Defending the Deuterocanonicals

[Catholic Christian]

The following are exerpts from a non-copyright article from online called "Defending the Deuterocanonicals":
http://www.ewtn.com/library/ANSWERS/DEUTEROS.HTM

When Catholics and fundamentalists talk about "the Bible," the two groups actually have two different books in mind.

In the sixteenth century, the Protestant Reformers removed a large section of the Old Testament that was not compatible with their theology. They charged that these writings were not inspired Scripture and branded them with the pejorative title "Apocrypha."

Catholics refer to them as the "deuterocanonical" books (since they were disputed by a few early authors and their canonicity was established later than the rest), while the rest are known as the "protocanonical" books (since their canonicity was established first).

Following the Protestant attack on the integrity of the Bible, the Catholic Church infallibly reaffirmed the divine inspiration of the deuterocanonical books at the Council of Trent in 1546. In doing this, it reaffirmed what had been believed since the time of Christ.

Who Compiled the Old Testament?

The Church does not deny that there are ancient writings which are "apocryphal." During the early Christian era, there were scores of manuscripts which purported to be Holy Scripture but were not. Many have survived to the present day, like the Apocalypse of Peter and the Gospel of Thomas, which all Christian churches regard as spurious writings that don't belong in Scripture.

During the first century, the Jews disagreed as to what constituted the canon of Scripture. In fact, there were a large number of different canons in use, including the growing canon used by Christians. In order to combat the spreading Christian cult, rabbis met at the city of Jamnia or Javneh in A.D. 90 to determine which books were truly the Word of God. They pronounced many books, including the Gospels, to be unfit as scriptures. This canon also excluded seven books (Baruch, Sirach, 1 and 2 Maccabees, Tobit, Judith, and the Wisdom of Solomon, plus portions of Esther and Daniel) that Christians considered part of the Old Testament.

The group of Jews which met at Javneh became the dominant group for later Jewish history, and today most Jews accept the canon of Javneh. However, some Jews, such as those from Ethiopia, follow a different canon which is identical to the Catholic Old Testament and includes the seven deuterocanonical books (cf. Encyclopedia Judaica, vol. 6, p. 1147).

Needless to say, the Church disregarded the results of Javneh. First, a Jewish council after the time of Christ is not binding on the followers of Christ. Second, Javneh rejected precisely those documents which are foundational for the Christian Church—the Gospels and the other documents of the New Testament. Third, by rejecting the deuterocanonicals, Javneh rejected books which had been used by Jesus and the apostles and which were in the edition of the Bible that the apostles used in everyday life—the Septuagint.

The Apostles & the Deuteros

The Christian acceptance of the deuterocanonical books was logical because the deuterocanonicals were also included in the Septuagint, the Greek edition of the Old Testament which the apostles used to evangelize the world. Two thirds of the Old Testament quotations in the New are from the Septuagint. Yet the apostles nowhere told their converts to avoid seven books of it. Like the Jews all over the world who used the Septuagint, the early Christians accepted the books they found in it. They knew that the apostles would not mislead them and endanger their souls by putting false scriptures in their hands—especially without warning them against them.

But the apostles did not merely place the deuterocanonicals in the hands of their converts as part of the Septuagint. They regularly referred to the deuterocanonicals in their writings. For example, Hebrews 11 encourages us to emulate the heroes of the Old Testament and in the Old Testament "Women received their dead by resurrection. Some were tortured, refusing to accept release, that they might rise again to a better life" (Heb. 11:35).

There are a couple of examples of women receiving back their dead by resurrection in the Protestant Old Testament. You can find Elijah raising the son of the widow of Zarepheth in 1 Kings 17, and you can find his successor Elisha raising the son of the Shunammite woman in 2 Kings 4, but one thing you can never find—anywhere in the Protestant Old Testament, from front to back, from Genesis to Malachi—is someone being tortured and refusing to accept release for the sake of a better resurrection. If you want to find that, you have to look in the Catholic Old Testament—in the deuterocanonical books Martin Luther cut out of his Bible.

The story is found in 2 Maccabees 7, where we read that during the Maccabean persecution, "It happened also that seven brothers and their mother were arrested and were being compelled by the king, under torture with whips and cords, to partake of unlawful swine's flesh. . . . but the brothers and their mother encouraged one another to die nobly, saying, 'The Lord God is watching over us and in truth has compassion on us . . . ' After the first brother had died . . . they brought forward the second for their sport. . . . he in turn underwent tortures as the first brother had done. And when he was at his last breath, he said, 'You accursed wretch, you dismiss us from this present life, but the King of the universe will raise us up to an everlasting renewal of life'" (2 Macc. 7:1, 5-9).

One by one the sons die, proclaiming that they will be vindicated in the resurrection.

"The mother was especially admirable and worthy of honorable memory. Though she saw her seven sons perish within a single day, she bore it with good courage because of her hope in the Lord. She encouraged each of them . . . [saying], 'I do not know how you came into being in my womb. It was not I who gave you life and breath, nor I who set in order the elements within each of you. Therefore the Creator of the world, who shaped the beginning of man and devised the origin of all things, will in his mercy give life and breath back to you again, since you now forget yourselves for the sake of his laws,'" telling the last one, "Do not fear this butcher, but prove worthy of your brothers. Accept death, so that in God's mercy I may get you back again with your brothers" (2 Macc. 7:20-23, 29). This is but one example of the New Testaments' references to the deuterocanonicals.

The early Christians were thus fully justified in recognizing these books as Scripture, for the apostles not only set them in their hands as part of the Bible they used to evangelize the world, but also referred to them in the New Testament itself, citing the things they record as examples to be emulated.

The Reformation Attack on the Bible

The deuterocanonicals teach Catholic doctrine, and for this reason they were taken out of the Old Testament by Martin Luther and placed in an appendix without page numbers. Luther also took out four New Testament books—Hebrews, James, Jude, and Revelation—and put them in an appendix without page numbers as well. These were later put back into the New Testament by other Protestants, but the seven books of the Old Testament were left out. Following Luther they had been left in an appendix to the Old Testament, and eventually the appendix itself was dropped (in 1827 by the British and Foreign Bible Society), which is why these books are not found at all in most contemporary Protestant Bibles, though they were appendicized in classic Protestant translations such as the King James Version.

The reason they were dropped is that they teach Catholic doctrines that the Protestant Reformers chose to reject. Earlier we cited an example where the book of Hebrews holds up to us an Old Testament example from 2 Maccabees 7, an incident not to be found anywhere in the Protestant Bible, but easily discoverable in the Catholic Bible. Why would Martin Luther cut out this book when it is so clearly held up as an example to us by the New Testament? Simple: A few chapters later it endorses the practice of praying for the dead so that they may be freed from the consequences of their sins (2 Macc. 12:41-45); in other words, the Catholic doctrine of purgatory. Since Luther chose to reject the historic Christian teaching of purgatory (which dates from before the time of Christ, as 2 Maccabees shows), he had to remove that book from the Bible and appendicize it. (Notice that he also removed Hebrews, the book which cites 2 Maccabees, to an appendix as well.)

