Apocrypha, Protestants, and Trent

  • Thread starter Thread starter George_Everson
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
G

George_Everson

Guest
Greetings.

As an evangelical Protestant I have been raised to look upon the Apocrypha as not of divine inspiration. The reasons I have been given for this are as follows:
  1. The Apocrypha was never quoted by Jesus.
  2. The Apocrypha was never quoted by Paul or the other Apostles.
  3. The Apocrypha was never universally accepted by the Early Church or the Church Fathers. (Though I have discovered Clement quoted from it prolifically.)
  4. The Apocrypha was only accepted by the Roman Catholic Church later in the Council of Trent.
I know that the Apocrypha is accepted by the Epicopal/Anglican communion as profitable for moral/ethical teachings but not for doctrine. Can someone please give me more information about whether these objections are valid and if not give me some info or ideas where to look regarding them?

In Christ,

George Everson
 
Here’s a good resource by Jimmy Akin: cin.org/users/james/files/deuteros.htm

Generally speaking:

In regards to #1 & #2, I don’t know that individually each book of the OT is quoted by Jesus/Paul/Apostles either.

Re #3&#4, some of what you’re calling the Apocrypha was accepted mroe readily than Reveltion or 2 Peter. It’s my understanding that in the 400s, the canon was essentially what it is today (in the Catholic Church) and it wasn’t until Trent when it needed to be re-iterated due to the Protestant Reformation.

Other good links (these are ones I have bookmarked):

matt1618.freeyellow.com/deut.html & matt1618.freeyellow.com/cloud.html (this latter one refutes 11 reasons why the deuterocanonicals should be tossed)

ewtn.com/library/ANSWERS/DEUTEROS.HTM

envoymagazine.com/backissues/1.2/marapril_story2.html (called 5 myths about 7 books)

catholic.com/library/Old_Testament_Canon.asp
 
George Everson:
Greetings.

As an evangelical Protestant I have been raised to look upon the Apocrypha as not of divine inspiration. The reasons I have been given for this are as follows:
  1. The Apocrypha was never quoted by Jesus.
  2. The Apocrypha was never quoted by Paul or the other Apostles.
  3. The Apocrypha was never universally accepted by the Early Church or the Church Fathers. (Though I have discovered Clement quoted from it prolifically.)
  4. The Apocrypha was only accepted by the Roman Catholic Church later in the Council of Trent.
Click to expand...
I can’t help wondering how this list was arrived at. Who decided this list is the proper means for determining canonicity and what was his authority for imposing this list?
 
Greetings, George,
George Everson:
Greetings.

As an evangelical Protestant I have been raised to look upon the Apocrypha as not of divine inspiration. The reasons I have been given for this are as follows:
  1. The Apocrypha was never quoted by Jesus.
Click to expand...
The same could be said for many of the books of the Old Testament.
George Everson:
  1. The Apocrypha was never quoted by Paul or the other Apostles.
Click to expand...
Again, the same could be said for many of the undisputed books.
George Everson:
  1. The Apocrypha was never universally accepted by the Early Church or the Church Fathers. (Though I have discovered Clement quoted from it prolifically.)
Click to expand...
This is just not factually correct. Yes, there were disputes between different bishops/different churches, especially during the 3rd and 4th centuries – but “universal acceptance” seems to be a phrase with little semantic content. Who determines “universal”?
George Everson:
  1. The Apocrypha was only accepted by the Roman Catholic Church later in the Council of Trent.
Click to expand...
Again, this is not factually correct. The first Ecumenical Council to actually deal with the Canon of Scripture at all was the Council of Florence, which pre-dated the Reformation. Florence promulgated a list of books in the Decree of Union with the Copts.

Trent, coming after the first generation reformers, reiterated what the Church had taught consistantly for more than 1000 years.
George Everson:
I know that the Apocrypha is accepted by the Epicopal/Anglican communion as profitable for moral/ethical teachings but not for doctrine. Can someone please give me more information about whether these objections are valid and if not give me some info or ideas where to look regarding them?
Click to expand...
This is true about the Episcopal church. Also some Lutheran bodies.

Hope that this helps.

Blessings,
 
David

Regarding what you said:

Again, this is not factually correct. The first Ecumenical Council to actually deal with the Canon of Scripture at all was the Council of Florence, which pre-dated the Reformation. Florence promulgated a list of books in the Decree of Union with the Copts.

