Bible Canon

[RNRobert]

Tom:

Those who reject those 7 books have never studied them with an open heart and in reflection to the teachings of our Lord, Jesus the Christ.
Other than those books can you show Old Testament reference to the resurrection? How about the sermon on the mount? The Lord’s prayer? The teachings of Jesus on marriage? The cure of the woman with 7 evil spirits? The curing of the blind? Etc… et…
Read those books with an open heart. There is more Christian teaching drawn from them than the entire rest of Scripture! Sit with a pencil and paper and read Sirach, jot down the teachings of Jesus, caution! You’ll get writers cramp! To say they were not used by our Lord is ridiculous.

Here is a passage from one of the Deuterocanonical books:

**“Let us beset the just one, because he is obnoxious to us; he sets himself against our doings, Reproaches us for transgressions of the law and charges us with violations of our training. He professes himself to have knowledge of God and styles himself a child of the Lord. To us he is the censure of our thoughts; merely to see him is a hardship for us, Because his life is not like other men’s, and different are his ways. He judges us debased; he holds aloof from our paths as from things impure. He calls blest the destiny of the just and boasts that God is his Father. Let us see whether his words be true; let us find out what will happen to him. For if the just one be the son of God, he will defend him and deliver him from the hand of his foes. With revilement and torture let us put him to the test that we may have proof of his gentleness and try his patience. Let us condemn him to a shameful death; for according to his own words, God will take care of him.” These were their thoughts, but they erred; for their wickedness blinded them, And they knew not the hidden counsels of God; neither did they count on a recompense of holiness nor discern the innocent souls’ reward. **Wisdom 2:12-21

When I first read this passage (two years before becoming Catholic) I was blown away! To me this passage seemed to echo the reaction of the Jewish leaders to the Messiah. Being as this book was written a century or a two before the birth of Christ, I felt it had to be a prophesy!

 

[Tom]

Great point, and the beginning of Chap 2 (1-11) speak of the resurrection and several of Christ’s teachings Wis 2,1 they who said among themselves, thinking not aright: (10) Let us oppress the needy just man; let us neither spare the widow nor revere the old man for his hair groun white with time. But let our strength be our norm of justice; for weakness proves itself useless.
Pt 1,6 read Wis 3,5-6
The references are endless

 

[Maccabees]

Protestant Biblical schoalrs also now admit that the early chapters of Romans were Paul’s interpretation of some chapters on the Book of Wisdom and of course Hebrews mentions a story only referred to in 2 Maccabees so not only do we have the most explicit Messianic prophecy in the dueteros but a direct referce to them in Hebrews and transliteration of one of the duteros by the apostle Paul.

 

[mayra_hart]

the official canon of the bible was authoritatively determined by the catholic church in the fourth century. thus it is from the catholic church that the protestants have a bible at all. madre de dios ;tu ere la mas pura de alma y cuerpo. amen

 

[bbas_64]

oat soda:

bbas 64,
Protestant apocrypha is not Catholic apocrypha!!! Why would a catholic encyclopedia call the deuterocanonicals apocrypha? Apocrypha are the books Catholics don’t accept: The Book of Henoch (Ethiopic), Assumption of Moses, Fourth Book of Esdras ,Apocalypse of Baruch,…etc. newadvent.org/cathen/01601a.htm#I

historical backing? the oldest existant septuagint bibles from the 4th and 5th centuries contain all of these books and the Jews of Eithiopia use the same old testament canon as Catholics have in thier bibles. how is that not historical? the oldest complete new testament dates from the same period. why not question their historical veracity? besides, where in scripture does it say how to decide on which books are canonical? this flies in the face of sola scriptura which states the bible alone is the sole rule of faith.

Good Day, Oatsoda

I little foot note that I should have included, but did not because I belived this was well know, sorry

The term “apocrypha” was coined by the fifth-century biblical scholar

St. Jerome and refers to the biblical books included as part of the Septuagint (the Greek version of the Old Testament), but not included in the Hebrew Bible.

