Catholic position weak regarding apocryphal books

[Zooey]

Fascinating story - thanks!

I’ve received copies of the N.T. and Psalms from the Gideons, but they’re clearly marked as such. I wonder if these were properly marked as well.

And I wasn’t aware of any other churches using the deuteros (or apocrypha) for regular instruction. I was an Episcopalian for a number of years and don’t recall any lectionary readings being drawn from them, though they were included in our NRSV Bibles.

Does your current church make use of these books? And do Methodists generally follow the RCL?

There is an old joke about Methodists: “Where there are three Methodists, there are four (or more) opinions”.
The Gideons are indeed conscientious about marking their materials. UNfortunately, earlier groups were less so.
And I see that someone has given a reference…I will be back with my own research (preferably when I haven’t been up all night http://bestsmileys.com/blushing/6.gif on the computer).

 

[ESMDHokie77]

callofduty,

First off, I like your name!
2ndly, welcome to CAF!
3rdly, sounds like you have quite a lot to consider so far!

I don’t think this has been brought up yet on this thread, but not all canonical OT books are quoted in the NT to “prove” that they’re canon… Song of Songs is a book that we both know to be in the OT, yet it’s not referenced in the NT.

Peace,
Phil

 

[oneGODoneCHURCH]

No need to apologize for referencing Wikipedia. I use it as a starting point for research all the time!

Yes it does give you a place to start.

 

[djrakowski]

There is an old joke about Methodists: “Where there are three Methodists, there are four (or more) opinions”.

Matt Swaim was on “The Journey Home” last week, and explained that there are some “high-church” Methodists with liturgical sensibilities, and others in the evangelical camp (and I’ve only known evangelical Methodists - our closest UMC congregation hosts a very popular women’s BSF group). I imagine the liturgical Methodists use the RCL, and the evangelicals, notsomuch.

 

[wmscott]

Hey Guy’s,

I have always wondered why the Catholic Church and Orthodox Church had extra OT books. Recently I was looking at an original 1611 King James and original Geneva Bible and discovered they also contained these apocryphal books (although in a seperate section) I found out it had to do with the Greek Septuagint version of the OT.

I asked a pastor via e-mail about this question and he responded that the Catholic position was a bit weak regarding this issue.

He responded;

“The Greek-speaking Jews never treated the apocryphal books as divinely inspired Scripture. Even though some apocryphal books were included in the Septuagint, they were never considered God-breathed Scripture. It is well documented that Jews didn’t consider the apocryphal books to be authored by God. Josephus, a venerated Jewish historian, specifically stated that the apocryphal books weren’t from God in his writing Against Apion. The Manual of Discipline in the Dead Sea Scrolls stated that the Apocrypha wasn’t inspired. To further prove the point, the Apocrypha itself says that it isn’t Scripture! The apocryphal book, 2 Maccabees, specifically says that it isn’t inspired by God in 15:38-39, and the author apologizes for any inaccurate information he might have provided. Though the apocryphal books are unique historical accounts, they are never quoted in the New Testament, and they were never accepted by the church or the Jewish community as divinely inspired text. That is exactly why it isn’t necessary that they be included in modern translations of the Bible – they aren’t Bible, just secular history.”

I am no theologian and my attempts to research the question just left me more confused.

I figured it would be worth a try to get the information from Catholics, instead of biased sources. (my pastor believes the apocryphal books were “added” at the council of Trent)
I at least have found out that is misleading.

So, is the Catholic position weak on this ??

It’s another day now and some time has passed, so I am curious as to how you have been in digesting a lot of the information you have been receiving. To me it actually exciting to see someone experience the light of new knowledge after being unaware of its existence and now seeing it for the first time. In your opening post you cited your Pastor as saying “Though the apocryphal books are unique historical accounts, they are never quoted in the New Testament, and they were never accepted by the church or the Jewish community as divinely inspired text”. I wanted to provide you with the attached information that cites New Testament to Deuterocanonical references (No credit of mine). Enjoy and Peace.

 

[Randy_Carson]

So, is the Catholic position weak on this ??

