Although I agree with you, I also see this as a topic of innumerable threads here at CF in the past.
As I am certain you know, various branches of Christianity ascribe to various canons of scripture, with virtually all having the 66 books that most Protestant churches have. Thus, it is not a black-and-white issue between the 73 books of the RCC canon and the 66 books of the Protestant canon. Because there has been virtually no direct interaction here with members of other branches of Christianity on this issue, such as the Coptic Church, it is virtually impossible to understand their views.
As I believe you are aware, there are nuances to understanding the role of scripture in the life of the church. These range across a very wide spectrum from group such as the KJV-only fringe who maintain that everything in the KJV, including verse divisions, chapter divisions, etc. is divinely inspired and inerrant all the way to the opposite end of the spectrum where various liberal Christians view the Bible as an archaic document of little to no relevance today. In between these two ends are the rest of us.
It has been my personal observation that there is not a single church or denomination which has not faced the problems of the theological content of the canon of scripture, which is an entirely different matter. However, it does reflect and affect the actual canon which they profess to hold.
For example, although virtually all Dispensationalists hold to a canon of 66 books, they emphasize the New Testament almost to the point of the exclusion of the Old Testament and some hyper-dispensationalists, in practice, have limited their operative canon to some of the book of the Acts, some of the epistles, and the Revelation.
So, we have a duality where, on one hand, there is an accepted canon of scripture, and on the other hand, there is an operative canon of scripture.
Turning to the deuterocanonical books of the Bible, most Protestants, although hardly all, are in agreement that these are secondary (hence the prefix - deutero-) in significance and are in agreement with Saint Jerome that the Hebrew manuscripts for these books simply do not exist and that, for that reason, these books are not of the same historic significance as for those having a Hebrew provenance.
As a result, the deuterocanonical books, for virtually all Protestants are not part and parcel of an operative canon of scripture. For Catholics, this is also, surprisingly, similar but for different reasons. I was quite amazed several years ago when I went to a prominent Catholic website which provided copies of the New American Bible online. I assumed that the deuterocanonical books would be available. They were not at all and, amazingly, they had misspelled Colossians. When I contacted them, they responded that they were unaware of these other books, so I had to educate them. In time, they were able to post the books.
The reality is that, for the average Catholic in the pew, the Bible is fairly insignificant and knowledge of the canon is marginal, at best. Thus, it can be splitting hairs to argue over the canon when most Catholics remain quite ignorant.
The other problem with the deuterocanonical books is their content. The fact is, simply put, that there is no theological content in these books that is unique to the other books in the Bible. In fact, the narrative format of these books allows with virtually no theological content other than possibly by implication. For example, because prayers were offered to God after a battle, one must read a great deal into the passage to develop the fully-formed doctrine of Purgatory which is unique to the RCC. The EOC, which shares the same canon, differs very significantly with the RCC on this doctrine.
I shall come pack to this post, the one I am writing now, I must go out for lunch and do some good among people who need some good in their lives, so I shall return, God willing, and do your post justice.
You wrote:
Although I agree with you, I also see this as a topic of innumerable threads here at CF in the past.
As I am certain you know, various branches of Christianity ascribe to various canons of scripture, with virtually all having the 66 books that most Protestant churches have. Thus, it is not a black-and-white issue between the 73 books of the RCC canon and the 66 books of the Protestant canon. Because there has been virtually no direct interaction here with members of other branches of Christianity on this issue, such as the Coptic Church, it is virtually impossible to understand their views.
I see why you say what you say but let me put this idea on the table.
Many Christian in reality receive only some of the 27 books of the new testament for practical purposes and in effect have a 22 books canon because they rarely read the old testament and usually avoid Revelation, 2Peter, 2 & 3 John. So maybe all our debates would do well if restricted to the core reading material that Christians read day to day? But would anyone in CF accept that when trying to build their doctrines in opposition to their interlocutor's doctrines?
You also wrote
As I believe you are aware, there are nuances to understanding the role of scripture in the life of the church. These range across a very wide spectrum from group such as the KJV-only fringe who maintain that everything in the KJV, including verse divisions, chapter divisions, etc. is divinely inspired and inerrant all the way to the opposite end of the spectrum where various liberal Christians view the Bible as an archaic document of little to no relevance today. In between these two ends are the rest of us.
