slimboyfat
You see, that's why you shouldn't turn to secular, anti-Christian Bible critics, because they don't use a scalpel to peel away possible secondary interpolations, but instead attack the entire canon with an ax. With such power, the Pentateuch is not the work of Moses, but material "put together" over the centuries, as secular critics claim. But this hypothesis does not help you now, because there are indeed those who argue that John 21 though present in all extant manuscripts, may be a later addition, but not a single serious historian or philologist says that 1) it is the work of Polycarp, 2) if this is so, then the name of YHWH must have been falsified from the entire New Testament also.
From a Catholic point of view, possible secondary authorship does not preclude canonicity, as the Council of Trent records as such:
"If anyone does not accept as sacred and canonical the aforesaid books in their entirety and with all their parts, as they have been accustomed to be read in the Catholic Church and as they are contained in the old Latin Vulgate Edition, and knowingly and deliberately rejects the aforesaid traditions, let him be anathema."
People dissect parables based on all sorts of nonsense, and in the end, it turns out that Jesus did not say anything like it, but it was only the first or second-generation Christian community that made up the verses. Of course, modernists try to reassure us that this does not change the sacred nature and inspiration of the Scripture because the Church's practice of preaching consecrated the text, blah blah blah. OK! But if so, why are they stripping for example the Pericope Adulterae and other important "layers" from the Bible? If it does not matter who originally wrote or said the prophet, apostle, or Jesus what we read in the Bible, why are they omitting the "less old additions". Where do they draw the line?
Various ideas have been born about how the divine and the human author work together when writing the sacred text. That is, does the Holy Spirit dictate the text literally, or just takes care of the essence and the content, by reminding the author of God's message. However, this essentially remains a mystery. One thing is certain, the Holy Spirit prompts the author to write, guards the content so that no error enters it, but does not take away the author's freedom in terms of formulation, and thus the author's education, knowledge of language, theological conception, emotional world, and character also leave a mark on the text, besides that God inspires every detail of the Scripture, even the seemingly insignificant parts, as taught by Pope Leo XIII in the encyclical "Providentissimus" (DS 1950). The essence of the mystery is, therefore, that just as Jesus is fully God and fully man, so Scripture is entirely the work of God, but also entirely human. Therefore, according to Thomas Aquinas, we can talk about a primary author (auctor principalis) in relation to the Scripture, who is the Holy Spirit, and an executive author (auctor instrumentalis), who is the inspired writer (Summa Theologica: II-II, 171-174 ). Some people talked about verbal inspiration to protect divine authorship, that is, that God inspired not only the content but every single word. But can we still talk about a human author in this case? Others taught real inspiration to preserve the freedom of the human author, according to which the Holy Spirit only prompted the sacred author to write. But the divine authorship in this case is so indirect that the Bible could hardly be truly God's message. The teachings of the Church Fathers (John Chrysostom, and Cyril of Alexandria), who compared the human author to a harp or tool, stand between the two extremes: God plucks the strings, but the harp gives the sound. This conception of inspiration also allows the evangelists to write down or omit different details about Christ's resurrection without making false statements (Augustine). The Council of Trent similarly speaks when in its teaching the human author appears as a tool used against the divine, as the pen in the hand of the writer / "dictante quasi per manus traditæ" / (DH 1501).
The inspiration ensures that it is not possible to make a mistake in Scripture. Augustine writes this to the more liberal Jerome:
"I confess to your that I have learned that profound respect against only the canonical sacred books, by the meaning of which I am firmly convinced that none of its authors wrote down an error. If I still stumble upon something that appears to be contrary to the truth, I do not hesitate to think that either the codex is faulty, or the translator does not understand the meaning of what was said, or I do not understand the whole thing” (August. Ep. 28)
Orthodox (and even conservative-wing) Judaism accepts (at least) the literal inspiration of the Torah, and they have a canonical document for this, the Masoretic canon. In this Torah, the place of every letter and the rules for copying are precisely defined; it is stipulated which "verse" must start and end a page with which letter. This group of documents known to the public as the "Hebrew canon" (Tanakh = Torah + Nevi'im + Ketuvim = Moses + Prophets + Writings), which was also used by SJerome in preparing the Vulgate.
Trained Hebraists argue more precisely about when this was fixed. The fact is that this division already existed in Jesus' time, it was used from a liturgical point of view, but in terms of the canon, pre-Christian Judaism probably treated the canon as freely as the Catholic Church does: although the entire Vulgate, in every verse and "lemma", is the basic canon, it does not reject the use of other, ancient translations by churches "outside of Rome", and the liturgical use of "apocryphal" (e.g., Psalm 151). Thus, Jews did not reject broader translations used "outside the Land" and their sacramental value.