At Trent? Hardly.

The Canon and the Councils

Council of Rome (382 A.D.)

Convoked by Pope Damasus, this council produced the Roman Code. The Roman Code identified a list of scriptural books identical to the Council of Trent’s formally defined canon. Pope Damasus I approved the work of the first Council of Constantinople, accepting St. Athanasius’ list as divinely inspired, and indicated that if any bishop used a list of books inconsistent with the Roman canon he would need a convincing explanation.

Council of Hippo (393 A.D.)

This council reiterated the list of books established by the Council of Rome.

First Council of Carthage (397 A.D.)

This council reiterated the list of books established by the Council of Rome and also affirmed the Decree of Damasus issued in 382 A.D… Carthage*, unlike Hippo, sent its decisions to Rome for ratification. *

Pope Innocent I (405 A.D.)

In a letter to Exsuperius, the Bishop of Toulouse, Pope Innocent listed the same books established by the Council of Rome.
Pope Boniface (ca. 420 A.D.)
Pope St. Boniface I (418-422) ratified the decision of the first Council of Carthage and declared the canon settled for the Western Patriarchate. Boniface also sent the decision to the Eastern patriarchs in Alexandria, Antioch and Jerusalem. At that point, the Catholic Canon of Sacred Scripture was informally accepted worldwide.

Second Council of Carthage (419 A.D.)

This council reiterated the list of books established by the Council of Rome.

Second Council of Nicaea (787 A.D.)

This council formally ratified the African Code which contained the same list of books that Trent would name “canonical”.

Council of Florence (1441 A.D.)

This council defined a list of inspired books identical to those defined by the African Code and the Second Council of Nicaea.

Council of Trent (1546 A.D.)

On April 8, 1546, this council produced a decree, Sacrosancta, which was the first, formal canonical definition of Old and New Testament scripture. This was the third formal affirmation of the list by an ecumenical council and at least the eighth overall.

 

[Randy_Carson]

The Canon and the Council
Refuting the Argument that Canon was not established until the Council of Trent
By Gary Michuta

*Today, some Protestants are arguing that Luther did not subtract books from the Canon of Scripture, because the canon was not officially adopted until the Council of Trent which began in 1545. Since the canon was not formally recognized prior to Luther’s rejection of the Deuterocanonicals, it is not correct to say that he subtracted books from the Bible. *

This type of argument is quickly beginning to become a favorite among our separated brethren. They want to divert attention away from how these books were accepted within Christianity and focus instead on technical language in regards to their definition by the Church.

The fact of the matter is that even if something like the definition given at Trent had happened before Luther’s day, Luther would have rejected it as being in error, and Protestants wouldn’t have abandoned Luther because of his position any more than they abandoned Luther when he brushed aside other councils. In other words, this argument really isn’t about the legitimacy of the Protestant position, but rather it is a form of propaganda to make it look like the Church is dishonest.

However, what about the claim? Here is my two cents on the matter: After St. Jerome became the first Christian to cause a major stir by attempting to reject the Deuterocanon as Apocrypha, there were a series of local councils that met in North Africa to reaffirm the Christian Old Testament and New Testament. These were the councils of Hippo (393), Carthage I (397), and Carthage IV (419). All three of these reaffirmed the Catholic canon as canonical and divine Scripture. However, they were local councils that were confirmed by the Pope. Therefore, they were authoritatively defined but not with the solemnity of that of an Ecumenical Council. You must remember, however, that solemnity does not effect the authority of the definition given. Usually Ecumenical Councils met to address something that has disturbed the universal Church. By the end of the fourth century, Jerome’s views had caused trouble mainly in North Africa. Regardless of their solemnity these councils are the first to authoritatively define the canon. After them, Innocent I (417) was questioned by a bishop as to the canon and Innocent’s reply repeats the decree of Hippo / Carthage. This is the first Papal decision on the canon. There were a series of decrees attributed to Popes Damasus, Gelasius, and Hormisdas between 266-523 that also reaffirmed the canon as well. By the end of the ninth century, Pope Innocent I could write to the bishops of Gaul (modern day France) that the letter of Pope Innocent I on the canon was the “universal law of the Church.” To this, we could add that there are about a dozen local and regional councils (not to mention popes) during this period who issued decrees that quoted the Deutero’s to confirm doctrine and with the formal introduction normally given to Scripture showing that the issue was largely settled and that bishops throughout the world were confident in appealing to these texts.

