Subject: Sola Scriptura supported by bible? |
Bible Note: "(it was actually in the appendix of his translation, just like it was in the Vulgate)" It depends on how you look at this. Sure, Jerome didn't consider these books on par with the others, so they were isolated between the Old and New Testaments. But why do you suppose he left them in? It was because there were others who believed that they should be there and he didn't have enough of an argument to remove them. There was a difference between the Alexandrian texts and the Palestinian texts. The majority of complete manuscripts that come from the Alexandrian variety included the apocryphal books. You seem to think that because it wasn't until Trent that the RCC declared these books scripture that it was a new thing. You obviously don't know how the RCC works. Before they consider it dogma it has been the norm for some time. As you say, Luther originally didn't remove them, but moved them to the back. This shows that they were in there before the reformation. I am not Catholic by the way. But I do respect the doctrine, theology and heritage that they bring. It is very short sighted, in my opinion, to just ignore over 1600 years of Christian history. You ask me how do I tell what is scripture? That is a good question. I don't think there is a right answer to that. That is my point. I am not trying to argue in favor of the RCC Bible. I am trying to say that either position is not Biblical. |