The Historians that wrote in the source where using an historical veiw when they used the word “apocrypha”, as you can see in thier quote they use Jerome as a source, for historical reference. So they are consistant in the historical use of the word.

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

Jerome
Jerome’s preface to the books of Solomon

Peace to u,

Bill

 

[Malachi4U]

Reformed Rob:

…I will present some of the arguments.reasons from a book I have read which touches on this subject. The book is
How We Got the Bible by Neil R. Lightfoot…

Reformed Bob,

I hope you looked at numerous other books including Catholic, Jewish and protestant before you came to your conclusion. I hope you researched the footnotes and sources in those books too.

I used to believe like you for 27 years of my adult life. One day I reseached “BOTH” sides and now I am Catholic. I discovered I was lied to and that bad information and opinion was written in many books. I now know the truth and I am Home in the Catholic Church now.

I do not study Jewish history with books written by NAZI’s and I do not reley on protestant books to be unbias in Catholic history. You must research both sides and find the authors who where fair and honest.

The truth is out there, I hope you find it.

As for some of your points, (or the author you quote)

You use the word Apocrypha to describe books written before the word applied to them, so you too should accept St. Peter/Kephas as the first “Pope” too then. (Its a 2-way street)

“Apocrypha were not accepted as Scripture by:
Philo, Josephus, Jewish council at Jamnia (A.D. 90), Origen or Jerome.”

The Jewish council at Jamnia threw out ALL books written in Greek. This was to combat the "RE"formation of their Church by Christ and His Greek speakers/readers (i.e. Catholic Christians). As a result you violate their rulling by using the NT which was entirely in Greek! There have also been found deuterocanonical Hebrew/Aramaic texts which were written prior to 90 A.D. once again proving this council wrong since they obviously only had access to the “Books/Scrolls” available to them. Other Jews still use the books this council trashed. Remeber, in 70 A.D. the Romans burned their temple, the Jews only saved the Scrolls the could get out. Can you tell me they saved every scroll or hid them all at one location? The Gospel of God is verbal anyway and I can still get to heaven and never read or hear one verse of Scripture! I am justified by my Faith and ‘saved’ by Gods grace. Scripture is just a tool, albiet an important tool.

Using the council of Jamnia to prove the 66 book Bible is like CBS using forged documents to prove their point. Sure the documents were forged but the information is correct.:whacky: Evidance is only evidance if it is valid! Is the council at Jamnia was valid evidence then you need to be Jewish and toss out the entire NT. You can’t just sift through and pick and choose the good parts and ignore the parts your don’t like. The council at Jamnia was made up entirely of “NON”-Christians. These Jews were so good according to your author that that denied JESUS! If the Jews at Jamnia were so holy and correct, why do you accept Jesus if the Jews at Jamnia denied Him? To accept this groups judgement is unbelievable coming form a Christian. I don’t use NAZI trials against Jews as evidence of Jewish wrongdoing.

I might add that Jerome and Origen as I recall DID accept these books as cannonical. They may have taken time to accept it as Scripture but is a person any less ‘saved’ if they accept Jesus late in life?

No need to discuss other points as I proved my case with just these. Do more research on the subject. To study history is to become Catholic as someone said. I found out its true.

 

[RNRobert]

Tom:

Great point, and the beginning of Chap 2 (1-11) speak of the resurrection and several of Christ’s teachings Wis 2,1 they who said among themselves, thinking not aright: (10) Let us oppress the needy just man; let us neither spare the widow nor revere the old man for his hair groun white with time. But let our strength be our norm of justice; for weakness proves itself useless.
Pt 1,6 read Wis 3,5-6
The references are endless

After reading passages like that, I can understand why the Jews wanted the deuteros out of their Bible!

 

[itsjustdave1988]

These books (apocrypha) were never included in the Hebrew canon of the OT

Let’s test this claim, shall we?

