Church history on the Catholic Bible vs Protestant Bible?

Have you ever heard of a man named William Tyndale? A study of his life story reveals much. Here is a short video I did on him... Also search: "Gods Outlaw" for it is a good movie on his life story.

JoeP222w said:

Protestants did not remove books from the Bible, that is a common misconception.

Rome added books at the council of Trent in 1546 to justify their unbiblical doctrines of Purgatory and Indulgences, Immaculate Conception of Mary, Eternal Virginity of Mary and Mary's Assumption into heaven and other false doctrine as a response to the Reformation.

Click to expand...

Here is one heck of a false statement with zero evidence from history to support.

HighCherub said:

The protestant canon only includes inspired scripture- you want apocrypha to be such with no tangible evidence. How do you presume the early Christians didn't simply use them for other, lesser reasons

Click to expand...

There is just as much evidence for the inspiration of the books that Protestants removed from the Christian Bible, as those that they decided to keep.

The development of the Canon of Scripture is a topic worthy of some consideration. The implication and innuendo of some of what has been posted is less than helpful.

The reason why the canon was developed was to establish what we accepted as scripture and what we didn't. The New Testament canon was pretty settled by the time of the 2nd Oecumenical Council in 381. The Revelation of St John the Divine was probably the most problematic, though since the 400's it has been generally accepted East and West.

The Old Testament Canon has more variation. The first five books are accepted by all.

The protocanonical texts are generally accepted, with the exception of the Samaritans.

The deuterocanonical texts are accepted with some variations between the East and the West by the Catholics (as in Roman) and the Orthodox, and not so much by the Reformed traditions.

My own Church receives the deuterocanonical texts, but not to be used for the establishment of what must be believed. The King James Version of the Bible, in it's compiling included the Deuterocanonical texts, however these have largely been omitted from the printed versions since the late 19th century, largely argued on an economic argument - (I would be prepared to say that may not be the whole truth).

The deutero canonical texts were as far as I understand it part of the Septuagint (LXX) and so are the Old Testament used by and and the Evangelists, and indeed Jesus himself.

I don't think that the reformers were such rogues that they intended to drop texts from scripture just because they did not agree with them, and neither do I think the the Council of Trent was so villainous as to force books into the canon because it suited them.

thecolorsblend said:

In very brief, St. Athanasius recognized today's modern configuration of the New Testament back in the 4th century, which is why he's considered the Father of the Canon by many of us. The Council of Carthage in AD 419 recognized the deuterocanonical books (which you Protestants call "apocrypha") and which were accepted as canonical... until one day Martin Luther said "thanks but no thanks" (because those books don't line up too well with his views) and cut them out of his Bible.

Click to expand...

Well, there's more to it than that. The "deuterocanonical" books were composed in Greek rather than Hebrew, so that they are not canonical for Jews either. And what does Athanasius say?

There are, then, of the Old Testament, twenty-two books in number; for, as I have heard, it is handed down that this is the number of the letters among the Hebrews; their respective order and names being as follows. The first is Genesis, then Exodus, next Leviticus, after that Numbers, and then Deuteronomy. Following these there is Joshua, the son of Nun, then Judges, then Ruth. And again, after these four books of Kings, the first and second being reckoned as one book, and so likewise the third and fourth as one book. And again, the first and second of the Chronicles are reckoned as one book. Again Ezra, the first and second are similarly one book. After these there is the book of Psalms, then the Proverbs, next Ecclesiastes, and the Song of Songs. Job follows, then the Prophets, the twelve being reckoned as one book. Then Isaiah, one book, then Jeremiah with Baruch, Lamentations, and the epistle, one book; afterwards, Ezekiel and Daniel, each one book. Thus far constitutes the Old Testament. ... there are other books besides these not indeed included in the Canon, but appointed by the Fathers to be read by those who newly join us, and who wish for instruction in the word of godliness. The Wisdom of Solomon, and the Wisdom of Sirach, and Esther, and Judith, and Tobit, and that which is called the Teaching of the Apostles, and the Shepherd.

