Apocrypha? Pope added?

[Calvinator]

I have a question for you though. Hypothetically speaking: If two protestants, of the same denomination come up with different interpretations of the same exact scripture…who would be the arbiter? A preacher or minister?

I would go to the elders of my church.

The problem would come when two or more folks from two or more church’s have differences.

 

[RobHom]

Atheists on CAF…don’t want to go there,

Agree completely.

and

Thank you!

 

[NotWorthy]

Thanks for that NotWorthy. Sometimes I fear it is very easy for me to lose track of the fact that there is another human being on the other end of this post.

Well, I’ve been accused of far worse.

And, following some other threads, I believe you’ve been, too.

 

[Janet_S]

Well, the Glossa Ordinaria rejected the canonicity of the so called deutero canonical books. The Gloss was the standard authoritative biblical commentary for the Western Church as a whole. It had immense authority. Just so you don’t think I am making this up we have the following from The New Catholic Encyclopedia:
*
A designation given during the Middle Ages to certain compilations of “glosses” on the text of a given MS. The earliest glossa ordinaria is that made of the Bible, probably made in the 12th century…Although glosses originally consisted of a few words only, they grew in length as glossators enlarged them with their own comments and quotations from the Fathers. Thus the tiny gloss evolved into a running commentary of an entire book. The best–known commentary of this type is the vast Glossa ordinaria of the 12th and 13th centuries…So great was the influence of the Glossa ordinaria on Biblical and philisophical studies in the Middle Ages that it was called “the tongue of Scripture” and “the bible of scholasticism” (New Catholic Encyclopedia, Glossa Ordinaria; Glosses, Biblical, pp. 515-516).*

The preface to the Glossa ordinaria states that the Church permits the reading of the Apocryphal books only for devotion and instruction in manners, but that they have no authority for concluding controversies in matters of faith. It goes on to state that there are 22 books of the OT. How many books are in your catholic OT’s?. . . .

The Bibles and commentaries mentioned above don’t seem to give favorable opinion to the so called deutero’s.

Non-Catholic critics of the deuteros always bring up the Glossa Ordinaria, yet I doubt any one of them has ever seen it or knows where to find it.

The Glossa was influential because it was a Scriptural commentary read by many scholars in the Middle Ages. It was never **the **official, authoritative Church Biblical commentary.

Anyway, according to Gary Michuta, the author of Why Catholic Bibles are Bigger, it contained both favorable and unfavorable quotations about the deuteros.

 

[Calvinator]

Non-Catholic critics of the deuteros always bring up the Glossa Ordinaria, yet I doubt any one of them has ever seen it or knows where to find it.

The Glossa was influential because it was a Scriptural commentary read by many scholars in the Middle Ages. It was never **the **official, authoritative Church Biblical commentary.

Anyway, according to Gary Michuta, the author of Why Catholic Bibles are Bigger, it contained both favorable and unfavorable quotations about the deuteros.

Did it or did it not list the books you call the deutero’s as non-canonical?

I do believe it reflected the majority view of of the so called deutero’s up until the time of Trent.

 

[NotWorthy]

Non-Catholic critics of the deuteros always bring up the Glossa Ordinaria, yet I doubt any one of them has ever seen it or knows where to find it.

The Glossa was influential because it was a Scriptural commentary read by many scholars in the Middle Ages. It was never **the **official, authoritative Church Biblical commentary.

Anyway, according to Gary Michuta, the author of Why Catholic Bibles are Bigger, it contained both favorable and unfavorable quotations about the deuteros.

Why worry if it was just “influential” or whether it’s “the official authoritative bible commentary”.

It doesn’t matter, because it is simply Bible Commentary. Just as St. Jerome gave us the official Latin Translation, it doesn’t mean he got to determine the canon of that translation, the Glossa ordianaire could believe that my writings are Scriptural (Ha! The Gospel of Notworthy! Think of the possibilities!!! )
and it wouldn’t matter.

 

[Janet_S]

Did it or did it not list the books you call the deutero’s as non-canonical?

I do believe it reflected the majority view of of the so called deutero’s up until the time of Trent.

I’ve never seen the Glossa. The only times I have heard about it are the times non-Catholics use it to support their claim that the deuteros are not canonical. Have you seen it or read it? How did you find out about it?