Theodotian was a Jew of the 2nd century. He translated the book of Daniel into Greek. His recession of Daniel is the one appearing in EVERY Greek manuscript. It was initially rejected by St. Jerome, but later he accepted it against his own personal preferance because, in his words, “What sin have I committed if I follow the judgment of the churches?” (Against Rufinius, (Against Rufinius 11:33 [A.D. 401]).

My question to Protestants …

If you merely accept the scholarship of Jerome, why do you reject the Theodotian recession of Daniel, when he himself accepted it due to the judgment of the Churches?

Why do you accept the authority of Jews who rejected Christ over the authority of Christian Churches? Are you following your own personal opinion, the opinion of those who reject Christ, or the judgment of the Churches (as St. Jerome did)?

 

[itsjustdave1988]

Mike Campana:

Why don’t non-Catholic religions recognize the 7 Books from the Old Testament, that are not in their Bibles?.

Catholics and Orthodox and even some Protestants accept those seven books as Sacred Scripture. This is more of a internal protestant dispute. You’ll find that there are many things such as this that Protestants cannot seem to agree upon.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

bbas64,

So I’m clear about your assertion, are you meaning to say that the New Catholic Encyclopedia reference you provided above New Catholic Encyclopedia, vol. I (Washington D.C.: Catholic University, 1967), p. 390. ] is referring to the seven deuterocanonical books and the parts of Esther and Daniel that were canonized in the 4th century, affirmed in by the Ecumenical Council of Florence in the 15th century, and again at the Council of Trent in the 16th century?

Is it your contention that that Catholic reference is stating that those books are filled with heresy? Please clarify. I will check this reference on the way home from work. Are you sure you have the quote correct? What article are you citing from?

Not that I question your scholastic integrity or or scholastic rigor, but … Ok, I am.

Furthermore, your Jerome commentaries predate the canonization of Scripture. Read his *Against Rufinius *(AD 401)where he shows that he clearly changed his mind regarding his earlier views and cites the judgment of the Churches as his reason.

 

[Tom]

To those of you who deny the validity of these 7 books I offer a challenge and a warning. The challenge; read these books with an open heart, pray that the Holy Spirit guide you, do not seek guidance from either a Catholic nor a non-Catholic. Allow only the Holy Spirit to guide you. Start with Wisdom, the Sirach, Tobit, and the rest. Keep a pad of paper and several pens or pencils, jot down the teachings of Jesus, you’ll get writers cramp, but continue. After you’ve finished reading them once, read them again, they’re not that long. When you finish, you will wonder if Jesus really used any books other than these. You’ll find teachings of Jesus that are nowhere else in Scripture. You’ll find the Lord’s Prayer, the Beatitudes, the teachings of the resurrection, Jesus’ teachings of marriage being the two becoming one and the marriage being everlasting, a beautiful prophesy of the treatment of our Lord, etc, etc, etc,
Now the warning: when you’re finished reading them twice, you’re faith in your Church and teachers who claim these books are not inspired will be shaken. You’ll see Catholic teachings and realize that the Catholic Church was right. Then welcome home to the Catholic Church.
May the peace and love of our Lord, Jesus the Christ, be with you and may His Holy Spirit guide you to truth.
Tom

 

[bbas_64]

itsjustdave1988:

Let’s test this claim, shall we?

Theodotian was a Jew of the 2nd century. He translated the book of Daniel into Greek. His recession of Daniel is the one appearing in EVERY Greek manuscript. It was initially rejected by St. Jerome, but later he accepted it against his own personal preferance because, in his words, “What sin have I committed if I follow the judgment of the churches?” (Against Rufinius, (Against Rufinius 11:33 [A.D. 401]).

My question to Protestants …

If you merely accept the scholarship of Jerome, why do you reject the Theodotian recession of Daniel, when he himself accepted it due to the judgment of the Churches?

Why do you accept the authority of Jews who rejected Christ over the authority of Christian Churches? Are you following your own personal opinion, the opinion of those who reject Christ, or the judgment of the Churches (as St. Jerome did)?