To justify this rejection of books that had been in the Bible since before the days of the apostles (for the Septuagint was written before the apostles), the early Protestants cited as their chief reason the fact that the Jews of their day did not honor these books, going back to the council of Javneh in A.D. 90. But the Reformers were aware of only European Jews; they were unaware of African Jews, such as the Ethiopian Jews who accept the deuterocanonicals as part of their Bible. They glossed over the references to the deuterocanonicals in the New Testament, as well as its use of the Septuagint. They ignored the fact that there were multiple canons of the Jewish Scriptures circulating in first century, appealing to a post-Christian Jewish council which has no authority over Christians as evidence that "The Jews don't except these books." In short, they went to enormous lengths to rationalize their rejection of these books of the Bible.

The New Testament Deuteros

It is ironic that Protestants reject the inclusion of the deuterocanonicals at councils such as Hippo (393) and Carthage (397), because these are the very same early Church councils that Protestants appeal to for the canon of the New Testament. Prior to the councils of the late 300s, there was a wide range of disagreement over exactly what books belonged in the New Testament.

Certain books, such as the gospels, acts, and most of the epistles of Paul had long been agreed upon. However a number of the books of the New Testament, most notably Hebrews, James, 2 Peter, 2 & 3 John, and Revelation remained hotly disputed until the canon was settled. They are, in effect, "New Testament deuterocanonicals."

While Protestants are willing to accept the testimony of Hippo and Carthage (the councils they most commonly cite) for the canonicity of the New Testament deuterocanonicals, they are unwilling to accept the testimony of Hippo and Carthage for the canonicity of the Old Testament deuterocanonicals. Ironic indeed!

(END)
More information is at the article itself:
http://www.ewtn.com/library/ANSWERS/DEUTEROS.HTM

Please Comment

 

[simonthezealot]

This article is so riddled with inaccuracies, misrepresentations and inconsistenciesfrom the reformed POV, I wouldn't KNOW where to start.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Certain books, such as the gospels, acts, and most of the epistles of Paul had long been agreed upon. However a number of the books of the New Testament, most notably Hebrews, James, 2 Peter, 2 & 3 John, and Revelation remained hotly disputed until the canon was settled. They are, in effect, "New Testament deuterocanonicals."

That book has caused more split and more weird concoctions about the End-times within Christianity than any other book.
quote:

............."Today, many Christians are confused. They are tossed too and fro with every new book that hits the market or every new fad end-time scheme introduced by some celebrity preacher. The popularity of the Revelation today is due to man’s insatiable curiosity regarding the future, the interest in the unknown tomorrow, which characterizes the restless human soul.

To claim that in the pages of the Revelation we can see the signs of the present times and thus predict the tomorrows; to pull back the veil and claim to lay bare the future is to attract an audience, for that is the nature of man — fascination with the future!

The most popular of the apocalyptic entrepreneurs undoubtedly is Hal Lindsey, the author of the sensationalist book The Late Great Planet Earth and other more recent titles. His combination of literalist biblical interpretation and outright scare tactics have resulted in gaining him an extremely wide readership. But — his predictions have continually needed readjustment in the light of deadlines which have come and gone without fulfillment! Also, according to the February/March 1980 "special report to the members of the 700 Club," entitled "Pat Robertson’s Perspective," the beast of Revelation was to have been the Soviet Union, which he believed was about to attack Israel "to gain unrestricted access to Middle East oil plus a land bridge to the mineral wealth of Africa."

 

[BigNorsk]

It's really too bad when so many important witnesses to history and just ignored and the main goal is simply to discredit someone.

That the canon was set in the sense that is now taken by Catholics in those early councils is not very supportable. Reasons being first of all the Orthodox do not have the same canon, if the canon was set and affirmed as is claimed the two should agree, but they do not.

The Latin Vulgate used by the church for over a thousand years has in the prefaces of Jerome direct evidence that the deuterocanonicals are not fully authoritative scripture, matter of fact Jerome calls them aprocrypha. If the councils had authoritatively set the canon, why did the person who put together the Vulgate seem unaware of that, and why did the church continue to publish what would be an obvious mistake for a thousand years?

There are really too many early father witnesses to an authoritative canon of the Jewish scriptures, the 22 books that is to go into right now, I just don't have the time. People make the mistakes of only looking at lists, while the number of references to the 22 book canon or simply the Jewish canon are numerous, they are largely ignored. Nor do I have the time to list all the people who understood the canon over the years, people like Pope Gregory the Great who knew the deuterocanonicals were not authoritative scripture.

But what I can show is that the Reformers were actually in agreement with Rome at the time of the early Reformation as to canon. One might notice by it's absence the debates on canon. No one seems to have really paid much mind to Luther's handling of the canon of scripture at the time. And there is a reason for it.

For one the Glossa ordinaria, the ordinary gloss, a book of commentary that was the standard text used by the Roman Catholic Church for several hundred years laid out in it's introduction that there were the many unlearned people who did not understand the difference between the fully authoritative books and those that were not in it's prefaces. At the start of each of the deuterocanonical books it started with a statement that they were not scripture. This is not an obscure book, but the standard textbook, this was reproduced and used for several centuries with the full knowledge and consent of Rome. Martin Luther was given his copy by his Catholic Bishop. The teaching of the church was the deterocanonicals were not authoritative scripture.

The gloss was held in very high esteem even called the tongue of scripture. And it continued to be thought of as such right up until at least the time of the Douay translation. Where it is referred to in the introduction.

And we see the same thing in other approved publications.

We have the Biblia Complutensia published in 1517 by Cardinal Ximenes, the Archbishop of Toledo along with the leading theologians of his day, with the full blessing of Pope Leo X. The first polyglot translation. It says in an admonition in the Preface regarding the Apocrypha, that the books of Tobit, Judith, Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, the Maccabees, the additions to Esther and Daniel, are not canonical Scripture and were therefore not used by the Church for confirming the authority of any fundamental points of doctrine, though the Church allowed them to be read for purposes of edification.

Johannes Petreius in 1527 produced a new Latin Translation. Tells us the apocryphal book are not canonical.

We also have the first bible to separate the Apocrypha into a separate section. Also a Latin Bible printed in 1528. By Sanctes Pagnini, and published at Lyons with letters of commendation from both Pope Adrian VI and Pope Clement VII. The separation of the books did not start with Luther or the Reformers, it is either unscholarly or dishonest to claim it did. This bible, with the full blessing of the Popes did so seven years before Luther published his translation.

