Catholic Septuigant Books and Martin Luther throwing them out

[Fidelis]

While quoting New Advent, you conveniently left out statements such as the following:

An analysis of Jerome’s expressions on the deuterocanonicals, in various letters and prefaces, yields the following results: first, he strongly doubted their inspiration; secondly, the fact that he occasionally quotes them, and translated some of them as a concession to ecclesiastical tradition, is an involuntary testimony on his part to the high standing these writings enjoyed in the Church at large, and to the strength of the practical tradition which prescribed their readings in public worship. Obviously, the inferior rank to which the deuteros were relegated by authorities like Origen, Athanasius, and Jerome, was due to too rigid a conception of canonicity, one demanding that a book, to be entitled to this supreme dignity, must be received by all, must have the sanction of Jewish antiquity, and must moreover be adapted not only to edification, but also to the “confirmation of the doctrine of the Church”, to borrow Jerome’s phrase.

Again, Jerome was a scholar and a saint, but as such his opinion, to put it bluntly, is no more binding or authoritative than mine or yours. As I said, he was humble enough to recognize, saint that he was, that individual Christians (even learned scholars) do not have the authority to definitively interpret Sacred Scripture, let alone determine the canonicity of any given book.

 

[Lutheranteach]

Luther did NOT - I repeat, did NOT - remove the “7 books” from any edition of his bible, including the final edition published after his death.

You can argue Luther removed 1 & 2 Esdras and the Prayer of Manasseh from the Luther bible - but, first, you would have to argue that these were considered to be a standard part of the bible at the time. Luther retained every Scriptures that are include in modern Roman Catholic bibles.

He did move the Scriptures of the Apocrypha into a separate section titled “Apocrypha”. He was the first to do this.

 

[flightkid]

If luther did not remove the 7 books than who did?

 

[SemperReformada]

While quoting New Advent, you conveniently left out statements such as the following:

I’m not sure what you are trying to demonstrate with the section you quoted. Whatever Jerome’s reasoning may have been does not change the fact that he found the deutero’s to be less than canonical. I have not argued one way or the other as to whether Jerome was right or wrong, simply that he did not submit to Carthage or Hippo and clearly did not accept the deutero’s.

Fidelis:

Again, Jerome was a scholar and a saint, but as such his opinion, to put it bluntly, is no more binding or authoritative than mine or yours. As I said, he was humble enough to recognize, saint that he was, that individual Christians (even learned scholars) do not have the authority to definitively interpret Sacred Scripture, let alone determine the canonicity of any given book.

Earlier you made the statement that Jerome did include the deutero’s as sacred scripture. I don’t think you have retracted that statement but yet I can’t see how you can still hold to it based on my earlier posts. It’s a simple matter of fact that Jerome rejected the deutero’s as can be demonstrated by his prefaces. It appears to me that the record shows that Jerome did in fact make a decision as to the canonocity of the deutero’s and did so against the decisions of several councils.

Had Jerome been around at the time of Trent I have no doubt that he would have accepted Trent’s decree on the OT canon but as it is, Jerome had no reason to submit to Carthage or Hippo since they were provincial councils. Jerome clearly advanced his opinion that the deutero’s were not part of the canon in the Vulgate. A bible that the church sent out complete with Jerome’s preface disparaging the deuteros.

 

[inkaneer]

Luther did NOT - I repeat, did NOT - remove the “7 books” from any edition of his bible, including the final edition published after his death.

You can argue Luther removed 1 & 2 Esdras and the Prayer of Manasseh from the Luther bible - but, first, you would have to argue that these were considered to be a standard part of the bible at the time. Luther retained every Scriptures that are include in modern Roman Catholic bibles.

He did move the Scriptures of the Apocrypha into a separate section titled “Apocrypha”. He was the first to do this.

That is pure poppycock. The canon of scripture was set in the late fourth century and included the seven deuterocanonical books. Jerome initially did not accept the deuteros. This is because Jerome’s education was at the hands of Jewish rabbi’s who themselves had been taught that the deuteros were not scripture. Jerome however agreed with the rest of the church and did include the deuteros in the Vulgate. This was affirmed at the Counsel of Trent fourth session dated April 8 1546. The Council listed the books of the Bible then added this sentence:

“But if any one receive not, as sacred and canonical, the said books entire with all their parts, as they have been used to be read in the Catholic Church, and as they are contained in the old Latin vulgate edition; and knowingly and deliberately contemn the traditions aforesaid; let him be anathema.”