Good Day, Dave

I do not see how this passage is germaine to lack of historical support for the Apo. being part of the Cannon. I am accepting the Historical prospective of Jerome with reguards to what the cannon of the OT and the fact that the Apo. was not seen as such by the ECFS whom where seen as:

“It is interesting to note that the only two Fathers of the early Church who are considered to be true biblical scholars, Jerome and Origen (and who both spent time in the area of Palestine and were therefore familiar with the Hebrew canon), rejected the Apocrypha.”

1. In reference to Daniel my answer will be that I did not say that he was not a prophet; on the contrary, I confessed in the very beginning of the Preface that he was a prophet. But I wished to show what was the opinion upheld by the Jews; and what were the arguments on which they relied for its proof. I also told the reader that the version read in the Christian churches was not that of the Septuagint translators but that of Theodotion. It is true, I said that the Septuagint version was in this book very different from the original, and that it was condemned by the right judgment of the churches of Christ; but the fault was not mine who only stated the fact, but that of those who read the version. We have four versions to choose from: those of Aquila, Symmachus, the Seventy, and Theodotion. The churches choose to read Daniel in the version of Theodotion. What sin have I committed in following the judgment of the churches? But when I repeat what the Jews say against the Story of Susanna and the Hymn of the Three Children, and the fables of Bel and the Dragon, which are not contained in the Hebrew Bible, the man who makes this a charge against me proves himself to be a fool and a slanderer; for I explained not what I thought but what they commonly say against us. I did not reply to their opinion in the Preface, because I was studying brevity, and feared that I should seem to he writing not a Preface but a book. I said therefore, “As to which this is not the time to enter into discussion.” Otherwise from the fact that I stated that Porphyry had said many things against this prophet, and called, as witnesses of this, Methodius, Eusebius, and Apollinarius, who have replied to his folly in many thousand lines, it will be in his power to accuse me for not baring written in my Preface against the books of Porphyry. If there is any one who pays attention to silly things like this, I must tell him loudly and free that no one is compelled to read what he does not want; that I wrote for those who asked me, not for those who would scorn me, for the grateful not the carping, for the earnest not the indifferent. Still, I wonder that a man should read the version of Theodotion the heretic and judaizer, and should scorn that of a Christian, simple and sinful though he may be.

Peace to u,

Bill

 

[bbas_64]

itsjustdave1988:

bbas64,

So I’m clear about your assertion, are you meaning to say that the New Catholic Encyclopedia reference you provided above New Catholic Encyclopedia, vol. I (Washington D.C.: Catholic University, 1967), p. 390. ] is referring to the seven deuterocanonical books and the parts of Esther and Daniel that were canonized in the 4th century, affirmed in by the Ecumenical Council of Florence in the 15th century, and again at the Council of Trent in the 16th century?.

Is it your contention that that Catholic reference is stating that those books are filled with heresy? Please clarify. I will check this reference on the way home from work. Are you sure you have the quote correct? What article are you citing from?.

Good day, Dave

Yes, that is what that source says in dealing with the historical view of these books, I believe there where 4 Catholic historians that colaberated on that work.

.

Not that I question your scholastic integrity or or scholastic rigor, but … Ok, I am. .

That is ok Dave that you would do this live and learn

.

Furthermore, your Jerome commentaries predate the canonization of Scripture. Read his *Against Rufinius *(AD 401)where he shows that he clearly changed his mind regarding his earlier views and cites the judgment of the Churches as his reason.

While it is true that Jerome pre dates Trent, but for the sake of history his comments loom large. I have gone back and read the work you site and fail to see your point. But there is some good questions that Jerome raises in that work.