We also see that opponent of Luther, Cardinal Cajetan, published his commentary on the Old Testament just a couple of years before Luther's complete translation was published. He gave us a statement which really clearly spells out how we should read historical documents on the canon.

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. Now, according to his judgment, in the epistle to the bishops Chromatius and Heliodorus, these books (and any other like books in the canon of the bible) are not canonical, that is, not in the nature of a rule for confirming matters of faith. Yet, they may be called canonical, that is, in the nature of a rule for the edification of the faithful, as being received and authorised in the canon of the bible for that purpose. By the help of this distinction thou mayest see thy way clearly through that which Augustine says, and what is written in the provincial council of Carthage.

There are the strongest sources, not things written by someone trying to dicredit the reformers but the approved publications of the Roman Catholic church at the time Luther was making his translation. And we see why there was not great debates on the issue of canon, for there was agreement. Luther changed nothing, not even being innovative in his handling of the aprochryphal books but following an approved translation of several years previous.

Non of the people or publications I mention were ever condemned or spoken poorly of the Roman Catholic church. The greatest scholars as well as Cardinals and Popes were involved in their publications. They clearly reveal the accepted practice in the church until such time as a handful of bishops met in Trent with the main purpose being to refute, discredit, and attack the reformation. Even then it is clear that they were not simply ratifying the long standing practices of the church for the vote that set the canon, was 25 aye, 15 nay, 16 abstain. The ayes weren't even a majority of those present, and we see how small the council was, not the hundreds of Bishops present at what are rightly called eucumenical councils, this was even smaller than most regional councils. It didn't include scholars, nor the learned people of the church, it was largely composed of those few bishops most concerned that the Reformation was potentially costing them their bishophrics. Even with that being the case, we see the supposed infallibile setting of canon in one of the great underwhelming votes of history.

And so we see in the early Reformer's bibles the same canon of the Church. The fully authoritative canonical books of the Jewish canon. And the useful for reading but not authoritative on doctrine books of the Apocrypha. I for one am sorry that the custom became to remove them entirely to make bibles more affordable and easier to print, though that is a good goal in itself. They are well worth reading, just not properly used for a source of doctrine. And so they were understood by the Roman Catholic Church at least up to the time of Trent.

Marv

 

[Trento]

This article is so riddled with inaccuracies, misrepresentations and inconsistenciesfrom the reformed POV, I wouldn't KNOW where to start.

If you bother to read this you just might learn something.

In Josephus Antiquities of the Jews Book 12 Chapter 2 We find the title “How Ptolmey Philadelphus procured the laws of the Jews to be translated into the Greek tongue, and set many captives free; and dedicated many gifts to God.” This begins on page 309. First of all we find out that the “rebellious” Jews at Alexandria were actually there because they were held captive. It says that:“Philedelphus then took the kingdom of Egypt, and held it forty years within one. He procured the law to be interpreted, and set free those that were come from Jerusalem into Egypt, and where in slavery there, who were a hundred and twenty thousand.” Ptolmey had Demetrius Phalerius, the library keeper write a letter to the Jewish high priest Eleazar in Jerusalem that he should act accordingly.Ptolmey sent some gifts to Jerusalem I quote: “On which account I have subjoined a copy of these epistles, and set down a multitude of the vessels sent as gifts ”A suggestion than comes from Hecateus of Abdera to the king: “O king, thou mayest write to high priest of the Jews, to send six of the elders out of every tribe, and those such as are more skillful of the laws, that by their means we may learn the clear and agreeing sense of these books, and may obtain an accurate interpretation of their contents, so that we may have such a collection of these as may be suitable to their desire. When this epistle was sent to the king, he commanded that an epistle should be drawn up for Eleazar, the Jewish high priest, concerning these matters.”…We can see here that all of this Septuagint project is done with the co-operation and facilitation of the Aaronic priesthood in Jerusalem and not apart from it at all.Ptolmey than writes a letter (epistle) to Eleazar the high priest of Jerusalem and the pertinent part for our discussion I will quote here “I have determined to procure an interpretation of your law, and to have it translated out of Hebrew into Greek, and to have it deposited in my library.”Eleazar the high priest of Jerusalem responds with his letter back to Ptolmey and I will quote the parts that are germane to our issue at hand: “When we received thy epistle, we greatly rejoiced at thy intentions; and when the multitude were gathered together, we read it to them, and thereby made them sensible of the piety thou hast towards God.”And the confirming part from the Jerusalem high priest of the Aaronic priesthood: “…and that the translation of our law may come to the conclusion thou desirest, and be fore thy advantage. We have also chosen six elders out of every tribe, whom we have sent and the law with them. It will be they part, out of thy piety and justice to send back the law when it hath been translated; and to return those to us that bring it in safety.-Farewell.”
Then the account of Josephus moves on :“And these were what gifts were send by Ptolmey to Jerusalem and dedicated to God there. But when Eleazar the high priest had devoted them to God and had paid the due respect to those who had brought them,”…
Josephus continues “He then made haste to meet the elders that came from Jerusalem for the interpretation of the laws; “….Was the job done correctly? Josephus tells us “Accordingly, they made an accurate interpretation, with great zeal and great pains”:
All the quotes are from Josephus Antiquities of the Jews Book 12 Chapter 2 between the pages of 309-315 of the Works of Josephus.
Now the question is what did Josephus list as Scripture for the OT and why? I haven’t been able to locate a list in Josephus except a reference to there being 22 letters in the Hebrew alphabet and their being a book to correspond to each letter. If that is the case the 39 books of the current Jewish OT are appropriated more than one book per letter to mean the books accepted by the current Protestant canon. This inicates that the canon may not be that rigid as generally accepted by Josephus as more books could be appropriated to each letter. Theories as to why Josephus mentions only the canon accepted by the current Jews. If we knew the date in which Jamnia set the canon that could answer much of the speculation. The dates given for the Council of Jamnia can vary from about 75-96 a.d. If it was towards the earlier date than Josephus would be acting like a faithful Jew of his time and accept the limited canon which he listed in his book which was probably written after 80 a.d.. If it was later the canon which he listed was according to the Scriptures that were in the possesion of Titus at Rome in which Josephus was an interpreter for the Romans of Jewish practices. These Scriptures where probably taken from Jerusalem during the sack of Jerusalem in 70 a.d. There is a theory possibility that these Scriptures are those that where from Nehemiah. Dissertation 4 by the interpreter of Josephus postulates the following:“Proving that the copy of the books of the old testament laid up in Herods temple, and thence used by Josephus, the Jewish historian, in his antiquities, was not other than that most ancient collection or library made by Nehemiah, in the days of Artaxerxes, the son of Xerxes and was free from several additions and alterations made afterwards in the other copies which are not extant-this appears by the arguments following- (1) The book of Malachi is missing and (2) so is the Song of Songs and (3) Nehemiah is not a member of the Aaronic priesthood. If that is so then that would indicate that the canon was not closed with the addition of the above books, Malachi and Song of Songs and also it would not be authoritative because Nehemiah was not a member of the Aaronic priesthood.Evidence for the still open canon is concluded from the evidence of the high priest of the Aaronic priesthood in Jerusalem Eleazar approving and assisting in the translations of the Hebrew Scripture into the Septuagint which included the deutero-canonical books. .And finally when Ptolmey received the Septuagint translation:“And when the king had received these books from Demetrius, as we have said already, he adored them; and gave order that they might remain uncorropted. He also desired that the interpreters would come to him often out of Judea, “……The translators with the approval of the Aaronic priesthood kept in touch with the king Ptolmey to help instruct him on the contents.