Probably the most important council to bring up is the Council of Florence, which promulgated a decreed on canon of Scripture on Feb. 4, 1441. Florence’s decree states that the Catholic canon is given by the Holy Spirit and the Church accepts and venerates them. In terms of solemnity, this decree is greater than the previous ones. However, in terms of authority it is just as authoritative as the rest.

In 1519, Johann Eck debated Luther and pointed out to him that the Church had already confirmed that the Deuterocanon was canonical Scripture and he explicitly cited Florence as a proof of this. What was Luther’s response? Was it that the Church has authoritatively defined the canon yet so everything is still up for grabs? This is what the Protestant historian H. H. Howorth says about what Luther said:

“He [Luther] says he knows that he Church had accepted this book [2 Maccabees], but the Church could not give a greater authority and strength to a book than it already possessed by its own virtue.” (Gary Michuta, Why Catholic Bibles Are Bigger, p. 251).

So, Luther knew the Church accepted the Deuterocanon as canonical Scripture. He was aware of Florence and the other decrees (apparently), but by this point he believed that Church councils could err. Moreover, Luther seems to have been working on a principle that he would more explicitly develop a few years later; namely, that a book is canonical and authoritative to the extent that Luther heard “Christ preached” in it.

Now what about Trent? Why do all these sources say that it wasn’t until Trent that we had a definitive decision on the canon? First, the fathers at Trent decided early on to adopt the canon of Florence without comment. For them, the issue was already closed in previous councils. However, since some otherwise solid Catholics have seem to adopted Jerome’s views on the Deuterocanonicals over and against these previous councils something more was necessary to drive the point home that the matter has already been closed hundreds of years early. So, Trent attached an anathema to its decree on the canon. Trent wasn’t the first council or Church authority to define the canon, but it was the first to anathematize those who did not follow the canon. In terms of the authority of the canon, nothing was really changed, but the solemnity of Trent’s definition was, because of the anathema, far greater than any previous council.

 

[Big_Ro]

Also Mr. Carson…I have been very interested in this topic for about a year now and follow any thread I find on this topic. I read in some other thread that Jerome later recanted and admitted that the Dueterocanonical were indeed sacred or inspired. Please forgive my lack of mastery on this subject and any errors in terminology or spelling. I wish I had the time to do the proper research in order to determine whether or not this is true. do you have any material that might address this. I personally have no doubt but I find this topic very interesting. I feel the Catholic position is unassailable.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Why Protestant Bibles Are Smaller

Paul’s disciple, Timothy, was a Greek, and the Old Testament that Timothy would have been most familiar with from the time of his youth (cf. 2 Tim 3:14-17) was the Greek Septuagint. Because of his travels outside of Israel, Paul, too, would have been familiar with and would have used the Greek version of the Old Testament writings. Therefore, in this passage of scripture, Paul encouraged Timothy to continue in what he had learned from the Septuagint.

This has important implications for a controversy concerning seven books of the Old Testament now known collectively to Catholics as the “Deuterocanonicals” and to Protestants as the “Apocrypha”. Catholics consider the Deuterocanonicals to be inspired scripture while Protestants reject them. The Greek Septuagint contains these seven books while the Hebrew version of the Old Testament does not.

There is no doubt that the Septuagint was known to and used by Jesus, Paul and Timothy and yet, in the 16th century, Martin Luther removed these seven books from the Bible because they contain passages that support distinctly Catholic doctrines like praying for the dead and purgatory—doctrines which he rejected. Luther justified his action in part upon the fact that the Jews themselves rejected the Deuterocanonicals as part of their canon.