If I was confident in my own understanding and my own abilities to handle the holy scriptures properly then I might be on the "arachaic document" side of the spectrum that you mention. But I am not so confident as that. I believe in God, I love to read the scriptures, and I am filled with questions about why they have some tings in them. Why the imprecatory passages in so many old testament books and in a few of the new testament too. And as I think about these things I come to the realisation that without the community of faith, without the Church, I would have very few sound reasons for using any bible. But I do have the Church to teach me about scripture and how it ought to be read and how to make sense of the passages that make sense and also how to wait for God to teach the Church how to handle the unpleasant passages. This arrangement works but it is not perfect, not yet anyway, perhaps as the last day approaches the beauty and perfection of the bride of Christ will come into sharper focus and then we'll reach the maturity that belongs to Jesus Chrisy.
The you wrote:
It has been my personal observation that there is not a single church or denomination which has not faced the problems of the theological content of the canon of scripture, which is an entirely different matter. However, it does reflect and affect the actual canon which they profess to hold.
For example, although virtually all Dispensationalists hold to a canon of 66 books, they emphasize the New Testament almost to the point of the exclusion of the Old Testament and some hyper-dispensationalists, in practice, have limited their operative canon to some of the book of the Acts, some of the epistles, and the Revelation.
So, we have a duality where, on one hand, there is an accepted canon of scripture, and on the other hand, there is an operative canon of scripture.
Which seems rather similar to what I wrote in the paragraph immediately above.
Then you write
Turning to the deuterocanonical books of the Bible, most Protestants, although hardly all, are in agreement that these are secondary (hence the prefix - deutero-) in significance and are in agreement with Saint Jerome that the Hebrew manuscripts for these books simply do not exist and that, for that reason, these books are not of the same historic significance as for those having a Hebrew provenance.
Here we differ. Saint Jerome wrote in some of his writings things that make a Protestant heart rejoice for finding an ally in their struggle to cast aside the Deuterocanon. But saint Jerome also wrote in other works a stout defence of each of the Deuterocanonical books. And this makes the hearts of Catholic apologists rejoice. I am neither a Catholic apologist nor a Protestant. And I count saint Jerome a master translator but not necessarily a master the canon. For the canon I will let the Church speak with authority and allow saint Jerome his proper place within the Church. And the Church defined 73 books as canonical in ancient times. I leave it there as far as my faith is concerned. You must reach your own conclusion for your own reasons, I dare to say that your decision may differ from mine.
Skipping one paragraph and moving on to this
The reality is that, for the average Catholic in the pew, the Bible is fairly insignificant and knowledge of the canon is marginal, at best.
All I can say is that I am a fairly average Catholic. I care about the canon, and all my printed Catholic bibles have all 73 books in them, with the exception of two, one is a New Catholic Bible NT and psalms, the other is a GNB NT.
Finally you wrote
The other problem with the deuterocanonical books is their content. The fact is, simply put, that there is no theological content in these books that is unique to the other books in the Bible. In fact, the narrative format of these books allows with virtually no theological content other than possibly by implication. For example, because prayers were offered to God after a battle, one must read a great deal into the passage to develop the fully-formed doctrine of Purgatory which is unique to the RCC. The EOC, which shares the same canon, differs very significantly with the RCC on this doctrine.
To this I cannot agree. I have used Wisdom 11 to both refute elements in Calvinism and to defend the goodness of God. It is a passage rich in theology and most significant indeed. And it is far from unique in the Deuterocanon.
For great power always belonged to thee alone: and who shall resist the strength of thy arm? For the whole world before thee is as the least grain of the balance, and as a drop of the morning dew, that falleth down upon tho earth. But thou hast mercy upon all, because thou canst do all things, and overlookest the sins of men for the sake of repentance. For thou lovest all things that are, and hatest none of the things which thou hast made: for thou didst not appoint, or make any thing hating it. And how could any thing endure, if thou wouldst not? or be preserved, if not called by thee? But thou sparest all: because they are thine, O Lord, who lovest souls.
Wisdom 11:22-27 DRB