Radagast said:

Well, there's more to it than that.

Click to expand...

So then you agree with me when I said "In very brief"?

Radagast said:

The "deuterocanonical" books were composed in Greek rather than Hebrew, so that they are not canonical for Jews either. And what does Athanasius say?

Click to expand...

My comment about St. Athanasius related to the New Testament canon so I'm not sure what you're driving at with this quote from him about the Old Testament canon.

Radagast said:

Well, there's more to it than that. The "deuterocanonical" books were composed in Greek rather than Hebrew, so that they are not canonical for Jews either. And what does Athanasius say?

There are, then, of the Old Testament, twenty-two books in number; for, as I have heard, it is handed down that this is the number of the letters among the Hebrews; their respective order and names being as follows. The first is Genesis, then Exodus, next Leviticus, after that Numbers, and then Deuteronomy. Following these there is Joshua, the son of Nun, then Judges, then Ruth. And again, after these four books of Kings, the first and second being reckoned as one book, and so likewise the third and fourth as one book. And again, the first and second of the Chronicles are reckoned as one book. Again Ezra, the first and second are similarly one book. After these there is the book of Psalms, then the Proverbs, next Ecclesiastes, and the Song of Songs. Job follows, then the Prophets, the twelve being reckoned as one book. Then Isaiah, one book, then Jeremiah with Baruch, Lamentations, and the epistle, one book; afterwards, Ezekiel and Daniel, each one book. Thus far constitutes the Old Testament. ... there are other books besides these not indeed included in the Canon, but appointed by the Fathers to be read by those who newly join us, and who wish for instruction in the word of godliness. The Wisdom of Solomon, and the Wisdom of Sirach, and Esther, and Judith, and Tobit, and that which is called the Teaching of the Apostles, and the Shepherd.

Click to expand...

So why doesn't the Protestant/Rabbinical OT include Baruch and the Letter of Jeremiah then? Both were originally written in Hebrew, and were always included in the Scroll of the Prophecy of Jeremiah.

Philip_B said:

The development of the Canon of Scripture is a topic worthy of some consideration. The implication and innuendo of some of what has been posted is less than helpful.

Click to expand...

I agree. Its a very very fascinating subject in my opinion. I wished I could spend more time studying it.

Philip_B said:

The reason why the canon was developed was to establish what we accepted as scripture and what we didn't.

Click to expand...

Maybe one of the reasons. Most historians on the subject, think it was primarily to set what writings were allowed to be read within the liturgy.

Philip_B said:

The New Testament canon was pretty settled by the time of the 2nd Oecumenical Council in 381. The Revelation of St John the Divine was probably the most problematic, though since the 400's it has been generally accepted East and West.

Click to expand...

Don't forget Hebrews.

Philip_B said:

The Old Testament Canon has more variation. The first five books are accepted by all.

Click to expand...

Yep.

Philip_B said:

The protocanonical texts are generally accepted, with the exception of the Samaritans.

Click to expand...

1) This isn't necessarily true. The Sadducees also only accepted the Torah; the Essene's had a much larger canon than anyone; the Jews in Alexandria and in the rest of the Diaspora used the translated scrolls that we now call the LXX; and the Pharisees seem to have the one canon that was the closest to what modern Jews and Protestants have accepted, but there were differences. It should be noted that there isn't one single list of accepted books of the OT in antiquity that matches completely the modern Jewish/Protestant OT. I don't think people realize this.

2) Another point is that there is really no evidence that there was an accepted canon of Scripture even among the Palestine Jews. From some of the writings quoted as Scripture in the NT such as 2nd Enoch and the Assumption of Moses, and other quote in Matthew that the Messiah is to be a Nazerean, which no one really knows from what extent writing he quoted this from; that the Palestine Jews pretty much had in their synagogues various types of scrolls of religious works that did not make it into anyone's final canon. This makes sense, since written works were probably very hard to get a hold of back then, that they weren't probably very picky what they put in their tabernacles as long as they thought it was edifying.