Even today Ethiopian Jews still use the Septuagint version, not the shorter Palestinian canon settled upon by the rabbis at Javneh. In other words, the Old Testament canon recognized by Ethiopian Jews is identical to the Catholic Old Testament, including the seven deuterocanonical books (cf. Encyclopedia Judaica, vol. 6, p. 1147).

There are various theories as to when the Jews closed their Old Testament canon. One is that the Old Testament was closed once and for all by Ezra (400 BC). This is a view that was held by some of the Fathers, a number of more recent Catholics and many Protestants. Such a view, however, runs into a number of difficulties. For example, the second book of Ezra contains genealogies of the High Priests continuing 150 years after the death of Ezra. In the same book is a list of the descendents of King David traced down to the sixth generation after Zerobabel, that is, down to about 300 BC. The existence of these genealogies is proof enough that the Old Testament canon remained open at least 150 years after Ezra’s death.



In fact, the Old Testament canon was still in a state of flux in the time of Christ with both the Sadducees and Samaritans, for example, accepting only the first five books of Moses as inspired and canonical. The great Jewish historian, Josephus Flavius, provides one important hint as to why uncertainty still surrounded the Old Testament canon so late in its history:

"From the time of Artaxerxes to our own time, our history has been written down very particularly (accurately and in detail), but these books have not been considered worthy of the same credit as the books of earlier date, because there has not been an exact succession of prophets."2



From these last words it is evident that Josephus required a prophet to appear and canonize the Deuterocanon in the same way other prophets in the past had done for the Protocanon. The question at the time of his writing was still held in abeyance. Unbeknown to Josephus this "prophet" was to be Christ and the Apostles.



Nevertheless, Josephus makes it clear that though not canonized the Deuterocanon enjoyed great credit among the Jews as inspired literature:

"But what credence we have given to all those books of our own nation is evident from our conduct; for, though so long a time has passed, no one has ever been so bold as to add anything to them whatsoever. But all Jews are instinctively led, from the moment of their birth, to believe that these books contain divine oracles and to abide by them and, if need be, gladly to die for them."3


As if to emphasize this point further, Josephus says that in the composition of his Jewish Antiquities he had used exclusively "sacred writings," yet he frequently quotes 1 Maccabees and the deutero fragments of Esther. Further, in the Talmud Baruch is referred to as a "prophetic book," Wisdom as "written by Solomon" and the book of Sirach is quoted often.

In addition, excepting the Book of Wisdom and 2 Maccabees all the other parts of the Deuterocanon were previously written in Hebrew. This points to Palestine not only as their place of origin but also where the Alexandrian Jews received their belief in their inspiration and divine character. This is why there are no records of any schism or controversy on the subject between the Palestinian and Alexandrian Jews.



For the Jews no final determination of the Old Testament was to be made until the Council of Jamnia (Javnah) in 90 AD. The Jews in this Council (and again in 118 AD), seeking to build a new focal point for their religious beliefs after the Roman destruction of the Temple in 70 AD, and in an attempt to counter the early Christians who quoted the Septuagint in support of the claims of Christ, only accepted those Old Testament books which were (i) written in Hebrew; (ii) conformed to the Torah; (iii) pre-dated the time of Ezra; and (iv) written in Palestine. The Jewish authorities now xenophobically considered the Septuagint "too gentile." Only the Ethiopian Jews retained the Septuagint version and still do so today (Encyclopaedia Judaica, vol. 6, p. 1147). In any case, for Christians Jamnia is not authoritative, as all legitimate authority had passed to the Catholic Church sixty years earlier at Pentecost. By rejecting the seven additional books of the Septuagint Protestants therefore effectively follow the canon of the Old Testament as determined by the Jews at Jamnia.

 

[simonthezealot]

If you bother to read this you just might learn something.

a.

Yeah a catholics view of a NON christians view of the canon. Meh no thanks.

 

[Trento]

Yeah a catholics view of a NON christians view of the canon. Meh no thanks.

Your agenda here by your statement is glaring. I presented to you in the works Of Josephus and the Encyclopedia Judaica,which annilates the defence of the sustainibility of the Protestant OT Canon in the light of this history. You join the rabbinical assembly that inserted an additional prayer [the 11th] into the Shemoneh Ezreh, the Eighteen Benedictions, of the synagogue liturgy which explicitly cursed the Christians [”And for the heretics and Nazoreans may there be no hope …”

 

[Trento]

n\t

 

[simonthezealot]

Your agenda here by your statement is glaring. I presented to you in the works Of Josephus and the Encyclopedia Judaica,which annilates the defence of the sustainibility of the Protestant OT Canon in the light of this history. You join the rabbinical assembly that inserted an additional prayer [the 11th] into the Shemoneh Ezreh, the Eighteen Benedictions, of the synagogue liturgy which explicitly cursed the Christians [”And for the heretics and Nazoreans may there be no hope …”

Not sure what your saying here or usually ever for that matter, apocrypha is riddled with errors I stand in unison with Jerome who says they're good for edification bad for doctrine...

 

[Trento]

Not sure what your saying here or usually ever for that matter, apocrypha is riddled with errors I stand in unison with Jerome who says they're good for edification bad for doctrine...

You had better try to Find another Father.


St. Jerome himself calls Sirach, which he had referred to as non-canonical, as Scripture. Thus, in practice, to support doctrine, he calls it Scripture. This quotation, even if there were no other quotations from him on the Deuterocanonicals, show that his view on what is and is not Scripture can not be seen from his earlier citation.