I don’t doubt that the Glossa included commentary from Jerome’s Prologues, and I have read his Prologues. One of his Prologues states that the deuteros cannot be used to determine doctrines. I wouldn’t be surprised if the Glossa did contain commentary from Jerome.

Still, I have seen the Gutenberg Bible from 1455 AD which contains the 7 deuteros among the OT books. They are not separated in a special appendix. I wonder why all Bibles before Trent do contain the deuteros when they were supposedly added after Trent. This is quite a mystery to me.

 

[Calvinator]

Still, I have seen the Gutenberg Bible from 1455 AD which contains the 7 deuteros among the OT books. They are not separated in a special appendix. I wonder why all Bibles before Trent do contain the deuteros when they were supposedly added after Trent. This is quite a mystery to me.

Janet,

When a non-Catholic says your church added the deutero’s to the canon they are simply saying that the books you call the deutero’s do not belong in the canon, period. If they don’t belong, they are an addition.

Often times it’s said that the KJV or whatever version once contained the books you call the deutero’s and of course that’s indisputable. Why do you think they included the deutero’s? Do you think this means the publishers of whatever particular version believed the deuteros to be canonical?

 

[RobHom]

I went to New Advent and did a search on the Glossa Ordinaria and got a number of results… but none seemed to have the actual body of the writing. It does however, based on the descriptive articles, appear to be something that would be very interesting to read.

On the subject of the “deutero” books… I found this link that had some interesting reading and gave some time lines as to when where and how. newadvent.org/cathen/03267a.htm

I have to say that with all the linked information (blue highlited words) you could probably spend a couple of lifetimes reading and researching the many different topics…

 

[SPH1]

Hold the phone ~ ! She’s back and on fire, too!

Here’s her latest: I am curious how you guys/gals would reply. I am going to tackle these straight on apologetically but I’d appreciate any tidbits you want to throw in ~ Thanks

"The last verse of the Bible clearly states that no one is to add or take away from the scripture. If the apocrypha is “inspired text” then how come it’s not in my Bible?
Why was it added years later?

Lay this on her, from my old website: Luther & Romans 3:28:

shasta.com/sphaws/luther.html

Luther clearly added the word “alone.”

Also, point out that the canon - OT or NT - wasn’t established for centuries. During the earliest times, some would use both an OT or a NT that we would not fully recognize today.

Protestants seem to think that the Bible literally dropped out of Heaven on day one, and the evil Catholic Church was messing with it ever since.

She has no authorative reason to accept ANY books. In fact, Luther and others wanted to toss out certain NT books.

The Holy Catholic Church has spoken on the canon. This is the only authority to so determine.

Why do Catholics believe that Mary was without sin, when it clearly says the only one that was without sin was Christ?

Christ was the only one without sin BY HIS OWN POWER. Mary’s sinlessness was not due to her own power/will, but to the grace of God.

Beyond that, she had children after Jesus.
Why would anyone pray to saints or ask them to pray for you? We are all saints, and the only one person that is omnipresent is God so how could a saint hear someone in NewYork and Africa at the same time?? There are many holes.

Standard non-Catholic stuff, and becoming the standard “shot-gun” approach.

Sure, we’re all saints…but we aren’t all in Heaven with God. And while on earth, we cannot TRULY know who is a saint or not. We don’t know exactly what goes on in Heaven, how this could be, but a good theory I’ve heard is that the Saints can see/hear our prayers in the face of God.

 

[NotWorthy]

Janet,

When a non-Catholic says your church added the deutero’s to the canon they are simply saying that the books you call the deutero’s do not belong in the canon, period. If they don’t belong, they are an addition.

But how can you add to something that was not there? There was no closed OT Canon, even among the Jews. The Catholic Church settled Her Canon in the 4th century - and this Canon included the Deutero’s. Trent merely affirmed this Canon.

What Protestant usually accuse the Church of doing is adding the Deutero’s to the Canon at Trent. This is why most of us on these forums assume that’s what you mean when you claim we added them.

Often times it’s said that the KJV or whatever version once contained the books you call the deutero’s and of course that’s indisputable. Why do you think they included the deutero’s? Do you think this means the publishers of whatever particular version believed the deuteros to be canonical?

No, the KJV always considered it Apochryphal, even though it included it in the OT.

 

[Janet_S]

Janet,

When a non-Catholic says your church added the deutero’s to the canon they are simply saying that the books you call the deutero’s do not belong in the canon, period. If they don’t belong, they are an addition.