So the Council affirms the Vulgate list of books which numbered 46 in the OT and even listed them by name. What that means is that from the very first bible the OT had 46 books and those books were the same 46 books as we have today. The Council of Trent was the reply to the Luther heresy. It was Luther who removed the deuteros because they did not agree with his theology.

 

[NHInsider]

A few random observations for accuracy’s sake:

Luther was not an “Anglican monk.” He was German. And the Anglican Communion did not exist as a separate institution (in fact, Henry VIII received the title “Defender of the Faith” from the Pope in recognition of his efforts to debunk Luther - just a few years before Henry himself jumped ship . . .).

Jerome’s observations on the origins of the deuterocanon have nothing to do with their canonicity, since by definition that refers to their being approved for liturgical proclamation, which he did not dispute. And I’m not entirely sure, but I do not believe there was such a thing as a single-volume bound edition of the Scripture in Jerome’s day - I don’t believe it was mechanically possible for another several centuries. So the question of “binding” the books together-or not-is actually moot.

LutheranTeach is correct that Luther did not drop the books he disputed from his translation - he did group them separately, however. Like Jerome, he believed that readers should be aware that there was (in his opinion) a different quality to them. Later Protestant versions dropped them entirely.

The Dead Sea Scrolls are a collection of ancient copies of various books, discovered in the Palestinian desert in the 1940s and still being translated to this day. They are significant because they predate the Christian Bible and included at least fragments of Hebrew versions of all of the books of the OT which were included in the Septuagint with the exception, if I recall correctly, of Esther, thus perhaps disproving the supposed rationale of the scholars at Jamnia (if in fact Jamnia actually took place) of eliminating books that as far as they knew only existed in Greek.

 

[Petergee]

If luther did not remove the 7 books than who did?

Up until the 19th century protestants did very little missionary work. They then belatedly realised that largely because of the heroic work of Catholic missionaries over the previous 4 centuries, most of the Americas were Catholic, and it looked as though the rest of the world woukld soon follow, leaving protestantism isolated as a tiny irrelevant rump in some corners of northwestern Europe, northeastern North America, and a few scatttered colonies of their expatriates. So a group of English protestants founded the “British and Foreign Bible Society” (today called the “World Federation of Bible Societies”). Their main missionary tactic was much cheaper and safer than the Catholic method: simply to print millions of protestant Bibles and send them to pagan and other non-protestant countries and hand them out willy-nilly (often to people who could not even read them, let alone understand them. Many of them ended up being used for profane purposes such as kindling fires, stuffing mattresses and other uses too disgusting to mention). To cut down shipping costs they printed the books on paper so thin that it was translucent to reduce the weight. For the same reason they later decided to simply leave out the deuterocanonical (“apocryphal”) books, claiming that they were “less important”.

The funny thing is that many Protestants today stoutly defend the total exclusion of these books from the Bible, yet many old Protestant Bibles still treasured in protestant hands, include them.

 

[Petergee]

Also it’s worth mentioning that the Jewish “Bible” (Tanakh) includes many other books besides those in our Old Testament. The Jewish “canon” was not finalised until about the 15th century. In fact many Jews will tell you it is still not finalised, and that one day it may even include books which have not yet been written.

 

[IowaJay]

That is pure poppycock. The canon of scripture was set in the late fourth century and included the seven deuterocanonical books. Jerome initially did not accept the deuteros. This is because Jerome’s education was at the hands of Jewish rabbi’s who themselves had been taught that the deuteros were not scripture. Jerome however agreed with the rest of the church and did include the deuteros in the Vulgate. This was affirmed at the Counsel of Trent fourth session dated April 8 1546. The Council listed the books of the Bible then added this sentence:

“But if any one receive not, as sacred and canonical, the said books entire with all their parts, as they have been used to be read in the Catholic Church, and as they are contained in the old Latin vulgate edition; and knowingly and deliberately contemn the traditions aforesaid; let him be anathema.”

So the Council affirms the Vulgate list of books which numbered 46 in the OT and even listed them by name. What that means is that from the very first bible the OT had 46 books and those books were the same 46 books as we have today. The Council of Trent was the reply to the Luther heresy. It was Luther who removed the deuteros because they did not agree with his theology.

Umm, you completely misunderstood lutheranteach’s point, which had nothing to do with their canonical status - the point was that those books were still in Luther’s Bible. I believe that it was not until sometime in the 1800s that the deuterocanonicals were no longer included in many printings of the Bible.