This development in the history of the Jewish canon is interesting in itself. Beginning as early as 90 A.D. at the so-called “Council of Jamnia”, Jewish leaders began to re-think which books of the Bible should and should not be considered scripture. In the second century, the Jews finally removed the Deuterocanonical books from their canon of scripture, and this was due in large part to the fact that the early Christian Church was using the Deuterocanonicals to support the Christian belief in the resurrection from the dead. The Jewish scriptures were being used to win converts to the Christian faith! Consequently, the Jews ultimately rejected the Deuterocanonical books some two centuries after Christ’s death and resurrection. Martin Luther used their decision to justify his own.

This leads to a couple of obvious questions: “Why would the Holy Spirit guide a group of rabbis on matters related to the Old Testament canon when there was already a Christian Church in existence that was under His infallible guidance as Jesus had promised? And why should Luther accept the revised Hebrew canon instead of the canon of the Septuagint that had been in continuous use in the Church for over fifteen centuries?

Luther picked that truncated canon for the same reason the rabbis did: in order to undermine the teachings of the Catholic Church which did not fit his new theology.

 

[callofduty]

.

I have been going over all of the responses so far and appriciate everyone who took the time to contribute. Thanks!

Anyway, as a non-Catholic Christian the beliefs and traditions of my denomination really only go back a few hundred years. That being said, I find myself impressed by a faith tradition that goes the entire way back to when Christianity began. The arguments on the Catholic side have been highly effective in getting me out of the historical and theological box I seem to have been put in by my leadership. Some of it seems to be a general lack of understanding as to the historical facts. There is a weath of information here, that quite frankly, was never presented when the question regarding the disputed books was first posed. I hope it was not a deliberate misrepresentation as we are all brothers in Christ. I will surely follow up with my pastor concerning some of the information argued on this thread.

Ultimately, I am still concerned about the Jewish historical account given by Josephus. Yes, he was a Jewish historian (not Christian) but a historian none the less.

On the other hand, it seems the Jews themselves didn’t seem to agree on the canon during the time of Christ (Saducees only accepting the Torah)

Also, when the Jews translated there scriptures into Greek, the books were included.

I wish I could find some more information as to the translation of the Septuagint.

Thanks again for all the information.

You guy’s are great at defending your faith.

 

[Randy_Carson]

.

I have been going over all of the responses so far and appriciate everyone who took the time to contribute. Thanks!

Anyway, as a non-Catholic Christian the beliefs and traditions of my denomination really only go back a few hundred years. That being said, I find myself impressed by a faith tradition that goes the entire way back to when Christianity began. The arguments on the Catholic side have been highly effective in getting me out of the historical and theological box I seem to have been put in by my leadership. Some of it seems to be a general lack of understanding as to the historical facts. There is a weath of information here, that quite frankly, was never presented when the question regarding the disputed books was first posed. I hope it was not a deliberate misrepresentation as we are all brothers in Christ. I will surely follow up with my pastor concerning some of the information argued on this thread.

Ultimately, I am still concerned about the Jewish historical account given by Josephus. Yes, he was a Jewish historian (not Christian) but a historian none the less.

On the other hand, it seems the Jews themselves didn’t seem to agree on the canon during the time of Christ (Saducees only accepting the Torah)

Also, when the Jews translated there scriptures into Greek, the books were included.

I wish I could find some more information as to the translation of the Septuagint.

Thanks again for all the information.

You guy’s are great at defending your faith.

Check out

Why Catholic Bibles Are Bigger
by Gary Michuta

http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/31Tm6jayCvL.SL500_AA300.jpg
amazon.com/Why-Catholic-Bibles-are-Bigger/dp/1581880103/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1301095708&sr=1-1

 

[Ignatius]

Ignatius:

The Deuterocanonical books (Apocrapha is incorrect terminology) have been part of the Old Testament since hundreds of years before Christ. The Septuagent version includes the Deuterocanonical books. The Septuagent version is what Christ, the Apostles and all of the first Christians used. Ninty percent of the New Testament quotations of the OT are virtually verbatim from the Septuagent. Every Bible up until the 17th century contained them.
What happened in the 17th century in which men felt they they could remove books that were in the bible since before the time of Christ?