Philip_B said:

The deuterocanonical texts are accepted with some variations between the East and the West by the Catholics (as in Roman) and the Orthodox, and not so much by the Reformed traditions.

Click to expand...

Interesting enough, the whole OT that the Catholic Church uses, is used by all Eastern Orthodox as well. There is only a few more writings that they have included in theirs; but the way the Eastern Orthodox view the canonicity is a lot more complicated than I want to get into here.

Philip_B said:

The deutero canonical texts were as far as I understand it part of the Septuagint (LXX) and so are the Old Testament used by and and the Evangelists, and indeed Jesus himself.

Click to expand...

Yes and no. It should be noted that not all of the LXX writings were accepted as canonical by the Church. So why these writings were accepted and not lets say 4th Maccabees, is more complicated.

Philip_B said:

I don't think that the reformers were such rogues that they intended to drop texts from scripture just because they did not agree with them, and neither do I think the the Council of Trent was so villainous as to force books into the canon because it suited them.

Click to expand...

My theory on the matter is that when the Protestant Revolt occurred, there were two things happening among scholars: 1) The desire to get back to the originals; and 2) a rise in nationalism which resulted in the desire to translate Scripture into vernacular languages.

Everyone accepted at the time that for the most part the original writings of the OT were all written in Hebrew, and everyone knew that the original writings of the NT were written in Greek; so for the most part the transition that occurred was more of a rejection, indirectly, of the Vulgate. Anyway concerning the OT, the only Hebrew writings that Luther and the rest of the Rebels was what the Jews in Europe was using, i.e. the Masoretic Text. Since the contested books were not part of the "original" Bible they wrongfully thought, then they shouldn't be part of our Bible. They didn't have the information that we have now I think, which led to them first reducing the authority of the contested books, and then eventually removing them altogether from Protestant Bibles.

acehighinfinity2015 said:

Hey Godly brethrens,

I had an interesting chat with a friend who is a Christian orthodox. As we were sharing our faith, I noticed something slightly different especially the Old testamnet. Sorry long story short...I realized the orthodox read the catholic bible. So I did some checking up and found there were different books in the Catholic bible but almost identical to the Holy bible. I also learned that the Holy bible is called protestant bible, etc, including Martin Luther and the reformation. Wow mind blogging.

I am curious to know if why they removed those books from the OT and is it vital? I was thinking about God's can not be added and subtracted:

Revelation 22:18: "I testify to everyone who hears the words of prophecy in this book: If anyone adds to them, God will add to him the plagues described in this book. 19And if anyone takes away from the words of this book of prophecy, God will take away his share in the tree of life and in the holy city, which are described in this book.…"

Let's fellowship.
Questions:
- is the above scripture talking about the manuscripts or the original bible?
- Is the original manuscript was translated to the catholic bible or protestant first? I also heard about King James playing a major role.

Just letting you know I am no catholic either so no offense to the almighty pope

Click to expand...

ace, who inspired the Early Church Father to compile the First Bible having both the OT & NT? If you answered the Holy Spirit, you are correct, case close there is no need for another bible that came centuries later by men with only 66 books not having the total of 73 Books. One does not need to be a Catholic to understand this truth!


RE:King James
Full Question
So many Protestants I know use the King James Bible. Who was King James, and what authority did he have to produce a Bible?
Answer
James I reigned as king of England from 1603 to 1625. He was the son of Mary Queen of Scots, and he had been king of Scotland before succeeding to the English throne at the death of Queen Elizabeth I. He was prompted to produce an English Bible because of the poor and tendentious copies being circulated in England. He feared these could be used by seditious religious and political factions.