Trent, coming after the first generation reformers, reiterated what the Church had taught consistantly for more than 1000 years.

Do you happen to know when the Council of Florence took place?
Was this an early church council or later. According to one of the sources I used to quote in my original letter (Josh McDowell–Evidence That Demands a Verdict) the earliest council that verified the whole canon of Scripture minus the Deuterocanonical books was something called the Synod of Carthage and then that according to McDowell only affirmed what the churches had already accepted. Again any comments would help.

Again, Blessings,

George
 
George Everson:
David

Do you happen to know when the Council of Florence took place?
Was this an early church council or later. According to one of the sources I used to quote in my original letter (Josh McDowell–Evidence That Demands a Verdict) the earliest council that verified the whole canon of Scripture minus the Deuterocanonical books was something called the Synod of Carthage and then that according to McDowell only affirmed what the churches had already accepted. Again any comments would help.

Again, Blessings,

George
Click to expand...
Council of Florence was convened 1438. It was actually a continuation of the Council of Basle.
 
George Everson:
David

Regarding what you said:

Again, this is not factually correct. The first Ecumenical Council to actually deal with the Canon of Scripture at all was the Council of Florence, which pre-dated the Reformation. Florence promulgated a list of books in the Decree of Union with the Copts.

Trent, coming after the first generation reformers, reiterated what the Church had taught consistantly for more than 1000 years.

Do you happen to know when the Council of Florence took place?
Was this an early church council or later. According to one of the sources I used to quote in my original letter (Josh McDowell–Evidence That Demands a Verdict) the earliest council that verified the whole canon of Scripture minus the Deuterocanonical books was something called the Synod of Carthage and then that according to McDowell only affirmed what the churches had already accepted. Again any comments would help.

Again, Blessings,

George
Click to expand...
There were several regional councils or synods at various places in the Roman Empire in the 4th and 5th centuries, including Carthage, Rome, and Hippo. We know this from records of these councils which still exist, and in cases where they no longer exist, from references to them from other council documents. The council held in Rome in the 380’s dealt with the Canon of Scripture – the FULL Canon of Scripture. St. Augustine of Hippo, who was present at several of these councils provided the FULL list of books in his work “On Christian Doctrine” early in the 5th century. Even if someone doesn’t wish to recognize that the council in Rome dealt with the Canon of Scripture, there is no doubt that Carthage and Hippo did – and that they submitted their decisions to Rome for approval and ratification. I am familiar with “Evidence that Demands a Verdict” and in this instance, Josh McDowell is incorrect, or is, at least, relying on incorrect sources.

Blessings,
 
I have not read all of the Deuterocanonicals yet. Here is a list of connections to the New Testament. I have not personally done any research on this subject beyond looking up the internet site. I will post the links to this site at the bottom of the quotes.

Matt. 2:16 - Herod’s decree of slaying innocent children was prophesied in Wis. 11:7 - slaying the holy innocents.

Matt. 6:19-20 - Jesus’ statement about laying up for yourselves treasure in heaven follows Sirach 29:11 - lay up your treasure.

Matt… 7:12 - Jesus’ golden rule “do unto others” is the converse of Tobit 4:15 - what you hate, do not do to others.

Matt. 7:16,20 - Jesus’ statement “you will know them by their fruits” follows Sirach 27:6 - the fruit discloses the cultivation.

Matt. 9:36 - the people were “like sheep without a shepherd” is same as Judith 11:19 - sheep without a shepherd.

Matt. 11:25 - Jesus’ description “Lord of heaven and earth” is the same as Tobit 7:18 - Lord of heaven and earth.

Matt. 12:42 - Jesus refers to the wisdom of Solomon which was recorded and made part of the deuterocanonical books.

Matt. 16:18 - Jesus’ reference to the “power of death” and “gates of Hades” references Wisdom 16:13.

Matt. 22:25; Mark 12:20; Luke 20:29 - Gospel writers refer to the canonicity of Tobit 3:8 and 7:11 regarding the seven brothers.

Matt. 24:15 - the “desolating sacrilege” Jesus refers to is also taken from 1 Macc. 1:54 and 2 Macc. 8:17.

Matt. 24:16 - let those “flee to the mountains” is taken from 1 Macc. 2:28.

Matt. 27:43 - if He is God’s Son, let God deliver him from His adversaries follows Wisdom 2:18.

