• Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.

About the "Deuterocanonical books "

B

barryatlake

Guest
Which translation did the first Christians use?
Early Christians read the Greek translation of the Old Testament, the Septuagint. It included the seven deuterocanonical books. For this reason, the Protestant historian J.N.D. Kelly writes, "It should be observed that the Old Testament thus admitted as authoritative in the Church was somewhat bulkier and more comprehensive [than the Protestant Bible]. . . . It always included, though with varying degrees of recognition, the so-called apocrypha or deuterocanonical books" (, 53). The authors of the New Testament quoted freely from the Septuagint—over 300 times.


Didn’t Jerome and Augustine disagree about the deuterocanonical books?
Yes, as did other early Christians. Numerous Church Fathers quoted the deuterocanonical books as Scripture (see The Old Testament Canon ), while some did not.

Jerome appears to have rejected most of the deuterocanonical parts of Scripture. But he did accept portions and included all seven books in his Latin translation of Scripture, known as the Vulgate. Ultimately, he recognized that the Church alone had the authority to determine the canon.

Since there was disagreement between some Church Fathers, it became obvious that no individual could provide an infallible list of inspired books. The bottom line: "We have no other assurance that the books of Moses, the four Gospels, and the other books are the true word of God," wrote Augustine, "but by the canon of the Catholic Church."

Since it is unreasonable to expect every person to read all of the books of antiquity and judge for himself if they are inspired, the question boils down to whose authority is to be trusted in this matter. One must either trust a rabbinical school that rejected the New Testament 60 years after Christ established a Church, or one must trust the Church he established.

Which deserves our trust? Martin Luther makes a pertinent observation in the sixteenth chapter of his Commentary on St. John "We are obliged to yield many things to the papists [Catholics]—that they possess the Word of God which we received from them, otherwise we should have known nothing at all about it."
 
B

bbbbbbb

Guest
Which translation did the first Christians use?
Early Christians read the Greek translation of the Old Testament, the Septuagint. It included the seven deuterocanonical books. For this reason, the Protestant historian J.N.D. Kelly writes, "It should be observed that the Old Testament thus admitted as authoritative in the Church was somewhat bulkier and more comprehensive [than the Protestant Bible]. . . . It always included, though with varying degrees of recognition, the so-called apocrypha or deuterocanonical books" (, 53). The authors of the New Testament quoted freely from the Septuagint—over 300 times.


Didn’t Jerome and Augustine disagree about the deuterocanonical books?
Yes, as did other early Christians. Numerous Church Fathers quoted the deuterocanonical books as Scripture (see The Old Testament Canon ), while some did not.

Jerome appears to have rejected most of the deuterocanonical parts of Scripture. But he did accept portions and included all seven books in his Latin translation of Scripture, known as the Vulgate. Ultimately, he recognized that the Church alone had the authority to determine the canon.

Since there was disagreement between some Church Fathers, it became obvious that no individual could provide an infallible list of inspired books. The bottom line: "We have no other assurance that the books of Moses, the four Gospels, and the other books are the true word of God," wrote Augustine, "but by the canon of the Catholic Church."

Since it is unreasonable to expect every person to read all of the books of antiquity and judge for himself if they are inspired, the question boils down to whose authority is to be trusted in this matter. One must either trust a rabbinical school that rejected the New Testament 60 years after Christ established a Church, or one must trust the Church he established.

Which deserves our trust? Martin Luther makes a pertinent observation in the sixteenth chapter of his Commentary on St. John "We are obliged to yield many things to the papists [Catholics]—that they possess the Word of God which we received from them, otherwise we should have known nothing at all about it."

Personally, I think Jerome nailed it on the head first, so I go with his determination. Last time I checked, he was one of your saints.
 
Upvote 0
B

barryatlake

Guest
bbbbbbb, I agree with you. \Jerome appears to have rejected most of the deuterocanonical parts of Scripture. But he did accept portions and included ALL SEVEN BOOKS in his Latin translation of Scripture, known as the Vulgate. Ultimately, he recognized that the Church alone had the authority to determine the canon.

Since there was disagreement between some Church Fathers, it became obvious that no individual could provide an infallible list of inspired books. The bottom line: "We have no other assurance that the books of Moses, the four Gospels, and the other books are the true word of God," wrote Augustine, "but by the canon of the Catholic Church."
 