A stricter canon management approach developed in a group of the Pharisee party (hence the polemic about the letter and the spirit), which was also recorded at the Council of Jamnia (around AD 90). The Masoretic canon, which has remained essentially unchanged since then, was created after this. Interestingly, the "square" letter also became common by this time, essentially gaining its unchanged (only stylistically varying) shape.
Of course, the letter also has a symbolic meaning, this is dealt with by Jewish mysticism, which ultimately originates from "the" Mystery of the Name. This partly survived in Christianity. This partly developed from an internal divine intention, and partly the Pythagorean aftertaste of the Hellenistic environment affected it with its number and letter mysticism. This could now be a separate topic.
By the way, the Torah of the Septuagint canon shows greater agreement in its differences with the Samaritan Pentateuch, in those places which have been set up by Protestant and Jewish principles as "textual corruption", "translation error". Since the "Hebrew canon" is later than the original text from which the Septuagint was translated, and the Samaritan Torah confirms the "mistakes" of the Septuagint translation, as a Catholic we can believe that the Septuagint's "differences" are not the results of "corruption". Not to mention that the Greek base text of the New Testament (not the original text! ) uses the Septuagint, with its "translation errors" and deuterocanonical books. Jesus and the apostles quote the deuterocanonical books as "Scripture" in the New Testament.
Muslims also have an "original Quran", which they declared canonical, and essentially destroyed the other text variants.
Catholics and Orthodox accept inspiration according to the "lemma" ("the holy author only wrote down what God wanted him to write down" - thus a false thought in the divine sense is not in it, everything has at least a deeply symbolic message, if not historical). They rejected the extreme "symbolism" (which, for example, Origenes finally practiced) in that they considered what was described in it as a myth by pulling out all historical foundations. God actually entered chronos (space-time) and actually did miracles and gave prophecies, which came true.
The Holy Spirit definitively recorded the text of the Vulgate through the Magisterium. It doesn't say that other churches, other rites, should not use others, or that they should throw out the Vetus Latina texts from the liturgy. BUT this is a sure point now. Similar approach as in pre-Christian Judaism on the "Hebrew canon of the Land". That is, the Church did not proclaim an "original canon", but a "pattern canon" in the original sense of the word canon.
Protestants have proclaimed the principle that the original copy is the real one.
Let's see where this - also existing among Jews and Muslims - approach is wrong:
- The Torah was partially written by Moses according to the Jews, this is the so-called "written Torah", while the so-called "oral Torah" is the Mishnah (i.e., "repetition"), which was later recorded in the Talmud. (Let's not talk about the Karaites here, who are basically the Protestants of Judaism.) The written Torah according to the Jews was already established in the time of Moses. However, they can't claim to have the original copy in their possession. Thus, the "original canon" can be compared to the lost Ark of the Covenant, which begins to undermine the integrity of the canon.
- Among Muslims there is a similar duality (Quran and Hadith), however, according to the Quran, Muhammad himself was illiterate, not to mention when the "canonized" Quran writing came about. Thus the "original" canon there is also a myth.
- Protestants invented the idea that the Catholic Church "falsified" the Bible, as the sole source of faith, the sole manifestation of God's revelation. Therefore, Luther wanted to retranslate it from Hebrew and Greek. However, he didn't know the Hebrew and Greek "original canon" either.
Catholicism, already in the era of the Church Fathers, did not deny stratification (see the dispute about the "Letter to the Hebrews"), however, it did not make the text's literal "ancientness" a condition for canonicity.
Modern philology, unfortunately, has been infected by human arrogance, unbelief, and stupidity. Because what is it about? The authorship of those certain "secondary interpolations" like the Pericope Adulterae and the Longer Ending of Mark can be disputed, but it is strictly forbidden to throw it out of the canon. As Christ's humanity is true, for example, his beard was an integral accident, which organically grew out after puberty (the baby Jesus did not have a beard), i.e., it was not his own at birth, but came about organically during his development. The same way some "later addition" were not part of the letter of the original authors at its "birth", but was added to the Church in the course of divine Providence. The canon's "unchangeability", "carved in stone, inorganic" is just as much as Jesus' humanity changed as long as he pilgrimaged in chronos: he ate, drank, physiological changes also occurred in his body during the 33 years. Thus his physical body underwent accidental changes, which did not begin to undermine his substantial integrity. Now the same is true analogously to the "body" of Holy Scripture. This is why truly orthodox (and not modernist) Catholic exegesis is truly Christlike.
Philology, unfortunately, was influenced by Jewish-Muslim-Protestant original canonism, which is not a coincidence, as rationalist Bible criticism also sprouted in Protestant soil.