Do not, my dearest brother, estimate my worth by the number of my years. Gray hairs are not wisdom; it is wisdom which is as good as gray hairs At least that is what Solomon says: "wisdom is the gray hair unto men.’ [Wisdom 4:9]" Moses too in choosing the seventy elders is told to take those whom he knows to be elders indeed, and to select them not for their years but for their discretion (Num. 11:16)? And, as a boy, Daniel judges old men and in the flower of youth condemns the incontinence of age (Daniel 13:55-59, or Story of Susannah 55-59, only found in the Catholic Bibles) Jerome, To Paulinus, Epistle 58 (A.D. 395), in NPNF2, VI:119​

Here St. Jerome mixes use of the Book of Wisdom with Moses’ writing. In the midst of referring to Moses, he also refers to the Story of Susanna to establish a point. He makes no distinction in practice from the writing of Moses, from the two Deuterocanonical books.

"I would cite the words of the psalmist: 'the sacrifices of God are a broken spirit,’ [Ps 51:17] and those of Ezekiel 'I prefer the repentance of a sinner rather than his death,’ [Ez 18:23] AND THOSE OF BARUCH,'Arise, arise, O Jerusalem,’ [Baruch 5:5] AND MANY OTHER PROCLAMATIONS MADE BY THE TRUMPETS OF THE PROPHETS." Jerome, To Oceanus, Epistle 77:4 (A.D. 399), in NPNF2, VI:159​

Notice how Jerome makes no distinction at all between the Psalmist, Ezekiel, and Baruch. They are all Scripture, God's Word. Also, contrary to Rhodes' assertion that the Deuterocanonicals had no prophets, Jerome himself calls Baruch a prophet, thus according his writing Scriptural status. According to Jerome, Baruch thus authoritatively spoke God's Word. He uses Baruch in tandem with these prophets to prove David in Psalm 51 correct.

still our merriment must not forget the limit set by Scripture, and we must not stray too far from the boundary of our wrestling-ground. Your presents, indeed, remind me of the sacred volume, for in it Ezekiel decks Jerusalem with bracelets, (Eze. 16:11) Baruch receives letters from Jeremiah,(Jer. 36, Bar. 6) and the Holy Spirit descends in the form of a dove at the baptism of Christ.(Mt. 3:16) Jerome, To Eustochium, Epistle 31:2 (A.D. 384), in NPNF2, VI:45​

Notice that St. Jerome quotes in reference to Scriptures, and the Sacred Volumes. Then he refers to 3 passages. Ezekiel, Baruch, and Matthew. Now, St. Jerome here refers to Jeremiah giving letters (plural) to Baruch. One time in Jeremiah 36, and another time in Baruch 6, as the Protestant Schaff editor indicates. Thus, Baruch is clearly Scripture, and he is clearly an author of the Sacred Volume, the Bible.

As in good works it is God who brings them to perfection, for it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that pitieth and gives us help that we may be able to reach the goal: so in things wicked and sinful, the seeds within us give the impulse, and these are brought to maturity by the devil. When he sees that we are building upon the foundation of Christ, hay, wood, stubble, then he applies the match. Let us then build gold, silver, costly stones, and he will not venture to tempt us: although even thus there is not sure and safe possession. For the lion lurks in ambush to slay the innocent. [Sir. 27:5] "Potters' vessels are proved by the furnace, and just men by the trial of tribulation." And in another place it is written: [Sir. 2:1] "My son, when thou comest to serve the Lord, prepare thyself for temptation." Again, the same James says: [James 3:22]"Be ye doers of the word, and not hearers only. For if any one is a hearer of the word, and not a doer, he is like unto a man beholding his natural face in a mirror: for he beholdeth himself, and goeth away, and straightway forgetteth what manner of man he was." It was useless to warn them to add works to faith, if they could not sin after baptism. Jerome, Against Jovinianus,, Book 2, 3 NPNF2, VI:390​

As we have seen, "It is written" is a phrase that both the authors of Scripture, and the Church Fathers use only in reference to Scripture. Jerome uses the phrase identifying the quote to come as Scripture. The quote he uses comes from the book of Sirach. Thus, Sirach is Scripture. He then quotes James interchangeably as just another Scripture as of the same level of authority as Sirach.

"Yet the Holy Spirit in the thirty-ninth(9) psalm, while lamenting that all men walk in a vain show, and that they are subject to sins, speaks thus: "For all that every man walketh in the image."(Psalm 39:6) Also after David's time, in the reign of Solomon his son, we read a somewhat similar reference to the divine likeness. For in the book of Wisdom, which is inscribed with his name, Solomon says: "God created man to be immortal, and made him to be an image of his own eternity."(Wisdom 2:23) And again, about eleven hundred and eleven years afterwards, we read in the New Testament that men have not lost the image of God. For James, an apostle and brother of the Lord, whom I have mentioned above--that we may not be entangled in the snares of Origen--teaches us that man does possess God's image and likeness. For, after a somewhat discursive account of the human tongue, he has gone on to say of it: "It is an unruly evil ... therewith bless we God, even the Father and therewith curse we men, which are made after the similitude of God."(James 3:8-9) Paul, too, the "chosen vessel,"(Acts 9:15) who in his preaching has fully maintained the doctrine of the gospel, instructs us that man is made in the image and after the likeness of God. "A man," he says, "ought not to wear long hair, forasmuch as he is the image and glory of God."(1 Cor. 11:7) He speaks of "the image" simply, but explains the nature of the likeness by the word "glory."​

 

[Catholic Christian]

As Protestant church 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" (Early Christian Doctrines, 53), which are rejected by Protestants.

 

[BigNorsk]

So now are we talking about the Reformers or people today? It gets difficult to know.

Lutherans for instance continued to read from the Apochryphal books in church, they continued to recognize the differences in authority between them and the Protocanonical books.

The Lutheran Book of Worship published in 1978 (often just called the green hymnal by Lutherans) has if you use it's daily lectionary readings from the Apocryphal books, it does offer an alternative Old Testament reading.

This reading schedule is in agreement with the Book of Common Prayer used for example by Episcopalians.

That usage extends to hymns. A common one found in every Lutheran and many other Protestant hymnals is "Now Thank we all our God" it is actually based on text from the Apocrypha.

So if you read rejected by the Reformers to mean not used for doctrine, which as I showed was really the position of the entire Western Church at the time the Reformation started based on their most used and authoritative publications, then I guess they were rejected. If you mean removed and not used. Then that is not historically supportable. They were not removed, they followed the practice as first done in the one Latin translation. And I can sure see why they did for it had become so common that people were not educated but confused by mixing them in with the fully authoritative books. Unfortunately that often included priests and bishops who could do little more than give the Mass from memory.

So which people are we now talking about and what do you now mean by rejected?