Mark 4:5,16-17 - Jesus’ description of seeds falling on rocky ground and having no root follows Sirach 40:15.

Mark 9:48 - description of hell where their worm does not die and the fire is not quenched references Judith 16:17.

Luke 1:42 - Elizabeth’s declaration of Mary’s blessedness above all women follows Uzziah’s declaration in Judith 13:18.

Luke 1:52 - Mary’s magnificat addressing the mighty falling from their thrones and replaced by lowly follows Sirach 10:14.

Luke 2:29 - Simeon’s declaration that he is ready to die after seeing the Child Jesus follows Tobit 11:9.

Luke 13:29 - the Lord’s description of men coming from east and west to rejoice in God follows Baruch 4:37.

Luke 21:24 - Jesus’ usage of “fall by the edge of the sword” follows Sirach 28:18.

Luke 24:4 and Acts 1:10 - Luke’s description of the two men in dazzling apparel reminds us of 2 Macc. 3:26.

John 1:3 - all things were made through Him, the Word, follows Wisdom 9:1.

John 3:13 - who has ascended into heaven but He who descended from heaven references Baruch 3:29.

John 4:48; Acts 5:12; 15:12; 2 Cor. 12:12 - Jesus’, Luke’s and Paul’s usage of “signs and wonders” follows Wisdom 8:8.

John 5:18 - Jesus claiming that God is His Father follows Wisdom 2:16.

John 6:35-59 - Jesus’ Eucharistic discourse is foreshadowed in Sirach 24:21.

(Continued in the below post.)
 
John 10:22 - the identification of the feast of the dedication is taken from 1 Macc. 4:59.

John 10:36 – Jesus accepts the inspiration of Maccabees as He analogizes the Hanukkah consecration to His own consecration to the Father in 1 Macc. 4:36.

John 15:6 - branches that don’t bear fruit and are cut down follows Wis. 4:5 where branches are broken off.

Acts 1:15 - Luke’s reference to the 120 may be a reference to 1 Macc. 3:55 - leaders of tens / restoration of the twelve.

Acts 10:34; Rom. 2:11; Gal. 2:6 - Peter’s and Paul’s statement that God shows no partiality references Sirach 35:12.

Acts 17:29 - description of false gods as like gold and silver made by men follows Wisdom 13:10.

Rom 1:18-25 - Paul’s teaching on the knowledge of the Creator and the ignorance and sin of idolatry follows Wis. 13:1-10.

Rom. 1:20 - specifically, God’s existence being evident in nature follows Wis. 13:1.

Rom. 1:23 - the sin of worshipping mortal man, birds, animals and reptiles follows Wis. 11:15; 12:24-27; 13:10; 14:8.

Rom. 1:24-27 - this idolatry results in all kinds of sexual perversion which follows Wis. 14:12,24-27.

Rom. 4:17 - Abraham is a father of many nations follows Sirach 44:19.

Rom. 5:12 - description of death and sin entering into the world is similar to Wisdom 2:24.

Rom. 9:21 - usage of the potter and the clay, making two kinds of vessels follows Wisdom 15:7.

1 Cor. 2:16 - Paul’s question, “who has known the mind of the Lord?” references Wisdom 9:13.

1 Cor. 6:12-13; 10:23-26 - warning that, while all things are good, beware of gluttony, follows Sirach 36:18 and 37:28-30.

1 Cor. 8:5-6 - Paul acknowledging many “gods” but one Lord follows Wis. 13:3.

1 Cor. 10:1 - Paul’s description of our fathers being under the cloud passing through the sea refers to Wisdom 19:7.

1 Cor. 10:20 - what pagans sacrifice they offer to demons and not to God refers to Baruch 4:7.

1 Cor. 15:29 - if no expectation of resurrection, it would be foolish to be baptized on their behalf follows 2 Macc. 12:43-45.

Eph. 1:17 - Paul’s prayer for a “spirit of wisdom” follows the prayer for the spirit of wisdom in Wisdom 7:7.

Eph. 6:14 - Paul describing the breastplate of righteousness is the same as Wis. 5:18. See also Isaiah 59:17 and 1 Thess. 5:8.

Eph. 6:13-17 - in fact, the whole discussion of armor, helmet, breastplate, sword, shield follows Wis. 5:17-20.

