Church, the Synod of Jerusalem (1672) had expressly designated as canonical several Apocryphal works. In the 19th century, however, Russian Orthodox theologians agreed to exclude these works from the Holy Scriptures.
    The history of the Old Testament canon in the English Church has generally reflected a more restrictive viewpoint. Even though the Wycliffite Bible (14th century) included the Apocrypha, its preface made it clear that it accepted Jerome's judgment. The translation made by the English bishop Miles Coverdale (1535) was the first English version to segregate these books, but it did place Baruch after Jeremiah. Article VI of the Thirty-nine Articles of religion of the Church of England (1562) explicitly denied their value for the establishment of doctrine, although it admitted that they should be read for their didactic worth. The first Bible in English to exclude the Apocrypha was the Geneva Bible of 1599. The King James Version of 1611 placed it between the Old and New Testaments. In 1615 Archbishop George Abbot forbade the issuance of Bibles without the Apocrypha, but editions of the King James Version from 1630 on often omitted it from the bound copies. The Geneva Bible edition of 1640 was probably the first to be intentionally printed in England without the Apocrypha, followed in 1642 by the King James Version. In 1644 the Long Parliament actually forbade the public reading of these books, and three years later the Westminster Confession of the Presbyterians decreed them to be no part of the canon. The British and Foreign Bible Society in 1827 resolved never to print or circulate copies containing the Apocrypha. Most English Protestant Bibles in the 20th century have omitted the disputed books or have them as a separate volume, except in library editions, in which they are included with the Old and New Testaments.

    Z

  • gumby
    gumby

    z,.......... I was going to post a little on the canon as you did but people don't like long complicated explanations and won't read it for the most part.....bastards!

    Kaput,

    Nice find! Very little can be found on the "Slaves" early backround in Watchtower publications. Also, very little is spoken of by them on the subject of the bible canons compilation.

    As for an early slave class before russells time, their attempts to name those such as the Lollards and Waldensenes as being such are weaker than pee wee herman himself. These groups were saturated in bavylonish beliefs as much as the next guy.....no difference.

    Gumby

  • Mary
    Mary

    Here's some more venom spewed by "Christ's Brothers" towards the Catholic Church.......I didn't realize that these idiots refused to acknowledge the role that the Catholic Church played in canonization of the bible:

    *** w52 10/1 pp. 580-582 Do Catholic Bible Claims Fit the Facts? ***

    In view of these facts, which show that the canon of the Bible was settled among the Christians in the second and early third centuries after Christ, can the Catholic Church claim to have made the Bible, simply because some 150 to 200 years later her Council of Carthage announced what writings she considered canonical?

    If the Catholic Church made the Bible, is it not strange that she failed to include any word about the assumption of Mary, her immaculate conception and about the efficacy of praying to her; about the veneration of relics, images and saints; about the use of holy water; about the ceremony of the mass; about a pope’s being the vicar of Christ; about monsignors, archbishops and cardinals; about purgatory; about a celibate clergy; about not eating meat on Friday or during Lent; about making novenas; about infant baptism; etc.? Is not the fact that the Bible is silent on all these outstanding points of the Catholic religion strong circumstantial evidence that the Catholic Church did not make the Bible? that it is not a Catholic book?

    Who made the Bible is very clear from its own pages. God is its author. "Thy word is a lamp to my feet." "The spirit of the Lord hath spoken by me: and his word by my tongue." "Thy word is truth." "For the word of God is living and effectual." "The holy men of God spoke, inspired by the Holy Ghost."—Douay Version at 2 Ki. 23:2; Ps. 118:105; John 17:17; Heb. 4:12; 2 Pet. 1:21.

    CATHOLIC

    CHURCH PRESERVE THE BIBLE?

    The Catholic Church further states: "There can be no doubt that the world must thank the Catholic Church for the Bible—if only for the 1,500 years which elapsed before the first Reformers appeared on the scene. Who spanned the gulf? We ask that the monks who copied for centuries, . . . be given their due. But for them we would have no Bible." Does this claim fit the facts? Let us see.