His authority was one usurped from the Catholic Church, beginning with his predecessor King Henry VIII. Henry had broken with the Catholic Church and made himself the head of the Church in England, which soon enough became the Church of England. You could say James had no more authority in biblical matters than any head of state, basically none. What authority would a "George Bush Bible" have? The true authority and safeguard over Scripture was and has to be the Catholic Church, to which Christ gave his authority. No secular authority has any rightful authority over the Bible.
Catholic.com

PanDeVida said:

So many Protestants I know use the King James Bible. Who was King James, and what authority did he have to produce a Bible?

Click to expand...

There are a few shortcuts here. Henry VIII had been the authority behind the production of the King's Bible, during the time of Anne Boleyn's influence and this had been placed in basically every church in the land. There we some question about some of the sources of this translation, and the King James Bible was produced to use the best of scholarship available at the time. The core issue of both these editions of scripture is that they were in English (the vulgar tongue) and not the latin of the Vulgate used in Churches under the authority of the Pope. The second thing to note is that the King James Version of the Bible includes the Deuterocanonical texts, (often called the apocrypha) so the core difference between the KJV and the Vulgate was essentially language and access the ancient texts - not the inclusion or exclusion of the Deuterocanonical texts. Since the late 19th century, many copies of the KJV have not included the deuterocanonicals - a decision I think taken by the Bible society for reasons of economy (or perhaps because they wanted to exclude them) and I don;t believe that this was the decision of the King of England at all.

King James did not write the text, essentially the work of the Church and her scholars and his authority - seen as important in the historical context of the day - was as Supreme Governor of the Church in England, a somewhat different position from the President of the USA in the 21st Century - which in the current environment may require reducing the text to 140 characters!

acehighinfinity2015 said:

I am curious to know if why they removed those books from the OT and is it vital? I was thinking about God's can not be added and subtracted:

Revelation 22:18: "I testify to everyone who hears the words of prophecy in this book: If anyone adds to them, God will add to him the plagues described in this book. 19And if anyone takes away from the words of this book of prophecy, God will take away his share in the tree of life and in the holy city, which are described in this book.…"

Let's fellowship.
Questions:
- is the above scripture talking about the manuscripts or the original bible?

Click to expand...

Revelation wasn't part of any bible until the 4th century so that verse cannot possibly be referring to the bible. It refers solely to the book of Revelation. More importantly, how do you know the book of Revelation is scripture? Protestants accept it now but Martin Luther rejected it. In his preface to Revelation, he wrote:

"I miss more than one thing in this book, and it makes me consider it to be neither apostolic nor prophetic…I can in no way detect that the Holy Spirit produced it. Moreover he seems to me to be going much too far when he commends his own book so highly-indeed, more than any of the other sacred books do, though they are much more important-and threatens that if anyone takes away anything from it, God will take away from him, etc. Again, they are supposed to be blessed who keep what is written in this book; and yet no one knows what that is, to say nothing of keeping it. This is just the same as if we did not have the book at all. And there are many far better books available for us to keep…My spirit cannot accommodate itself to this book. For me this is reason enough not to think highly of it: Christ is neither taught nor known in it” (Luther, Preface to the Revelation of St. John, 1522).

How do you know Luther wasn't right and most Protestants today are wrong about Revelation being scripture?

- Is the original manuscript was translated to the catholic bible or protestant first? I also heard about King James playing a major role.

Click to expand...

There wasn't a bible for hundreds of years after Christianity started. It took until the 4th century before a canon (list of authorized writings) was agreed upon (at least in churches in the West - I think the Orthodox churches in the East came up with their own canon in the 4th or 5th century). That canon contained a list of 73 books which are the same ones the Catholic Church uses today. Protestants created their bible in the 16th century or later based on the Catholic canon minus 7 books they rejected (although Luther wanted to toss out some New Testament books too like James because it didn't agree with his new tradition of salvation by faith alone).

HighCherub said:

The Protestant Bible is simply the canon without the added Apocrypha by the popes. It's that simple really- Martin Luther vouched to keep the Apocrypha as a reference, but to have it set aside away from the main canon.
You might like the Geneva Bible authorized by Calvin, if you're in to Protestant orthodoxy. It predates the KJV by a century

Click to expand...