1 Tim. 6:15 - Paul’s description of God as Sovereign and King of kings is from 2 Macc. 12:15; 13:4.

2 Tim. 4:8 - Paul’s description of a crown of righteousness is similar to Wisdom 5:16.

Heb. 4:12 - Paul’s description of God’s word as a sword is similar to Wisdom 18:15.

Heb. 11:5 - Enoch being taken up is also referenced in Wis 4:10 and Sir 44:16. See also 2 Kings 2:1-13 & Sir 48:9 regarding Elijah.

Heb 11:35 - Paul teaches about the martyrdom of the mother and her sons described in 2 Macc. 7:1-42.

Heb. 12:12 - the description “drooping hands” and “weak knees” comes from Sirach 25:23.

James 1:19 - let every man be quick to hear and slow to respond follows Sirach 5:11.

James 2:23 - it was reckoned to him as righteousness follows 1 Macc. 2:52 - it was reckoned to him as righteousness.

James 3:13 - James’ instruction to perform works in meekness follows Sirach 3:17.

James 5:3 - describing silver which rusts and laying up treasure follows Sirach 29:10-11.

James 5:6 - condemning and killing the “righteous man” follows Wisdom 2:10-20.

1 Peter 1:6-7 - Peter teaches about testing faith by purgatorial fire as described in Wisdom 3:5-6 and Sirach 2:5.

1 Peter 1:17 - God judging each one according to his deeds refers to Sirach 16:12 - God judges man according to his deeds.

2 Peter 2:7 - God’s rescue of a righteous man (Lot) is also described in Wisdom 10:6.

Rev. 1:4 – the seven spirits who are before his throne is taken from Tobit 12:15 – Raphael is one of the seven holy angels who present the prayers of the saints before the Holy One.

Rev. 1:18; Matt. 16:18 - power of life over death and gates of Hades follows Wis. 16:13.

Rev. 2:12 - reference to the two-edged sword is similar to the description of God’s Word in Wisdom 18:16.

Rev. 5:7 - God is described as seated on His throne, and this is the same description used in Sirach 1:8.

Rev. 8:3-4 - prayers of the saints presented to God by the hand of an angel follows Tobit 12:12,15.

Rev. 8:7 - raining of hail and fire to the earth follows Wisdom 16:22 and Sirach 39:29.

Rev. 9:3 - raining of locusts on the earth follows Wisdom 16:9.

Rev. 11:19 - the vision of the ark of the covenant (Mary) in a cloud of glory was prophesied in 2 Macc. 2:7.

Rev. 17:14 - description of God as King of kings follows 2 Macc. 13:4.

Rev. 19:1 - the cry “Hallelujah” at the coming of the new Jerusalem follows Tobit 13:18. Rev. 19:11 - the description of the Lord on a white horse in the heavens follows 2 Macc. 3:25; 11:8.
 
George Everson:
  1. The Apocrypha was only accepted by the Roman Catholic Church later in the Council of Trent.
Click to expand...
This is a blanket statement. One only needs to show the Catholic church accepting these books before the Council of Trent to negate the statement.

I will now show precisely this with a lesson in history - not something I knew until a couple of years ago even after two theology degrees. I will begin by looking at something that we agree about, namely the canon of the New Testament.

Qu: When was the New Testament canon ratified by the Church, with the 27 books that we now have?

Ans: 397AD at the third Synod of Carthage.

ntcanon.org/Carthage.canon.shtml (an excellent site on the development of the New Testament canon) states:

The first council that accepted the present New Testament canon was the Synod of Hippo Regius in North Africa (393 CE); however, the acts of the council are lost. A brief summary of the acts was read at and accepted by the third Synod of Carthage. Canon 24. Besides the canonical Scriptures, nothing shall be read in church under the name of divine Scriptures. Moreover, the canonical Scriptures are these: [then follows a list of Old Testament books]. The [books of the] New Testament: the Gospels, four books; the Acts of the Apostles, one book; the Epistles of Paul, thirteen; of the same to the Hebrews; one Epistle; of Peter, two; of John, apostle, three; of James, one; of Jude, one; the Revelation of John. Concerning the confirmation of this canon, the transmarine Church shall be consulted. On the anniversaries of martyrs, their acts shall also be read.

Now, this may seem irrelevant to the question asked about the Old Testament canon. However, this is the Council that finalised our New Testament canon, which is shared by Catholics and Protestants. The above quotation can be found on numerous Protestant sites showing how we got the New Testament canon, thus in effect accepting the authority of the Synods to say what is and isn’t in the New Testament.