About the so-called "layers". This is where human stupidity and foolishness comes in, the crucifixion of the canon, which thus walks a path similar to the Calvary of the Incarnate Word. Someone truly and rightfully discovered the "later addition". The response to this, "This bastard x.y. discovered this and that, I hated him already at university, now I'll discover that John didn't even write the letter!" Jesus said, evil comes from the heart, which makes one unclean. Most preconceptions are born from pseudo-scientific arrogance, the "publication" pressure, and what's trendy: To show about the Bible it's not like this, nor like that, as the Church interpreted it. This is the continuation of the Protestant rebellion in a "scientifically" disguised guise, but the cat is out of the bag.
In this, among several renowned researchers, was the tragically heart-attacked Carsten Peter Thiede (1952-2004), a German-born Anglican, a biblical professor at Ben Gurion University and Oxford. He wrote the work "The Quest for the True Cross", in which he proves that the crucifixion relics (pieces of the holy cross, pieces of the crown of thorns, nail, plaque) of the Roman basilica Santa Croce in Gerusalemme were indeed donated to Rome by Saint Helena, and they are indeed true relics related to Christ.
This German researcher showed with UV examination of Egyptian and Holy Land papyri, analysis of letter types, that the Gospel of Matthew (this is the first!) was created in the time of the eyewitnesses, before AD 50, in the forties, its abbreviated version is the Gospel of Mark truly written in Rome, and that also before the destruction of the Temple.
The arrogant "scientific public" immediately roared, they ridiculed him, qualified him as preconceived, counter-evidence none. The last argument was like "it may have been created then, but it's still just a fairy tale and not a real historical document". No comment, or rather, "comma".
Otherwise, history proves that the creed of old Protestantism (sola Scriptura) leads first to fanaticism (literal-fundementalist inspiration of the original canon), later to heresy, the creed of rationalism (only 'science' is the true interpreter) leads quickly to Christ-denial. On the contrary, by virtue of its constancy, the Catholic creed is the preserver of the Christian Gospel, and by virtue of its living, organic nature, it is able to adapt to every demand and capability in the proclamation of the gospel.
You can dissect the canon with preconceived questions, one can lash its surface, brutally cut "layers" off it, crucify it, mock it, interrogate it, asking where is God in you... BUT, when someone reaches the heart of the canon, they exclaim: "This is indeed the Son of God!"
That's why I said the "original canon" is one thing, the "base canon" is another, and the "pattern canon" is yet another. The canon is a living reality.
The "original canon" mania emerged on a Protestant basis, first with fanaticism, then it tried to attack the true flock and their faith with pseudoscience. Unfortunately, some Catholic exegetes also (perhaps unknowingly, because they were raised in this way) adopted the ideology of "original canonism".
This is the so-called "canonical-archaism", which is similar to the failed ideology that the early Church, or the pre-Carolingian Roman liturgy is the good one, and it must be reconstructed.
It is equally erroneous when they come up with the idea that the first form of the canon is the good one, and finally they get to the point (filled with forced hypotheses, preconceptions refutable with basic language knowledge) that the "base canon" is just a patchwork of footnotes.
This is roughly like saying that Jesus Christ can only be depicted as a zygote, as that's what He was when He incarnated. However, this was in His mother's womb, and it developed mysteriously there before He "was born". The canon also had a conception, intrauterine development, birth, and a coming into the public, "canonization". However, those who kill the "Mother" (the Church), the crucifiers of the Son, don't understand this. Without the Mother, the Son cannot be understood, and in His initial form, He is wrapped in the mystery of the Mother, beneath her heart. The same is true in the case of child-killing pseudo-exegetes posing in doctors' coats: they want to tear Christ apart in the womb already. Separating the Canon from the Church is essentially sacrilege amounting to abortion. This scraping began 500 years ago.
Those incapable of synthesis try to dissect and overanalyze the mystery. The counterfeit works of modernist (and not modern!) exegesis are sacrilegious, God- and man-contemptuous pornographic documents that seek to dissect the indivisible.
Hands off the holy canon! ENOUGH of the desecralization of the canon! Let's not turn God's dwelling place into a marketplace!
By God's grace, I still BELIEVE in inspiration, in INSPIRATION and not in what they falsely call inspiration, with which they stuff the word form "inspiration", but biblical studies must be illuminated both by faith with the intellect.
One can analyze the human part of the Scripture with scientific honesty and humility (considering the limits of science), anyone can think whatever they want about the Holy Scripture, but for me, the Bible is God's word, which has been clothed in human speech, and if I read it in the Holy Spirit, the divine Word (which is sharper than a sword) penetrates my heart, pervades not just the "abstract" mind, but it takes the entire existence with it. The Bible is God's word, His Word not only in an object sense but also in a subject sense!