Actually - this is a false and misleading assertion.
No Pope "added" anything to Scripture.

The Deuterocanonicals were in fact, PART of the OPEN Jewish Canon of Scripture.
The Jewish Canon of Scripture wasn't closed until after the death, resurrection and ascension of our Lord - and after the destruction of the Temple, circa AD 70.

The fact is that Protestants hold to a Post-Christ, Post-Temple OT Canon that was edited by a rabbinical school that didn't even have the authority to do so.

Jesus and the NT writers quote, refer and allude to these 7 Books over 150 times in the NT.
In their fervor to sever all ties with the Catholic Church - the fathers of Protestantism chose to side with the Post-Christ, Post-Temple OT Canon instead of the one Jesus studied from.

Erose said:

So why doesn't the Protestant/Rabbinical OT include Baruch and the Letter of Jeremiah then? Both were originally written in Hebrew, and were always included in the Scroll of the Prophecy of Jeremiah.

Click to expand...

St. Athanasius is not being presented as the be-all end-all of discussion; but as part of what was an ongoing discussion. Had the canonical status of the Deuterocanonicals been a firmly established fact of the ancient Church, there'd have been no inconsistency among the opinions and views of the holy fathers--but there is. Not just the New Testament, but the Old as well, was under discussion and debate in the Church.

Luther's opinions on the Deuterocanonicals is not a deviation from an indelible and ancient tradition; Luther is nothing more than another voice in that ancient discussion. And if the issue had truly been settled before Luther, when and where had it been settled? The medieval Vulgate and the Sixto-Clementine Vulgate are not identical. As I've said, the Prayer of Manasseh is part of 2 Chronicles as per Jerome's Vulgate; and that's where it was located throughout the middle ages for the Latin Church; but the Sixto-Clementine delegates it to the position of apocrypha.

What I find more interesting than that is that the medieval Vulgate included the spurious Epistle to the Laodiceans, a work which in antiquity had been challenged as a very late forgery but was nevertheless included in copies of the Vulgate; Jerome rejected it, but it nevertheless was included in many copies of the Vulgate throughout the middle ages; its common presence is such that when John Wycliffe translated the Bible into the English of his day, he included it. See Codex Fuldensis and Codex Ardmachanus.

-CryptoLutheran

Good day,

Church history and the canon.. here we go.

The church of rome has a canon that was finalized at Trent. Seeing I am not a member of that denomination it has very little effect on the historical reality of the question. She has defined her canon and has done so in a way that is unhistorical. She claim authority on the issue, and expects her members to follow long (name it claim it). Historically she is in error with what she defined at Trent.



Our analysis has shown that the vast weight of historical evidence falls on the side of excluding the Apocrypha from the category of canonical Scripture. It is interesting to note that the only two Fathers of the early Church who are considered to be true biblical scholars, Jerome and Origen (and who both spent time in the area of Palestine and were therefore familiar with the Hebrew canon), rejected the Apocrypha. And the near unanimous opinion of the Church followed this view. And coupled with this historical evidence is the fact that these writings have serious internal difficulties in that they are characterized by heresies, inconsistencies and historical inaccuracies which invalidate their being given the status of Scripture. New Catholic Encyclopedia, vol. I (Washington D.C.: Catholic University, 1967), p. 390.

In Him,

Bill

HisBody said:

Actually - this is a false and misleading assertion.
No Pope "added" anything to Scripture.

The Deuterocanonicals were in fact, PART of the OPEN Jewish Canon of Scripture.
The Jewish Canon of Scripture wasn't closed until after the death, resurrection and ascension of our Lord - and after the destruction of the Temple, circa AD 70.

The fact is that Protestants hold to a Post-Christ, Post-Temple OT Canon that was edited by a rabbinical school that didn't even have the authority to do so.

Jesus and the NT writers quote, refer and allude to these 7 Books over 150 times in the NT.
In their fervor to sever all ties with the Catholic Church - the fathers of Protestantism chose to side with the Post-Christ, Post-Temple OT Canon instead of the one Jesus studied from.