    The facts are that not one of the oldest, most reliable and most valuable manuscripts of the Bible was found in territories under Catholic domination. Even her prized Vatican manuscript 1209 has been in her possession only since the fifteenth century. And this she hid away, making it available to the public only when another great manuscript, the Sinaiticus, bid fair to eclipse it. So if the monks had done no copying at all during the Dark and Middle Ages we would still have the best manuscripts. They copied none of the good ones.

    Not only can no credit go to the Catholic Church for preserving the Bible but the facts of history show that she has been the chief destroyer of the Bible. Copies of Wycliffe’s Bible were hunted out by her from one end of England to the other and then destroyed. Tyndale had to print his "New Testament" on the continent of Europe, for he could not do so in Catholic England. Although he published 18,000 of them and had them smuggled into England, they were hunted down and destroyed so efficiently that only seventeen copies are known to survive today.

  • Legolas
    Legolas

    Good point Gumby!

  • greendawn
    greendawn

    At the time when the Bible was canonised there was one universal church that split up into catholic and orthodox around 1000 AD.

    There certainly never was an FDS of the style of the JWs in the early church, their FDS is a totalitarian tyrannical character and the apostles weren't of that mold.

  • ballistic
    ballistic

    Very good thread, you can be here over 4 years and something pops up you never thought of before. Well done Mary and Gumbo.

  • gumby
    gumby
    can the Catholic Church claim to have made the Bible, simply because some 150 to 200 years later her Council of Carthage announced what writings she considered canonical?

    What lying idiots.

    First of all, the Catholics never made claim to "have MADE the bible" as the article noted. They only claim they make here is that they were the "carekeepers" of what was written by others.

    The other think they fail to acknowledge is the FACT that the Catholics DID indeed canonize the bible. Whether they were noted as Catholics or the Roman Church, it was done politically by men and not completed till the 4th century as we now have in it's completed form. Catholics were known "editors" too.

    And another thing....(one more),

    The society in it's article Mary supplied above, used Catholic beliefs such as mass, lent, mary worship etc, as a barometer as proof the Catholics didn't "write" the bible or that shit would be in the bible. I wonder if the "Slave Class" had written the bible, would it have included no R rated movies, no smoking policies, no Oral Sex policies, a no beards policy, and a no long hair policy?

    Gumby

  • Kaput
    Kaput

    Talk about bitin' the hand that feeds ya. I think the JWs owe the Catholic church a tremendous "thank you" for giving them half the name of their religion. As the Aid to Bible Understanding book brings out on pages 884-885, "The first recorded use of this form [Jehovah] dates from the thirteenth century C.E. Raymundus Martini, a Spanish monk of the Dominican Order, used it in his book Pugeo Fidei of the year 1270 C.E."

  • Evanescence
    Evanescence
    mary worship

    Mary worship? Don't tell me the Watchtower really believes that as well!

    Evanescence

  • M.J.
    M.J.
    *** si p. 302 Study Number 4—The Bible and Its Canon ***

    17 The Roman Catholic Church claims responsibility for the decision as to which books should be included in the Bible canon, and reference is made to the Council of Carthage (397 C.E.), where a catalog of books was formulated. The opposite is true, however, because the canon, including the list of books making up the Christian Greek Scriptures, was already settled by then, that is, not by the decree of any council, but by the direction of God’s holy spirit—the same spirit that inspired the writing of those books in the first place.

    The significance of this passage is that the WTS is attributing the "direction of God's holy spirit" to THE VERY SAME PEOPLE who defended all the key orthodox doctrines the WTS rejects (such as elemental trinitarianism). One could argue that before the 4th century it wasn't "really" the Catholic church as we know it today, but just pull out the writings of the people that EVEN THE WTS credits with putting together the canon, and it blows their claim that all these doctrines led to "apostasy" out of the water.

Share this

Google+
Pinterest
Reddit