Often times it’s said that the KJV or whatever version once contained the books you call the deutero’s and of course that’s indisputable. Why do you think they included the deutero’s? Do you think this means the publishers of whatever particular version believed the deuteros to be canonical?

Who told you the deuteros don’t belong in the canon? How did God reveal this to you?

quod.lib.umich.edu/k/kjv/browse.html
There is a KJV online (see link above) that contains the deuteros. They are placed at the end in a separate section called “Apocrypha,” a word that means “hidden” and is generally used to mean “noncanonical” when referring to the Scriptures.

molcat1.bl.uk/treasures/gutenberg/search.asp
When I look at the Gutenberg Bible (see link above), I see that the deuteros are included with the other OT books. The reason why they are included with the other books is because they are considered part of the the OT canon–they are canonical books.

On the other hand, when I look at the online KJV that has the deuteros separated out and labeled as “apocrypha,” it is clear to me those who assembled and published the KJV did not consider these books canonical.

So, looking at the two different versions of the Bible, it’s clear the Gutenberg includes the deuteros as part of the OT canon while the KJV includes the deuteros as apocrypha. It should be obvious to anyone who looks at them.

As to your question of why those who published the early KJV included the deuteros in their Bible? They probably felt uneasy removing the deuteros entirely from their Bible since every Bible printed or copied before the Reformation included these books. Apparently, as time went by, the uneasiness subsided since now hardly any Protestant Bibles contain these books.

(Here’s an aside about the KJV and the apocrypha–I read that in England, if you take an oath on the Bible, it must contain all the books of the Bible–including the 7 deuteros Protestants now reject.)

 

[kotes19]

Thanks, everyone.

You’d be amused to know that I pounded home the RCC teachings on Mary, and on Tradition (we didn’t even get to the discussion on the canonization!)

To be honest, the dialouge was over as soon as it began because three emails later, she says “I am discerning a bad spirit and I will end the talk here.” (snicker)

Eh, okay… Hm, I think that was an indirect insult.
I guess that means I’m a bit shady in her view?

Truth offends! Praise Jesus and thanks be to God for His One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church!

 

[Janet_S]

Thanks, everyone.

You’d be amused to know that I pounded home the RCC teachings on Mary, and on Tradition (we didn’t even get to the discussion on the canonization!)

To be honest, the dialouge was over as soon as it began because three emails later, she says “I am discerning a bad spirit and I will end the talk here.” (snicker)

Eh, okay… Hm, I think that was an indirect insult.
I guess that means I’m a bit shady in her view?

Truth offends! Praise Jesus and thanks be to God for His One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church!

Well at least now she knows that there is Biblical defense for the Catholic faith and that there is somone like you willing to take the time to defend it.

That in itself speaks volumes.

 

[Ani_Ibi]

Calvinator:

When a non-Catholic says your church added the deutero’s to the canon they are simply saying that the books you call the deutero’s do not belong in the canon, period. If they don’t belong, they are an addition.

I see. So we actually needed an English to English translator.

Calvinator:

Often times it’s said that the KJV or whatever version once contained the books you call the deutero’s and of course that’s indisputable.

Then why is this in dispute?

Calvinator:

Why do you think they included the deutero’s? Do you think this means the publishers of whatever particular version believed the deuteros to be canonical?

Um… because they were thinking politically not theologically?

 

[Ani_Ibi]

…three emails later, she says “I am discerning a bad spirit and I will end the talk here.” (snicker)

She is playing with fire talking about the Gift of Discernment like that.

 

[NotWorthy]

Thanks, everyone.

You’d be amused to know that I pounded home the RCC teachings on Mary, and on Tradition (we didn’t even get to the discussion on the canonization!)

To be honest, the dialouge was over as soon as it began because three emails later, she says “I am discerning a bad spirit and I will end the talk here.” (snicker)

Eh, okay… Hm, I think that was an indirect insult.
I guess that means I’m a bit shady in her view?

Truth offends! Praise Jesus and thanks be to God for His One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church!

Yeah, it’s times like this that the leopards often show their spots. “If you don’t agree with me (translated - if I can’t refute your argument), then the devil must be in you…”

But remember the most important point. When you talk to those that will accuse but don’t want to listen, you are posting for the benefit of others that are reading the threads. They often have the same questions, but don’t want to get embroiled in the fray.