Marv

 

[Catholic Christian]

Here is a link to an archived episode of "Catholic Answers Live". The OP is the subject of this episode. I hope someone finds it helpful:

http://www.catholic.com/audio/1998/mp3/ca980528.mp3

Peace be with you

 

[BigNorsk]

As we have seen, "It is written" is a phrase that both the authors of Scripture, and the Church Fathers use only in reference to Scripture. Jerome uses the phrase identifying the quote to come as Scripture. The quote he uses comes from the book of Sirach. Thus, Sirach is Scripture. He then quotes James interchangeably as just another Scripture as of the same level of authority as Sirach.

That's really not supportable.

2Sa 1:18 ESV
(18) and he said it should be taught to the people of Judah; behold, it is written in the Book of Jashar. He said:

Marv

 

[Catholic Christian]

The following are exerpts from a non-copyright article from online called "Defending the Deuterocanonicals":
http://www.ewtn.com/library/ANSWERS/DEUTEROS.HTM

When Catholics and fundamentalists talk about "the Bible," the two groups actually have two different books in mind.

In the sixteenth century, the Protestant Reformers removed a large section of the Old Testament that was not compatible with their theology. They charged that these writings were not inspired Scripture and branded them with the pejorative title "Apocrypha."

Catholics refer to them as the "deuterocanonical" books (since they were disputed by a few early authors and their canonicity was established later than the rest), while the rest are known as the "protocanonical" books (since their canonicity was established first).

Following the Protestant attack on the integrity of the Bible, the Catholic Church infallibly reaffirmed the divine inspiration of the deuterocanonical books at the Council of Trent in 1546. In doing this, it reaffirmed what had been believed since the time of Christ.

Who Compiled the Old Testament?

The Church does not deny that there are ancient writings which are "apocryphal." During the early Christian era, there were scores of manuscripts which purported to be Holy Scripture but were not. Many have survived to the present day, like the Apocalypse of Peter and the Gospel of Thomas, which all Christian churches regard as spurious writings that don't belong in Scripture.

During the first century, the Jews disagreed as to what constituted the canon of Scripture. In fact, there were a large number of different canons in use, including the growing canon used by Christians. In order to combat the spreading Christian cult, rabbis met at the city of Jamnia or Javneh in A.D. 90 to determine which books were truly the Word of God. They pronounced many books, including the Gospels, to be unfit as scriptures. This canon also excluded seven books (Baruch, Sirach, 1 and 2 Maccabees, Tobit, Judith, and the Wisdom of Solomon, plus portions of Esther and Daniel) that Christians considered part of the Old Testament.

The group of Jews which met at Javneh became the dominant group for later Jewish history, and today most Jews accept the canon of Javneh. However, some Jews, such as those from Ethiopia, follow a different canon which is identical to the Catholic Old Testament and includes the seven deuterocanonical books (cf. Encyclopedia Judaica, vol. 6, p. 1147).

Needless to say, the Church disregarded the results of Javneh. First, a Jewish council after the time of Christ is not binding on the followers of Christ. Second, Javneh rejected precisely those documents which are foundational for the Christian Church—the Gospels and the other documents of the New Testament. Third, by rejecting the deuterocanonicals, Javneh rejected books which had been used by Jesus and the apostles and which were in the edition of the Bible that the apostles used in everyday life—the Septuagint.

The Apostles & the Deuteros

The Christian acceptance of the deuterocanonical books was logical because the deuterocanonicals were also included in the Septuagint, the Greek edition of the Old Testament which the apostles used to evangelize the world. Two thirds of the Old Testament quotations in the New are from the Septuagint. Yet the apostles nowhere told their converts to avoid seven books of it. Like the Jews all over the world who used the Septuagint, the early Christians accepted the books they found in it. They knew that the apostles would not mislead them and endanger their souls by putting false scriptures in their hands—especially without warning them against them.

But the apostles did not merely place the deuterocanonicals in the hands of their converts as part of the Septuagint. They regularly referred to the deuterocanonicals in their writings. For example, Hebrews 11 encourages us to emulate the heroes of the Old Testament and in the Old Testament "Women received their dead by resurrection. Some were tortured, refusing to accept release, that they might rise again to a better life" (Heb. 11:35).

There are a couple of examples of women receiving back their dead by resurrection in the Protestant Old Testament. You can find Elijah raising the son of the widow of Zarepheth in 1 Kings 17, and you can find his successor Elisha raising the son of the Shunammite woman in 2 Kings 4, but one thing you can never find—anywhere in the Protestant Old Testament, from front to back, from Genesis to Malachi—is someone being tortured and refusing to accept release for the sake of a better resurrection. If you want to find that, you have to look in the Catholic Old Testament—in the deuterocanonical books Martin Luther cut out of his Bible.

The story is found in 2 Maccabees 7, where we read that during the Maccabean persecution, "It happened also that seven brothers and their mother were arrested and were being compelled by the king, under torture with whips and cords, to partake of unlawful swine's flesh. . . . but the brothers and their mother encouraged one another to die nobly, saying, 'The Lord God is watching over us and in truth has compassion on us . . . ' After the first brother had died . . . they brought forward the second for their sport. . . . he in turn underwent tortures as the first brother had done. And when he was at his last breath, he said, 'You accursed wretch, you dismiss us from this present life, but the King of the universe will raise us up to an everlasting renewal of life'" (2 Macc. 7:1, 5-9).

One by one the sons die, proclaiming that they will be vindicated in the resurrection.

"The mother was especially admirable and worthy of honorable memory. Though she saw her seven sons perish within a single day, she bore it with good courage because of her hope in the Lord. She encouraged each of them . . . [saying], 'I do not know how you came into being in my womb. It was not I who gave you life and breath, nor I who set in order the elements within each of you. Therefore the Creator of the world, who shaped the beginning of man and devised the origin of all things, will in his mercy give life and breath back to you again, since you now forget yourselves for the sake of his laws,'" telling the last one, "Do not fear this butcher, but prove worthy of your brothers. Accept death, so that in God's mercy I may get you back again with your brothers" (2 Macc. 7:20-23, 29). This is but one example of the New Testaments' references to the deuterocanonicals.

The early Christians were thus fully justified in recognizing these books as Scripture, for the apostles not only set them in their hands as part of the Bible they used to evangelize the world, but also referred to them in the New Testament itself, citing the things they record as examples to be emulated.

The Reformation Attack on the Bible

The deuterocanonicals teach Catholic doctrine, and for this reason they were taken out of the Old Testament by Martin Luther and placed in an appendix without page numbers. Luther also took out four New Testament books—Hebrews, James, Jude, and Revelation—and put them in an appendix without page numbers as well. These were later put back into the New Testament by other Protestants, but the seven books of the Old Testament were left out. Following Luther they had been left in an appendix to the Old Testament, and eventually the appendix itself was dropped (in 1827 by the British and Foreign Bible Society), which is why these books are not found at all in most contemporary Protestant Bibles, though they were appendicized in classic Protestant translations such as the King James Version.