It was actually the Nineteenth Century. Before that, all Bibles had the full complement of books included.
They were left out* then*, to save money on paper. (Am I the only one who would hate being the guy who made **that **decision at the Last Judgment???)

Ah, thanks for the correction Zooey, God bless and watch over you and may He give you many happy, holy and blessed years.

 

[IHSpetros]

Why can’t protestants use historical accounts such as Josephus to justify removing the books?

If you believe Josephus to be an infallible authority, then by all means use him. Just know that the same Church which infallibly decided the New Testament books also decided the Old Testament books. The question, really, is if you believe that the Church is good enough to decide the NT canon then why not also the OT canon? Also, has it ever occured to you that if the Church got the OT canon wrong, that they might have got the NT canon wrong? How do you know Hebrews is inspired? How do you know 2 Peter is inspired? What about Revelations, or 1 and 2 John? The Church decided both OT and NT, think about it.

 

[IHSpetros]

Check out this website:
thesacredpage.com/2006/03/loose-canons-development-of-old.html

It deals with Josephus, the history of the Canon in Judaism, etc. It’s an article written by Professor Michael Barber and it references and cites the lastest scholarship on this issue.

 

[wonkowasright]

.
Ultimately, I am still concerned about the Jewish historical account given by Josephus. Yes, he was a Jewish historian (not Christian) but a historian none the less.

On the other hand, it seems the Jews themselves didn’t seem to agree on the canon during the time of Christ (Saducees only accepting the Torah)

At the core there is a thought here that stems from the idea that the Israelites in Jerusalem were the masters of the inspired list of books and that those among the dispersion were less somehow.

Get out the book of Jeremiah. Read about Baruch, the scribe of Jeremiah. First Jeremiah was imprisoned to keep him from giving an oracle from God in the temple. Then Jeremiah dictated to Baruch the message which Baruch wrote upon a scroll, took to the temple and read. The king and the religious leaders ultimately had this scroll burned. Jeremiah had Baruch write the scroll again while he dictated it and it was sent to those in the exile.

Jeremiah was about the BC600 range. The Septuagint was produced in the BC300 range. Realize that is less time than we are now from the landing of the pilgrims in Massachusetts.

Why would those in the exile have the scroll of Baruch in their scriptures while those in Jerusalem didn’t ? Who would be right and who would be wrong ?

I think you have the answer.

Once you see that, read the so called additions to Daniel and Esther. You should find the same pattern.

Finally look into the history of the Masoretic text. Ask why it is that the oldest scriptures we have all come from the Church. The answer is that the Masoretic text was a post Christ standardization of various earlier texts and the earlier versions, deemed incomplete were withdrawn. The masoretic is not wrong but in many cases its decidedly less messianic.

Naturally if you read up you will discover the claim the scroll of Baruch, traditionally held to be the writing of the scribe of Jeremiah is of course not written by him. The books of Moses are written by someone else. Peter isn’t written by Peter, the gospels are all false copies of an earlier unknown writer. The Revelation of St. John is written by someone else. Ultimately Shakespeare wasn’t written by Shakespeare. Such is the travesty that modern scholarship has produced. Stick with the traditional understanding.

 

[SonCatcher]

Check out this website:
thesacredpage.com/2006/03/loose-canons-development-of-old.html

It deals with Josephus, the history of the Canon in Judaism, etc. It’s an article written by Professor Michael Barber and it references and cites the lastest scholarship on this issue.

I took a look at the site you referenced and pulled Josephus’ quote:

For we have not an innumerable multitude of books among us, disagreeing from and contradicting one another [as the Greeks have], but only twenty-two books, which contain all the records of all the past times; which are justly believed to be divine; and of them five belong to Moses, which contain his laws and the traditions of the origin of mankind till his death… the prophets, who were after Moses, wrote down what was done in their times in thirteen books. The remaining four books contain hymns to God, and precepts for the conduct of human life.