Contuined on next post *****************

 

[bbas_64]

---

1. I beg you, my most sweet friend, who are so curious that you even know my dreams, and that yon scrutinize for purposes of accusations all that I have written during these many years without fear of future calumny; answer me, how is it you do not know the prefaces of the very books on which you ground your charges against me? These prefaces, as if by some prophetic foresight, gave the answer to the calumnies that were coming, thus fulfilling the proverb, “The antidote before the poison.” What harm has been done to the churches by my translation?You bought up, as I knew, at great cost the versions of Aquila, Symmachus, and Theodotion, and the Jewish authors of the fifth and sixth translations. Your Origen, or, that I may not seem to be wounding you with fictitious praises, our Origen,(for I may call him ours for his genius and learning, though not for the truth of his doctrines) in all his books explains and expounds not only the Septuagint but the Jewish versions. Eusebius and Didymus do the same. I do not mention Apollinarius, who, with a laudable zeal though not according to knowledge, attempted to patch up into one garment the rags of all the translations, and to weave a consistent text of Scripture at his own discretion, not according to any sound rule of criticism. The Hebrew Scriptures are used by apostolic men; they are used, as is evident, by the apostles and evangelists. Our Lord and Saviour himself whenever he refers to the Scriptures, takes his quotations from the Hebrew; as in the instance of the words65 “He that believeth on me, as the Scripture hath said, out of his belly shall flow rivers of living water,” and in the words used on the cross itself, “Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani,” which is by interpretation “My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?” not, as it is given by the Septuagint, “My God, my God, look upon me, why hast thou forsaken me?” and many similar cases. I do not say this in order to aim a blow at the seventy translators; but I assert that the Apostles of Christ bare an authority superior to theirs. Wherever the Seventy agree with the Hebrew, the apostles took their quotations from that translation; but, where they disagree, they set down in Greek what they had found in the Hebrew. And further, I give a challenge to my accuser. I have shown that many things are set down in the New Testament as coming from the older books, which are not to be found in the Septuagint; and I have pointed out that these exist in the Hebrew. Now let him show that there is anything in the New Testament which comes from the Septuagint but which is not found in the Hebrew, and our controversy is at an end.

ccel.org/fathers2/NPNF2-03/Npnf2-03-43.htm#P9212_2476145

Jerome seems to be making very good case here that there were two different sources the Septuagint and the Hebrew. Now I will agree that the Septuagint held other Greek writings, that were not part of the Hebrew. But the Apostles in his 'Jerome’s" mind allways corrected the Spetuagint with the Hebrew.

So here is the question, that I can not find a response to Jerome in all the reading I have done. It was never shown that there were thing in the NT that came from the Septuagint, that were not found in the Hebrew. Do any exist??

Peace to u,

Bill

 

[Reformed_Rob]

Malachi4U:

Reformed Bob,

I hope you looked at numerous other books including Catholic, Jewish and protestant before you came to your conclusion. I hope you researched the footnotes and sources in those books too.

I used to believe like you for 27 years of my adult life. One day I reseached “BOTH” sides and now I am Catholic. I discovered I was lied to and that bad information and opinion was written in many books. I now know the truth and I am Home in the Catholic Church now.

I do not study Jewish history with books written by NAZI’s and I do not reley on protestant books to be unbias in Catholic history. You must research both sides and find the authors who where fair and honest.

The truth is out there, I hope you find it.
/QUOTE]

Hey,

Thanks for the kind response. I’m actually reading things from each side in regards to this. I realized those arguments were weak from that book I quoted, mainly because there were no references for the claims he was making. I expect that “Not by Scripture Alone” will be a huge help in this matter, though I’ve read Francis de Sales “Catholic Controversy” and Rev. Henry Graham’s “Where we Got the Bible,” and each of those were excellent.

It’s very intimidating to consider understanding all the “ins and outs” of this issue.

 

[mayra_hart]

martin luther himself admits that christians owe their bible to the efforts of the catholic church:clapping: : we are obliged to yield many things to the papists[catholics]-that they possess the word of god which we received from them,otherwise we should have known nothing at all about it.:clapping: santa maria madre de dios

 

[itsjustdave1988]

bbas 64,

Yes, that is what that source says in dealing with the historical view of these books, I believe there where 4 Catholic historians that colaberated on that work.