The reason they were dropped is that they teach Catholic doctrines that the Protestant Reformers chose to reject. Earlier we cited an example where the book of Hebrews holds up to us an Old Testament example from 2 Maccabees 7, an incident not to be found anywhere in the Protestant Bible, but easily discoverable in the Catholic Bible. Why would Martin Luther cut out this book when it is so clearly held up as an example to us by the New Testament? Simple: A few chapters later it endorses the practice of praying for the dead so that they may be freed from the consequences of their sins (2 Macc. 12:41-45); in other words, the Catholic doctrine of purgatory. Since Luther chose to reject the historic Christian teaching of purgatory (which dates from before the time of Christ, as 2 Maccabees shows), he had to remove that book from the Bible and appendicize it. (Notice that he also removed Hebrews, the book which cites 2 Maccabees, to an appendix as well.)

To justify this rejection of books that had been in the Bible since before the days of the apostles (for the Septuagint was written before the apostles), the early Protestants cited as their chief reason the fact that the Jews of their day did not honor these books, going back to the council of Javneh in A.D. 90. But the Reformers were aware of only European Jews; they were unaware of African Jews, such as the Ethiopian Jews who accept the deuterocanonicals as part of their Bible. They glossed over the references to the deuterocanonicals in the New Testament, as well as its use of the Septuagint. They ignored the fact that there were multiple canons of the Jewish Scriptures circulating in first century, appealing to a post-Christian Jewish council which has no authority over Christians as evidence that "The Jews don't except these books." In short, they went to enormous lengths to rationalize their rejection of these books of the Bible.

The New Testament Deuteros

It is ironic that Protestants reject the inclusion of the deuterocanonicals at councils such as Hippo (393) and Carthage (397), because these are the very same early Church councils that Protestants appeal to for the canon of the New Testament. Prior to the councils of the late 300s, there was a wide range of disagreement over exactly what books belonged in the New Testament.

Certain books, such as the gospels, acts, and most of the epistles of Paul had long been agreed upon. However a number of the books of the New Testament, most notably Hebrews, James, 2 Peter, 2 & 3 John, and Revelation remained hotly disputed until the canon was settled. They are, in effect, "New Testament deuterocanonicals."

While Protestants are willing to accept the testimony of Hippo and Carthage (the councils they most commonly cite) for the canonicity of the New Testament deuterocanonicals, they are unwilling to accept the testimony of Hippo and Carthage for the canonicity of the Old Testament deuterocanonicals. Ironic indeed!

(END)
More information is at the article itself:
http://www.ewtn.com/library/ANSWERS/DEUTEROS.HTM

Please Comment

OP Reminder

 

[TimRout]

Whether one acknowledges the deuterocanonicals or not, one can still make a solid case for salvation by grace alone, through faith alone, in Christ alone. In the end, the larger canon does nothing to address the many and obvious theological eccentricities of Rome.

 

[Tu Es Petrus]

I'm bumping this thread becuase a poster wants me to demonstrate the validity of the Deuterocanonicals and I did not want to start a new thread:

The following are exerpts from a non-copyright article from online called "Defending the Deuterocanonicals":
http://www.ewtn.com/library/ANSWERS/DEUTEROS.HTM

When Catholics and fundamentalists talk about "the Bible," the two groups actually have two different books in mind.

In the sixteenth century, the Protestant Reformers removed a large section of the Old Testament that was not compatible with their theology. They charged that these writings were not inspired Scripture and branded them with the pejorative title "Apocrypha."

Catholics refer to them as the "deuterocanonical" books (since they were disputed by a few early authors and their canonicity was established later than the rest), while the rest are known as the "protocanonical" books (since their canonicity was established first).

Following the Protestant attack on the integrity of the Bible, the Catholic Church infallibly reaffirmed the divine inspiration of the deuterocanonical books at the Council of Trent in 1546. In doing this, it reaffirmed what had been believed since the time of Christ.

Who Compiled the Old Testament?

The Church does not deny that there are ancient writings which are "apocryphal." During the early Christian era, there were scores of manuscripts which purported to be Holy Scripture but were not. Many have survived to the present day, like the Apocalypse of Peter and the Gospel of Thomas, which all Christian churches regard as spurious writings that don't belong in Scripture.

During the first century, the Jews disagreed as to what constituted the canon of Scripture. In fact, there were a large number of different canons in use, including the growing canon used by Christians. In order to combat the spreading Christian cult, rabbis met at the city of Jamnia or Javneh in A.D. 90 to determine which books were truly the Word of God. They pronounced many books, including the Gospels, to be unfit as scriptures. This canon also excluded seven books (Baruch, Sirach, 1 and 2 Maccabees, Tobit, Judith, and the Wisdom of Solomon, plus portions of Esther and Daniel) that Christians considered part of the Old Testament.

The group of Jews which met at Javneh became the dominant group for later Jewish history, and today most Jews accept the canon of Javneh. However, some Jews, such as those from Ethiopia, follow a different canon which is identical to the Catholic Old Testament and includes the seven deuterocanonical books (cf. Encyclopedia Judaica, vol. 6, p. 1147).

Needless to say, the Church disregarded the results of Javneh. First, a Jewish council after the time of Christ is not binding on the followers of Christ. Second, Javneh rejected precisely those documents which are foundational for the Christian Church—the Gospels and the other documents of the New Testament. Third, by rejecting the deuterocanonicals, Javneh rejected books which had been used by Jesus and the apostles and which were in the edition of the Bible that the apostles used in everyday life—the Septuagint.

The Apostles & the Deuteros

The Christian acceptance of the deuterocanonical books was logical because the deuterocanonicals were also included in the Septuagint, the Greek edition of the Old Testament which the apostles used to evangelize the world. Two thirds of the Old Testament quotations in the New are from the Septuagint. Yet the apostles nowhere told their converts to avoid seven books of it. Like the Jews all over the world who used the Septuagint, the early Christians accepted the books they found in it. They knew that the apostles would not mislead them and endanger their souls by putting false scriptures in their hands—especially without warning them against them.

But the apostles did not merely place the deuterocanonicals in the hands of their converts as part of the Septuagint. They regularly referred to the deuterocanonicals in their writings. For example, Hebrews 11 encourages us to emulate the heroes of the Old Testament and in the Old Testament "Women received their dead by resurrection. Some were tortured, refusing to accept release, that they might rise again to a better life" (Heb. 11:35).

There are a couple of examples of women receiving back their dead by resurrection in the Protestant Old Testament. You can find Elijah raising the son of the widow of Zarepheth in 1 Kings 17, and you can find his successor Elisha raising the son of the Shunammite woman in 2 Kings 4, but one thing you can never find—anywhere in the Protestant Old Testament, from front to back, from Genesis to Malachi—is someone being tortured and refusing to accept release for the sake of a better resurrection. If you want to find that, you have to look in the Catholic Old Testament—in the deuterocanonical books Martin Luther cut out of his Bible.