My thoughts on that quote:
The phrase “as the Greeks have” appears as a gloss. Without the full context available, it is difficult to know whether the larger writing was explicitly in contrast to the “Greeks,” that this was an inference or traditional interpretation, or that the phrase appeared in some versions of Josephus but was lacking in others.

The “Greek books” referenced are not specified in the quote (again, this may be a contextual issue). However, it seems to me this passage may be applied to the writings of the many philosophers whose writings could certainly seem to fill “innumerable” books as opposed to the count in the Septuagint (which are only about double the “twenty-two” Josephus mentions).

 

[davidmlamb]

If you believe Josephus to be an infallible authority, then by all means use him. Just know that the same Church which infallibly decided the New Testament books also decided the Old Testament books. The question, really, is if you believe that the Church is good enough to decide the NT canon then why not also the OT canon? Also, has it ever occured to you that if the Church got the OT canon wrong, that they might have got the NT canon wrong? How do you know Hebrews is inspired? How do you know 2 Peter is inspired? What about Revelations, or 1 and 2 John? The Church decided both OT and NT, think about it.

Allow me to comment here as I just came accross this thread. Josephus commented on and probably attended the Academy of Jamnia (95AD). This is where the Hebrew Canon was first defined long after Israel had the Key’s of the Kingdom taken from them and then given to the Church. Josephus along with Jaminia considered and rejected the NT books as inspired. Moreover,Josephus denied Jesus rose from the dead and characterized him as an insurrectionist. So to consider Josephus an infallible authority on scripture is not only weak but it lacks understanding of the authority Christ gave to the Church and what it meant when Jesus handed Peter the Keys to the Kingdom.

It meant Israel was no longer guided by the Holy Spirit to speak authoritatively on divine revelation. That authority was passed on to the Church and therefore the rulings of the Council of Jamnia are not binding on the Church and Josephus “authority” to speak about what is divine revelation is moot.

Peace,

David

 

[Big_Ro]

Allow me to comment here as I just came accross this thread. Josephus commented on and probably attended the Academy of Jamnia (95AD). This is where the Hebrew Canon was first defined long after Israel had the Key’s of the Kingdom taken from them and then given to the Church. Josephus along with Jaminia considered and rejected the NT books as inspired. Moreover,Josephus denied Jesus rose from the dead and characterized him as an insurrectionist. So to consider Josephus an infallible authority on scripture is not only weak but it lacks understanding of the authority Christ gave to the Church and what it meant when Jesus handed Peter the Keys to the Kingdom.

It meant Israel was no longer guided by the Holy Spirit to speak authoritatively on divine revelation. That authority was passed on to the Church and therefore the rulings of the Council of Jamnia are not binding on the Church and Josephus “authority” to speak about what is divine revelation is moot.

Peace,

David

Sorry Mr. Lamb, but there is no credible evidence that I have been able to find that can prove that the so called Council at Jamnia took place. I think there is ample evidence that a school existed in Jamnia that was akin to a law school. However, there is, at best, scant evidence that this school was in anyway engaged in “deciding” what books should be included in an official Jewish Canon. I found literally hundreds of references to this so called Council, but none provided any sort of actual evidence that the Council took place. I’m afraid that I came around to the viewpoint that it’s little more than an internet hoax. A falsehood that has been repeated so many times that it becomes a sort of urban myth.

Interestingly though, the vast majority of references came from protestant sources that used it to undermine the Catholic Canon. However, I found this argument to also be weak. If we stipulate that the Council did take place, we are left with at least two vexing problems. First, it seems that the Jewish world continued to use varying “Canons” for hundreds of years after Jamnia supposedly took place. So, it would appear that even if it had happened, the Jewish world did not seem to recognize it as in any way authoritative. Why should we then give it any weight?

Second, the supposed Council was convened to deal with the burgeoning Christian movement. They wanted to institute a Canon that would undermine the Christian interpretation which supported Jesus as Savior. This is the most commonly attributed motivation, if the various internet memes are to be believed. So, as the story goes, they decided on a Canon that specifically struck out the books that tended to support Jesus as Savior or Christ. It seems contrary to Christian belief that we should accept the mandate, whether real or not, of a Council whose sole goal was to undermine Christianity. Shouldn’t we instead condemn it as a false teaching?