Click to expand...

Good Day, His

Can I have a primary source Jewish and 1 century for this...

"The Deuterocanonicals were in fact, PART of the OPEN Jewish Canon of Scripture.":

I find historically primary source:


"I learned accurately the books of the Old Testament, and send them to thee as written below. Their names are as follows: Of Moses, five books: Genesis, Exodus, Numbers, Leviticus, Deuteronomy; Jesus Nave, Judges, Ruth; of Kings, four books; of Chronicles, two; the Psalms of David, the Proverbs of Solomon, Wisdom also, Ecclesiastes, Song of Songs, Job; of Prophets, Isaiah, Jeremiah; of the twelve prophets, one book; Daniel, Ezekiel, Esdras. From which also I have made the extracts, dividing them into six books." (Melito of Sardis, cited in Eusebius, Church History, 4:26)



I also write, by way of remembrance, of matters with which you are acquainted, influenced by the need and advantage of the Church. In proceeding to make mention of these things, I shall adopt, to commend my undertaking, the pattern of Luke the Evangelist, saying on my own account: 'Forasmuch as some have taken in hand,' to reduce into order for themselves the books termed apocryphal, and to mix them up with the divinely inspired Scripture, concerning which we have been fully persuaded, as they who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and ministers of the Word, delivered to the fathers; it seemed good to me also, having been urged thereto by true brethren, and having learned from the beginning, to set before you the books included in the Canon, and handed down, and accredited as Divine...There are, then, of the Old Testament, twenty-two books in number; for, as I have heard, it is handed down that this is the number of the letters among the Hebrews...there are other books besides these not indeed included in the Canon, but appointed by the Fathers to be read by those who newly join us, and who wish for instruction in the word of godliness. The Wisdom of Solomon, and the Wisdom of Sirach, and Esther, and Judith, and Tobit" (Athanasius, Festal Letter 39:2-4, 39:7)

Something like those will work...


In Him,

Bill

BBAS 64 said:

Good day,

Church history and the canon.. here we go.

The church of rome has a canon that was finalized at Trent. Seeing I am not a member of that denomination it has very little effect on the historical reality of the question. She has defined her canon and has done so in a way that is unhistorical. She claim authority on the issue, and expects her members to follow long (name it claim it). Historically she is in error with what she defined at Trent.

Click to expand...

Correction: She legalized the canon at Trent. There was the Canon long before Trent-about 1200 years before.

Our analysis has shown that the vast weight of historical evidence falls on the side of excluding the Apocrypha from the category of canonical Scripture. It is interesting to note that the only two Fathers of the early Church who are considered to be true biblical scholars, Jerome and Origen (and who both spent time in the area of Palestine and were therefore familiar with the Hebrew canon), rejected the Apocrypha. And the near unanimous opinion of the Church followed this view. And coupled with this historical evidence is the fact that these writings have serious internal difficulties in that they are characterized by heresies, inconsistencies and historical inaccuracies which invalidate their being given the status of Scripture. New Catholic Encyclopedia, vol. I (Washington D.C.: Catholic University, 1967), p. 390.

In Him,

Bill

Click to expand...

If Jerome rejected the Deuterocanon (which is different than the Apocrypha, but I know what you meant), why did he translate it as part of the Canon? Maybe because he was obedient to the Faith, humble enough to know. But I dispute that he rejected the Deuterocanon.

BBAS 64 said:

Good Day, His

Can I have a primary source Jewish and 1 century for this...