So your stickin with your story? This proves you either lack scholastic integrity or scholastic rigor.

I happened to have stopped by the library on the way home. I read the New Catholic Encyclopedia article on ‘apocrypha.’ Your assertion that this source included the deuterocanonicals in their understanding of apocrypha is completely false. They listed the books they considered apocrypha, and it included such works as 3 and 4 Maccabees, Jubilees, Enoch, etc, etc. The discussion regarding the historical canonicity of the deuterocanonical books was not discussed in that article, but was discussed in volume III of the reference, under the article “canon, biblical.”

So which is it, Bill, were you being purposefully deceptive or merely ignorant?

 

[itsjustdave1988]

While it is true that Jerome pre dates Trent

Yes, but more importantly they also predated the synod of Rome, Hippo, and Carthage. Yet his acceptance of the larger recession of Daniel shows that he changed his view because of the judgement of the Churches. Protestants do not follow Jerome’s scholarship, or they too would accept the judgment of the Churches.

According to **Protestant **scholar Phillip Schaff:

The council of Hippo in 393, and the third (according to another reckoning the sixth) council of Carthage in 397, under the influence of Augustine, who attended both, fixed the catholic canon of the Holy Scriptures, including the Apocrypha of the Old Testament, and prohibited the reading of other books in the churches

… This decision of the transmarine church however, was subject to ratification; and the concurrence of the Roman see it received when Innocent I. and Gelasius I. (a.d. 414) repeated the same index of biblical books.

This canon remained undisturbed till the sixteenth century, and was sanctioned by the council of Trent at its fourth session.

(Schaff, P., History of the Christian Church, Ch. IX, § 118. Sources of Theology – Scripture and Tradition.)

Seems to me if ‘historical basis’ is the consideration, the Catholic Bible was fixed over 1000 years before Protestant even entered the heretical minds of the Reformers.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

I have gone back and read the work you site and fail to see your point.

Here’s the point… St. Jerome in his preface to the book of Daniel raised objections to the canonicity to the story of Susannah, the Song of the Three Children, and the story of Bel and the Dragon. Yet, after the canons of the 4th century were decreed, he wrote the following:

“What sin have I committed if I follow the judgment of the churches? But he who brings charges against me for relating [in my preface to the book of Daniel] the objections that the Hebrews are wont to raise against the story of Susannah [Dan. 13], the Song of the Three Children [Dan. 3:29–68, RSV-CE], and the story of Bel and the Dragon [Dan. 14], which are not found in the Hebrew volume, proves that he is just a foolish sycophant. I was not relating my own personal views, but rather the remarks that they are wont to make against us. If I did not reply to their views in my preface, in the interest of brevity, lest it seem that I was composing not a preface, but a book, I believe I added promptly the remark, for I said, ‘This is not the time to discuss such matters’” (Against Rufinius 11:33 [A.D. 401]).

 

[itsjustdave1988]

My question remains … why do Protestants reject the Theodotian recession of Daniel? He was a Jew who translated the book of Daniel to Greek. Obviously, some Jews (such as him) used this recession, so the excuse that these were added later is absurd.

According to Protestant bible scholar Bruce Metzger,

“the ancient Greek version of the Book of Daniel is considerably longer than the surviving [10th century] Hebrew text… The Greek translation made by Theodotion … includes all the oustanding passages in the Greek Daniel as integral parts of the book… The Old Latin, Coptic, and Arabic version follow Theodotian… Jerome’s Latin Vulgate followed Theodotion” (“The Additions to the Greek Book of Daniel,” The New Oxford Annotated Bible with Apocrypha)

If the thousands upon thousands of manuscripts in Greek, Old Latin, Coptic, and Arabic follow Theodotian, as does Jerome’s Latin Vulgate, what “historical basis” do the Protestants have for rejected it?