I would welcome any evidence that the Council took place. I spent days rummaging through sources that made reference to Jamnia. In almost every case, they referenced it as a fact, but never did I find a source that offered any sort of hard evidence, beyond Josephus’ account. In fact, I found a piece that took me days to read, from a protestant scholar, that basically blew up the whole thing. I studied Politics and history in College, so I am generally persuaded by historical evidence. His argument for a school existing at Jamnia was very persuasive. He also found no evidence that the school was actually engaged in deciding a Canon and totally found that the rumor of a Council in the First century to be without any support. I trust God. All others should offer evidence.

Sorry mate. All the best and God Bless.

 

[jschutzm]

.Anyway, as a non-Catholic Christian the beliefs and traditions of my denomination really only go back a few hundred years. That being said, I find myself impressed by a faith tradition that goes the entire way back to when Christianity began. The arguments on the Catholic side have been highly effective in getting me out of the historical and theological box I seem to have been put in by my leadership. Some of it seems to be a general lack of understanding as to the historical facts. There is a weath of information here, that quite frankly, was never presented when the question regarding the disputed books was first posed. I hope it was not a deliberate misrepresentation as we are all brothers in Christ. I will surely follow up with my pastor concerning some of the information argued on this thread.

I would simply say this…

If things seemed more complex and deeper then you first assumed on this ONE issue… then perhaps you owe it to yourself to see how deep this rabbit hole goes and find out what OTHER things you may not realize about the Catholic position.

I’d encourage you to continue to post your questions on Catholicism on this forum, so again, you can see what other misperceptions you and your pastor may have about the Catholic faith.

While most of us here are not Theological scholars and professional Historians… as you can see, if you take all the responses together… you can get a real depth of knowledge here.

So again… I personally think you owe it to yourself to see where this takes you and ask more questions (separate posts) here at the Catholic forums.

 

[Usagi]

You will also sometimes see the argument that St. Jerome, who made the most famous Latin translation of the Bible (the Vulgate), rejected the Deuterocanonicals. It’s true. He had been studying with the Jews of the Holy Land to better understand the Old Testament, and he initially did not want to translate the Deuterocanonicals because they were not included in the Jewish canon of his time and because he believed they had been written originally in Greek, not Hebrew.

However, St. Jerome did ultimately translate the additional books when the Pope of the time asked him to do so. Further, we have since discovered (thanks to the Dead Sea Scrolls) that at least some of the Deuterocanonicals did exist in Hebrew versions around the time of Jesus – so one of Jerome’s objections, though reasonable at the time, turns out to have been based on a false premise. Others in the thread have already dealt with the “post-Christian Jews don’t canonize them” objection.

Since Jerome’s Vulgate was the preeminent Bible of the Catholic Church for a very long time afterward, it’s possible that the Deuterocanonicals would have fallen into disuse had he gone with his original intention. Fortunately, he was willing to obey the Pope against his own scholarly judgment (which turns out in hindsight to have been flawed).

You should remember also that there are New Testament Deuterocanonicals, though they are not often called that since no major sect omits them. I’m not talking about the New Testament Apocrypha (the various Gnostic gospels and such), but the “second canon” of the New Testament, books that were of late date and uncertain authorship, so that some communities argued to reject them. However, they were ultimately accepted. These books include several of the General Epistles and Revelation. (I believe that’s one reason why Luther briefly proposed to drop them, too, in order to be consistent in his rejection – and also, of course, because both Maccabees in the OT and James in the NT contain assertions that at least act as counter-evidence to his interpretation of Paul’s teachings on salvation.)

The OT Deuterocanonicals, similarly to the NT ones we all accept, were written last and weren’t universally accepted, but eventually won out (at least until the Protestants came along and raised the issue again). They would have raised the issue with the NT Deuterocanon as well, but Luther thought better of it, with some advice from Melanchthon I believe.

Usagi