Your arguments may gain some ground, but your charity is what will guide them to the Church!!!

Keep up the good work!

P.S. Oops, I just read over your post and it was via e-mail… well, you get my point!

 

[Calvinator]

Who told you the deuteros don’t belong in the canon? How did God reveal this to you?

quod.lib.umich.edu/k/kjv/browse.html
There is a KJV online (see link above) that contains the deuteros. They are placed at the end in a separate section called “Apocrypha,” a word that means “hidden” and is generally used to mean “noncanonical” when referring to the Scriptures.

molcat1.bl.uk/treasures/gutenberg/search.asp
When I look at the Gutenberg Bible (see link above), I see that the deuteros are included with the other OT books. The reason why they are included with the other books is because they are considered part of the the OT canon–they are canonical books.

On the other hand, when I look at the online KJV that has the deuteros separated out and labeled as “apocrypha,” it is clear to me those who assembled and published the KJV did not consider these books canonical.

So, looking at the two different versions of the Bible, it’s clear the Gutenberg includes the deuteros as part of the OT canon while the KJV includes the deuteros as apocrypha. It should be obvious to anyone who looks at them.

As to your question of why those who published the early KJV included the deuteros in their Bible? They probably felt uneasy removing the deuteros entirely from their Bible since every Bible printed or copied before the Reformation included these books. Apparently, as time went by, the uneasiness subsided since now hardly any Protestant Bibles contain these books.

(Here’s an aside about the KJV and the apocrypha–I read that in England, if you take an oath on the Bible, it must contain all the books of the Bible–including the 7 deuteros Protestants now reject.)

Janet,

Your last paragraph is a bit of cool trivia…thanks for posting that.

Also, I didn’t realize the Gutenberg Bible placed the deutero’s in a canonical status. I’ll try to read a little more on that.

 

[Calvinator]

But how can you add to something that was not there? There was no closed OT Canon, even among the Jews. The Catholic Church settled Her Canon in the 4th century - and this Canon included the Deutero’s. Trent merely affirmed this Canon.

I believe the Jews had a closed canon before the apostolic era…before Jamnia.

I do have a question for you on the “canon established in the 4th century” though. Do you believe that the councils of Rome and or Carthage (I think these were the councils we are talking about)…I don’t know the right phrase to use here…hmm…“bound” it upon Christians to accept the deutero’s as canonical?

What Protestant usually accuse the Church of doing is adding the Deutero’s to the Canon at Trent. This is why most of us on these forums assume that’s what you mean when you claim we added them.

Somwhere in this thread or another thread perhaps, I explained why I hate saying you guys “added” the deutero’s.

No, the KJV always considered it Apochryphal, even though it included it in the OT.

We agree. Why do you think some posters on this forum will bring this fact up? In other words, I’m not sure what it is supposed to prove.

 

[Calvinator]

I’ve never seen the Glossa. The only times I have heard about it are the times non-Catholics use it to support their claim that the deuteros are not canonical. Have you seen it or read it? How did you find out about it?

I don’t doubt that the Glossa included commentary from Jerome’s Prologues, and I have read his Prologues. One of his Prologues states that the deuteros cannot be used to determine doctrines. I wouldn’t be surprised if the Glossa did contain commentary from Jerome.

Still, I have seen the Gutenberg Bible from 1455 AD which contains the 7 deuteros among the OT books. They are not separated in a special appendix. I wonder why all Bibles before Trent do contain the deuteros when they were supposedly added after Trent. This is quite a mystery to me.

There was or maybe still is a website that had bits and pieces of the gloss available. I can try to find it…it would be interesting for all parties to take a look at. BTW, no I haven’t studied it.

I don’t remember when I first heard or read about the gloss. Maybe Beckwith (the one who recently swam the Tiber) did some work on it sometime back. I just don’t remember.

To address the “added” issue.

Look at it this way. We both agree that God only inspired a definite number of books and that He is certain of His canon. Any addition to that canon would be just that, an addition. That much I am sure we agree on.

Past that, we aren’t going to see eye to eye on the deutero’s.

I just realized…you guys have me typing “deutero’s” now instead of either “the books you call the deutero’s” or “the so-called deutero’s” or the dreaded “apocrypha”.

I’m spending too much time at CAF…slowly but surely you guys are wearing me down.