"The Deuterocanonicals were in fact, PART of the OPEN Jewish Canon of Scripture.":

I find historically primary source:


"I learned accurately the books of the Old Testament, and send them to thee as written below. Their names are as follows: Of Moses, five books: Genesis, Exodus, Numbers, Leviticus, Deuteronomy; Jesus Nave, Judges, Ruth; of Kings, four books; of Chronicles, two; the Psalms of David, the Proverbs of Solomon, Wisdom also, Ecclesiastes, Song of Songs, Job; of Prophets, Isaiah, Jeremiah; of the twelve prophets, one book; Daniel, Ezekiel, Esdras. From which also I have made the extracts, dividing them into six books." (Melito of Sardis, cited in Eusebius, Church History, 4:26)



I also write, by way of remembrance, of matters with which you are acquainted, influenced by the need and advantage of the Church. In proceeding to make mention of these things, I shall adopt, to commend my undertaking, the pattern of Luke the Evangelist, saying on my own account: 'Forasmuch as some have taken in hand,' to reduce into order for themselves the books termed apocryphal, and to mix them up with the divinely inspired Scripture, concerning which we have been fully persuaded, as they who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and ministers of the Word, delivered to the fathers; it seemed good to me also, having been urged thereto by true brethren, and having learned from the beginning, to set before you the books included in the Canon, and handed down, and accredited as Divine...There are, then, of the Old Testament, twenty-two books in number; for, as I have heard, it is handed down that this is the number of the letters among the Hebrews...there are other books besides these not indeed included in the Canon, but appointed by the Fathers to be read by those who newly join us, and who wish for instruction in the word of godliness. The Wisdom of Solomon, and the Wisdom of Sirach, and Esther, and Judith, and Tobit" (Athanasius, Festal Letter 39:2-4, 39:7)

Something like those will work...


In Him,

Bill

Click to expand...

The bolded shows that the DeuteroCanon is...canonical.

The term deuterocanonical simply means 2nd canon not non-canonical. The importance place and role of the books included therein ranges in our various denomination from on a par with the canon to totally rejected and all places in between.

Before dismissing them altogether it should be remembered that Jesus used them

Root of Jesse said:

Correction: She legalized the canon at Trent. There was the Canon long before Trent-about 1200 years before.If Jerome rejected the Deuterocanon (which is different than the Apocrypha, but I know what you meant), why did he translate it as part of the Canon? Maybe because he was obedient to the Faith, humble enough to know. But I dispute that he rejected the Deuterocanon.

Click to expand...

Good Day, Jesse

I am using the term Apocrypha in the correct historical sense..

THE PREFACE OF JEROME ON THE BOOK OF JUDITH

Among the Jews, the book of Judith is considered among the apocrypha; its warrant for affirming those [apocryphal texts] which have come into dispute is deemed less than sufficient

Click to expand...

And again here:

Cardinal Cajetan:

Here we close our commentaries on the historical books of the Old Testament. For the rest (that is, Judith, Tobit, and the books of Maccabees) are counted by St Jerome out of the canonical books, and are placed amongst the Apocrypha, along with Wisdom and Ecclesiasticus, as is plain from the Prologus Galeatus. Nor be thou disturbed, like a raw scholar, if thou shouldest find anywhere, either in the sacred councils or the sacred doctors, these books reckoned as canonical. For the words as well of councils as of doctors are to be reduced to the correction of Jerome.

Click to expand...

You can dispute all you would like, but that would be a dispute that historically you have lost many years ago. I know it does not fit you presuppositions... your basis of dispute is empty.

Good question why did he include the Apocrypha... for their historical value to the church for their edification. But one can see here Jerome's historical recording for us of the Church' s view and correct use of the "not received canonical scriptures" for the explict purpose " for the edification of the people" and "not for the authoritative conformation of doctrine"

Jerome's preface to the books of Solomon

As the Church reads the books of Judith and Tobit and Maccabees but does not receive them among the canonical Scriptures, so also it reads Wisdom and Ecclesiasticus for the edification of the people, not for the authoritative confirmation of doctrine."

Click to expand...

In Him,

Bill

Root of Jesse said:

The bolded shows that the DeuteroCanon is...canonical.

Click to expand...

Good Day, Jesse

Historical primary source please, just because you said it does not make it so...

I have given you primary source statements that make your assertions about the contents of the Jewish OT suspect (historically) .

In Him,

Bill