The story is found in 2 Maccabees 7, where we read that during the Maccabean persecution, "It happened also that seven brothers and their mother were arrested and were being compelled by the king, under torture with whips and cords, to partake of unlawful swine's flesh. . . . but the brothers and their mother encouraged one another to die nobly, saying, 'The Lord God is watching over us and in truth has compassion on us . . . ' After the first brother had died . . . they brought forward the second for their sport. . . . he in turn underwent tortures as the first brother had done. And when he was at his last breath, he said, 'You accursed wretch, you dismiss us from this present life, but the King of the universe will raise us up to an everlasting renewal of life'" (2 Macc. 7:1, 5-9).

One by one the sons die, proclaiming that they will be vindicated in the resurrection.

"The mother was especially admirable and worthy of honorable memory. Though she saw her seven sons perish within a single day, she bore it with good courage because of her hope in the Lord. She encouraged each of them . . . [saying], 'I do not know how you came into being in my womb. It was not I who gave you life and breath, nor I who set in order the elements within each of you. Therefore the Creator of the world, who shaped the beginning of man and devised the origin of all things, will in his mercy give life and breath back to you again, since you now forget yourselves for the sake of his laws,'" telling the last one, "Do not fear this butcher, but prove worthy of your brothers. Accept death, so that in God's mercy I may get you back again with your brothers" (2 Macc. 7:20-23, 29). This is but one example of the New Testaments' references to the deuterocanonicals.

The early Christians were thus fully justified in recognizing these books as Scripture, for the apostles not only set them in their hands as part of the Bible they used to evangelize the world, but also referred to them in the New Testament itself, citing the things they record as examples to be emulated.

The Reformation Attack on the Bible

The deuterocanonicals teach Catholic doctrine, and for this reason they were taken out of the Old Testament by Martin Luther and placed in an appendix without page numbers. Luther also took out four New Testament books—Hebrews, James, Jude, and Revelation—and put them in an appendix without page numbers as well. These were later put back into the New Testament by other Protestants, but the seven books of the Old Testament were left out. Following Luther they had been left in an appendix to the Old Testament, and eventually the appendix itself was dropped (in 1827 by the British and Foreign Bible Society), which is why these books are not found at all in most contemporary Protestant Bibles, though they were appendicized in classic Protestant translations such as the King James Version.

The reason they were dropped is that they teach Catholic doctrines that the Protestant Reformers chose to reject. Earlier we cited an example where the book of Hebrews holds up to us an Old Testament example from 2 Maccabees 7, an incident not to be found anywhere in the Protestant Bible, but easily discoverable in the Catholic Bible. Why would Martin Luther cut out this book when it is so clearly held up as an example to us by the New Testament? Simple: A few chapters later it endorses the practice of praying for the dead so that they may be freed from the consequences of their sins (2 Macc. 12:41-45); in other words, the Catholic doctrine of purgatory. Since Luther chose to reject the historic Christian teaching of purgatory (which dates from before the time of Christ, as 2 Maccabees shows), he had to remove that book from the Bible and appendicize it. (Notice that he also removed Hebrews, the book which cites 2 Maccabees, to an appendix as well.)

To justify this rejection of books that had been in the Bible since before the days of the apostles (for the Septuagint was written before the apostles), the early Protestants cited as their chief reason the fact that the Jews of their day did not honor these books, going back to the council of Javneh in A.D. 90. But the Reformers were aware of only European Jews; they were unaware of African Jews, such as the Ethiopian Jews who accept the deuterocanonicals as part of their Bible. They glossed over the references to the deuterocanonicals in the New Testament, as well as its use of the Septuagint. They ignored the fact that there were multiple canons of the Jewish Scriptures circulating in first century, appealing to a post-Christian Jewish council which has no authority over Christians as evidence that "The Jews don't except these books." In short, they went to enormous lengths to rationalize their rejection of these books of the Bible.

The New Testament Deuteros

It is ironic that Protestants reject the inclusion of the deuterocanonicals at councils such as Hippo (393) and Carthage (397), because these are the very same early Church councils that Protestants appeal to for the canon of the New Testament. Prior to the councils of the late 300s, there was a wide range of disagreement over exactly what books belonged in the New Testament.

Certain books, such as the gospels, acts, and most of the epistles of Paul had long been agreed upon. However a number of the books of the New Testament, most notably Hebrews, James, 2 Peter, 2 & 3 John, and Revelation remained hotly disputed until the canon was settled. They are, in effect, "New Testament deuterocanonicals."

While Protestants are willing to accept the testimony of Hippo and Carthage (the councils they most commonly cite) for the canonicity of the New Testament deuterocanonicals, they are unwilling to accept the testimony of Hippo and Carthage for the canonicity of the Old Testament deuterocanonicals. Ironic indeed!

(END)
More information is at the article itself:
http://www.ewtn.com/library/ANSWERS/DEUTEROS.HTM

Please Comment

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

I'm bumping this thread becuase a poster wants me to demonstrate the validity of the Deuterocanonicals and I did not want to start a new thread:

Is CC still around?

31st January 2008, 11:25 AM

Catholic Christian

 

[wildboar]

The Council of Trent was the first council in any branch of the church to attempt to define the exact number of books. Luther was completely within the realm of historic Christianity to doubt the books that he was doubting. On the other hand, I have no problem with those who want to include the deuterocanonicals as part of their canon as long as those books are understood through the lens of the more widely accepted books and not the other way around. That was part of Luther's argument that disputed books like James were being wrongly used to interpet universally accepted books like Romans and not the other way around. Of course today we find all kinds of nuts who want to start out with their own unique interpretation of Revelation and then read that into the rest of the Scriptures. If people started with the undisputed books such as the Gospels and Epistles of Paul and used them as the lens for understanding the rest of the New Testament a lot of problems would be solved.

 

[BigNorsk]

If you are going to prove the validity of the deuterocanonicals. Would you please start with a set of definitions? Otherwise, people use the same words and mean completely different things.

For instance, validity. Validity for what? It's quite different to show that they should be read in the church. It's quite another to show that validity means they are authoritative for doctrine. So what does the word validity mean.

And deuterocanonicals, you better define that too. Because if you want to prove something, I think at some point you will likely have to prove the 'extra' deuterocanonicals in the Eastern Orthodox as compared to the Roman Catholic are not valid and why.

Those sorts of definitions.

I'd appreciate it so we don't just end up talking past each other. Depending on how you define them, we are going to either end up agreeing or disagreeing, I don't know which it is yet.

Marv