Upvote 0
B

bbbbbbb

Guest
bbbbbbb, I agree with you. \Jerome appears to have rejected most of the deuterocanonical parts of Scripture. But he did accept portions and included ALL SEVEN BOOKS in his Latin translation of Scripture, known as the Vulgate. Ultimately, he recognized that the Church alone had the authority to determine the canon.

Since there was disagreement between some Church Fathers, it became obvious that no individual could provide an infallible list of inspired books. The bottom line: "We have no other assurance that the books of Moses, the four Gospels, and the other books are the true word of God," wrote Augustine, "but by the canon of the Catholic Church."

The fact that Jerome translated more than the books of the Bible is irrelevant. As we all know, many pagan books were preserved in monasteries during the Middle Ages. That hardly means that the monks themselves held these books to be of equal authority to the scriptures which they also preserved. Jerome was clear concerning his opinion about the canon of scripture. The fact that the Council of Trent, which occured centuries after his death, determined to include additional books in the Catholic canon can hardly be considered to have been his decision.
 
Upvote 0
B

barryatlake

Guest
bbb. you wrote: " The fact that the Council of Trent, which occured centuries after his death, determined to include additional books in the Catholic canon can hardly be considered to have been his decision."
__________________

you are incorrect. There were no early councils that endorsed the 66 books Protestants honor (check the facts in your local library). The current canon of Scripture was affirmed at the Council of Rome in 382 under Pope Damasus, which included all and only the seventy-three books Catholics honor today. This canon was repeated at Hippo and at Carthage (A.D. 393 and 397, respectively) and has been repeated ever since.

It was Martin Luther who tossed out the seven books considered canonical since the beginning of Church history. He also rejected the epistle to the Hebrews and the book of Revelation. He also called the epistle of James "an epistle of straw" because James 2:14–26 conflicted with his personal theology on good works. He also added the word (in his German translation) only in Romans 3:20 and Romans 4:15, and he inserted the word alone in Romans 3:28.
 
Upvote 0

MarkRohfrietsch

Unapologetic Apologist
Site Supporter
Dec 8, 2007
30,990
5,818
✟1,010,547.00
Country
Canada
Gender
Male
Faith
Lutheran
Marital Status
Married
__________________
It was Martin Luther who tossed out the seven books considered canonical since the beginning of Church history. He also rejected the epistle to the Hebrews and the book of Revelation. He also called the epistle of James "an epistle of straw" because James 2:14–26 conflicted with his personal theology on good works. He also added the word (in his German translation) only in Romans 3:20 and Romans 4:15, and he inserted the word alone in Romans 3:28.

Barry, while you are correct in that Luther did call Jame's epistle "an epistle of straw", but in his German translation, there it is; as are Hebrews and Revelation. So too are the Dueterocanonical (Apocrypha), between the testaments (right where Jerome thought they should be).

Did you know that Latin continued to be use in various places and various times within Lutheranism through the Baroque period, and that there were numerous "Lutheran" translations of St. Jerome's Vulgate; all of which contained the Dueterocanonical books? Are you also aware that some of these Lutheran editions of the Vulgate contained some other books as well? Did you know that Concordia Publishing just published all of these books, including those which are not now included in the Catholic Bibles?

The Apocrypha: The Lutheran Edition with Notes

It contains:

  • Judith
  • Wisdom
  • Tobit
  • Ecclesiasticus
  • Baruch
  • Letter of Jeremiah
  • 1 & 2 Maccabees
- The Additions:

  • Eshter
  • Susanna
  • Bel and the Dragon
- The Prayers and Songs:

  • Prayer of Azariah
  • Song of the Three Holy Children
  • Prayer of Manasseh
- The Apocryphal Books in Other Christian Traditions:

  • 1 & 2 Esdras
  • 3 & 4 Maccabees
  • Psalm 151.
As for adding words, Jerome did this also. Language structure and syntax makes a true word-for-word translation ungainly and quite often virtually unintelligible for those with no understanding of the original languages. Luther's translation was not a German paraphrase of Jerome's, but a from-scratch translation from copies of the same texts as Jerome had access to; the same texts that those who translated the KJV had access to. Did he make mistakes; likely. Did Jerome; him too as his translation is a good translation, modifications to word-for-word were made to clarify text when and where they were required by him.