Actually even after this time people discussed what was and wasn’t in the New Testament. That discussion eventually died down, only to resurface in the 1500s in the works of men like Luther.

What is surprising is the section of the above quotation, found on many protestant websites that states “[then follows a list of Old Testament books]”. I’ve managed to find the full text of the Synod at this site:

ccel.org/fathers2/NPNF2-14/Npnf2-14-146.htm#P7929_1616178

Here is that list of Old Testament books that I have not managed to find on a Protestant site:

Genesis. Exodus. Leviticus. Numbers. Deuteronomy. Joshua the Son of Nun. The Judges. Ruth. The Kings, iv. books. The Chronicles, ij. books. Job. The Psalter. The Five books of Solomon. The Twelve Books of the Prophets. Isaiah. Jeremiah. Ezechiel. Daniel. Tobit. Judith. Esther. Ezra, ij. books. Macchabees, ij. books.

That list, and the full text of the Synod, took some hunting for even though I knew it existed! I found it from here, which looks like a simple way to find the texts of lots of Church Councils with brief notes on important decrees:

community-2.webtv.net/Tales_of_the_Western_World/SYNOD/

Anyway, check the list of the Canon of the Old Testament, as decreed by the same synod that decreed the New Testament canon - a synod quoted as an authority by many protestant sites as authoritative.

Qu: What do you notice about the list?

Ans: It includes the books you call “The Apocrypha”

So, while it is true that the clearest statement of the OT canon anywhere in Catholic history indeed was at the Council of Trent, it is not true that the Catholic Church did not accept the full canon before that time.

The reason that the Council of Trent stated things so utterly clearly was that men were, by their own choice, removing books from Scripture - both from the Old and New Testaments. Therefore the Council had to take a stand and clearly reaffirm the full canon.

I hope this information (including the links) is of use to someone.
 
George Everson:
Do you happen to know when the Council of Florence took place?
Was this an early church council or later. According to one of the sources I used to quote in my original letter (Josh McDowell–Evidence That Demands a Verdict) the earliest council that verified the whole canon of Scripture minus the Deuterocanonical books was something called the Synod of Carthage and then that according to McDowell only affirmed what the churches had already accepted. Again any comments would help.
Click to expand...
I too have that book (both volumes, and another of his “defence of the faith” books). They have often been very useful to me.

I have also just found the entire text from the Councils of Carthage online. It can be found here:

synaxis.org/ecf/volume37/ECF37THE_CANONS_OF_THE_CCXVII_BLESSED.htm

Josh McDowell, though often a very good writer and defender of Christian doctrines, is in this case wrong. The canon of Scripture, as stated at Carthage, includes the “apocrypha”. Even Josh McDowell needs to be checked against historical documents sometimes.

I have got to thank you - I needed encouragement to look these things up, have meant to for months, and finally this evening have gotten round to it. Thanks for that.

The text from the Council states as follows:

**CANON XXIV. (Greek xxvii.) **

**That nothing be read in church besides the Canonical Scripture. **

ITEM, that besides the Canonical Scriptures nothing be read in church under the name of divine Scripture.

**But the Canonical Scriptures are as follows: **

Genesis. Exodus. Leviticus. Numbers. Deuteronomy. Joshua the Son of Nun. The Judges. Ruth. The Kings, iv. books. The Chronicles, ij. books. Job. The Psalter. The Five books of Solomon. The Twelve Books of the Prophets. Isaiah. Jeremiah. Ezechiel. Daniel. Tobit. Judith. Esther. Ezra, ij. books. Macchabees, ij. books.

**THE NEW TESTAMENT. **

The Gospels, iv. books. The Acts of the Apostles, j. book. The Epistles of Paul, xiv. The Epistles of Peter, the Apostle, ij. The Epistles of John the Apostle, iij. The Epistles of James the Apostle, j. The Epistle of Jude the Apostle, j. The Revelation of John, j. book.

Let this be sent to our brother and fellow bishop, Boniface, and to the other bishops of those parts, that they may confirm this canon, for these are the things which we have received from our fathers to be read in church.
 
George Everson:
Greetings.

As an evangelical Protestant I have been raised to look upon the Apocrypha as not of divine inspiration. The reasons I have been given for this are as follows:
  1. The Apocrypha was only accepted by the Roman Catholic Church later in the Council of Trent.
Click to expand...
Is there a version of the bible that predates the Reformation that *excludes * the deuterocanonicals? What about the eastern orthodox and eastern catholic churches - all of whom accept various deuterocanonical books as inspired? Their acceptances also predate the Reformation.
 
George Everson said:
3. The Apocrypha was never universally accepted by the Early Church or the Church Fathers. (Though I have discovered Clement quoted from it prolifically.)
Click to expand...

Just another thought before I finally get off this computer and go to bed.

You say that the Apocrypha was “never universally accepted by the Early Church or the Church Fathers”.

Are you saying that to be in the canon of Scripture, a book has to have been universally accepted by the Early Church?

If so, just how early are we talking about?

If so, why do include the New Testament books in your Bible that were not universally accepted by the early church?

Qu: Which New Testament books were universally accepted by the early church?

Ans: universally, none of them.

Here’s a table showing which books were included in each list of scripture we find in early church writings:

ntcanon.org/table.shtml

Perhaps you could count the Gospel of Matthew as universally accepted as the only list it doesn’t appear in was that proposed by Marcion and the Marcionites - but Marcion was a heretic so that doesn’t really count. After all, he rejected the entire Old Testament.

But apart from Matthew, universal acceptance of any book in the early church centuries does not exist.

Therefore if for this reason (3) you reject the “apocrypha” as not of divine inspiration, you must reject the entire New Testament as well, with possible exception of Matthew.

Whooops, that thought was longer than planned. Sorry.
 
George Everson said:
4. The Apocrypha was only accepted by the Roman Catholic Church later in the Council of Trent.
Click to expand...

In that case, the entire canon of scripture, including the entire New Testament, was only accepted at the Council of Trent. For there is no earlier council which lists a canon that does not include the deuterocanonicals. To put it another way, every time that a council has listed the canon, they have included the deuterocanonicals.
 
First, Deb, thanks for the list; I have bookmarked the link.

Now, a personal observation: I find all kinds of things in the Deuterocanon/Apocrypha that are quoted in the NT. I have also found any number of prophesies of Christ in there…I think that reading these books, with an open mind, & some knowledge of the NT, provides astounding correlations.
 
40.png
asteroid:
You say that the Apocrypha was “never universally accepted by the Early Church or the Church Fathers”.

Are you saying that to be in the canon of Scripture, a book has to have been universally accepted by the Early Church?
I am again going by what Josh McDowell wrote in his book Evidence that Demands a Verdict
Click to expand...
. McDowell’s contention is that the individual churches reached a consensus on what was canonical long before a church council decided matters. The church councils, according to McDowell, only finalized what had already been determined in most of the local congregations.

Does this statement by McDowell pass historic scrutiny?

George
Click to expand...
 
George Everson:
I am again going by what Josh McDowell wrote in his book Evidence that Demands a Verdict. McDowell’s contention is that the individual churches reached a consensus on what was canonical long before a church council decided matters. The church councils, according to McDowell, only finalized what had already been determined in most of the local congregations.

Does this statement by McDowell pass historic scrutiny?

George
Click to expand...
Hi George,

No, it really doesn’t. Documents from the early 4th century demonstrate real divisions amongst local churches in this area. The councils (and the bishops) played a much larger role than McDowell woudl indicate.

Blessings,
 
George Everson:
I am again going by what Josh McDowell wrote in his book Evidence that Demands a Verdict. McDowell’s contention is that the individual churches reached a consensus on what was canonical long before a church council decided matters. The church councils, according to McDowell, only finalized what had already been determined in most of the local congregations.

Does this statement by McDowell pass historic scrutiny?

George
Click to expand...
The biggest problem with his statement is that individual churches sometime rejected books like Revelation, while others accepted the letter of Clement to the Corinthians. Individual churches can’t be the barometer.
 
I know this was posted earlier, but it can’t be over-emphasized - There are thousands of bibles pre-dating Trent that were approved by the Catholic Church.

All you have to do is find ONE of them that does not include the Deuterocanonicals (aka “Apochrypha”), and your argument has merit.

While it is true that St. Jerome argued against the canonicity of the Deut’s, he eventually gave in. This is because he recognized Church Authority, perhaps? I understand one of his complaints is that there were none of the Deut’s written in Hebrew. Since then, we’ve discovered some of these books in the Dead Sea Scrolls that are in the original Aramaic or Hebrew.

Take Care!

Notworthy
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top