Biblical translation is a balancing act as so much is at stake (the truth concerning salvation). Translators must do the best that they can regarding literal word-for-word while conveying an accurate thought for thought translation.


Apart from a few groups (old order Amish being one) Luther's translation is rarely used (the Vulgate is rarely used either); both the Catholic Church and the Lutheran Church in English use similar texts if not the same translations. In some places, the same translation (I believe that in Australia that both the LCA and the Catholic Church there use the ESV as their official translations.

God's word is not something we should be bashing each other with.:preach:
 
Upvote 0
B

barryatlake

Guest
Mark, I believe that you and most Protestants misunderstand the "Deuterocanonical Books"
What Protestants call "the Apocrypha," Catholics call Scripture. These books were all canonized beginning in A.D. 382 at the Council of Rome, confirmed at the Councils of Hippo (393) Carthage (397, 419), and approved by Pope Innocent I in 405. Maccabees is as canonical as Matthew or Isaiah.

The term "deuterocanon" was first used by Sixtus of Sienna in 1566 to distinguish these writings from the "protocanon" of the Hebrew Bible and non-canonical writings.

There has never been a gathering of Protestants to establish a canon. How could there be, with thousands of splinters and no authority?

Protestants owe their truncated, 66-book Bible to Martin Luther, who rejected Tobit, Judith, Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, Baruch, I and II Maccabees, and parts of Esther and Daniel. He also rejected Hebrews, James, Jude, and Revelation but his followers restored them to their rightful place in the NT in the17th century. Unfortunately, Luther's cuts to the OT were allowed to stand.

Deuterocanon literally means "second canon" but there was no second canon. The term simply indicates those writings that gained general acceptance in all the local branches of the Church later than the other accepted writings. The NT "deuterocanon" are Hebrews, James, II Peter, II and III John, Revelation, and Mark 16:9-20.

You can find the real OT and NT Apocrypha by googling.
 
Upvote 0

MarkRohfrietsch

Unapologetic Apologist
Site Supporter
Dec 8, 2007
30,990
5,818
✟1,010,547.00
Country
Canada
Gender
Male
Faith
Lutheran
Marital Status
Married
Mark, I believe that you and most Protestants misunderstand the "Deuterocanonical Books"
What Protestants call "the Apocrypha," Catholics call Scripture. These books were all canonized beginning in A.D. 382 at the Council of Rome, confirmed at the Councils of Hippo (393) Carthage (397, 419), and approved by Pope Innocent I in 405. Maccabees is as canonical as Matthew or Isaiah.

The term "deuterocanon" was first used by Sixtus of Sienna in 1566 to distinguish these writings from the "protocanon" of the Hebrew Bible and non-canonical writings.

There has never been a gathering of Protestants to establish a canon. How could there be, with thousands of splinters and no authority?

Protestants owe their truncated, 66-book Bible to Martin Luther, who rejected Tobit, Judith, Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, Baruch, I and II Maccabees, and parts of Esther and Daniel. He also rejected Hebrews, James, Jude, and Revelation but his followers restored them to their rightful place in the NT in the17th century. Unfortunately, Luther's cuts to the OT were allowed to stand.

Deuterocanon literally means "second canon" but there was no second canon. The term simply indicates those writings that gained general acceptance in all the local branches of the Church later than the other accepted writings. The NT "deuterocanon" are Hebrews, James, II Peter, II and III John, Revelation, and Mark 16:9-20.

You can find the real OT and NT Apocrypha by googling.

In your words:
Which deserves our trust? Martin Luther makes a pertinent observation in the sixteenth chapter of his Commentary on St. John "We are obliged to yield many things to the papists [Catholics]—that they possess the Word of God which we received from them, otherwise we should have known nothing at all about it."

So how are these books to be used? Well, we use them in much the same way as the CC does; readings from them are used at various times throughout the Liturgical year in the Graduals and Prefaces (Propers). They are quoted also in our Confessions. They are also used to give context to the "Cannon" of the Bible.
 
Upvote 0