Defense for the inclusion of the deuterocanonicals?

[MattofTexas]

Hey,
So…something’s that been giving me some trouble as I explore the Catholic faith is the inclusion of the deutercanonical books in the canon of the Old Testament.

Yes I know…
-They are accepted by Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, Coptic, etc i.e. like 75%+ of the Christians in the world.
-They were cited by the Church Fathers and sometimes numbered among the canon.
-They were often included in the LXX
-There are some POSSIBLE paraphrases of these books in the New Testament (with Hebrews having the strongest case for an allusion to 2 Macc.)

But I have heard it said that:

1. The term canonical was understood in two senses in the past. In one sense a canonical book was a Divinely inspired book that is part of the Word of God. In another sense it was a “good” religious text that was useful enough to merit being read in church (a later work like Summa Theologica might be comparable). Many people such as St. Jerome and Pope Gregory understood these books in the latter sense.
2. There was considerable disagreement about the canon until Trent (even if the books were accepted by some they were not by all, and at some points in history perhaps not even most)- thus when Luther removed the books from the canon he wasn’t actually removing anything but simply going by an older tradition supported by Origen and St. Jerome.

If someone could give me some great reasons FOR the inclusion of these books, and knock down these arguments- I’d really appreciate your insight.

Important: This is an apologetics thread. That means providing a reason for your faith (1 Peter 3:15). What follows are arguments put forward by a Protestant apologist, and these aren’t Jack Chick cartoons- they’re detailed essays. If you don’t want to interact with well thought out arguments against Roman Catholicism, proceed no further. I am posting these here not with the intention of trying to make anyone lose their faith, but rather 1. in the interest of seeking Truth, and 2. because, to speak frankly, I’d like for someone to take these arguments apart and falsify them. They are stumbling blocks for me as I consider conversion.
I’d say that one of the main sources of the stumbling block for me are articles that have been written by William Webster such as:

christiantruth.com/articles/apocryphaintroduction.html
christiantruth.com/articles/canon.html
christiantruth.com/articles/sippocanon.html

I know they’re long, but if someone would respond to these, or direct me to a Catholic apologist’s response elsewhere, It’d be really helpful.

Peace in Christ,
Matt

 

[pablope]

Hey,
So…something’s that been giving me some trouble as I explore the Catholic faith is the inclusion of the deutercanonical books in the canon of the Old Testament.

Yes I know…
-They are accepted by Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, Coptic, etc i.e. like 75%+ of the Christians in the world.
-They were cited by the Church Fathers and sometimes numbered among the canon.
-They were often included in the LXX
-There are some POSSIBLE paraphrases of these books in the New Testament (with Hebrews having the strongest case for an allusion to 2 Macc.)

christiantruth.com/articles/apocryphaintroduction.html
christiantruth.com/articles/canon.html
christiantruth.com/articles/sippocanon.html

I know they’re long, but if someone would respond to these, or direct me to a Catholic apologist’s response elsewhere, It’d be really helpful.

Peace in Christ,
Matt

Recommended book: Why Catholic bibles are bigger by Gary Michuta…amazon.com/Why-Catholic-Bibles-are-Bigger/dp/1581880103

I will address some:

Just some thoughts:

1. The Jews who were entrusted with the inspired Scriptures did not accept the Apocrypha as canonical.

What does the Jews have anything to do with what a Christian is to use?

catholicdefense.blogspot.com/2011/07/can-protestants-rely-upon-council-of.html

While it’s not clear that the Jamnia school ever produced a Biblical canon (see #2), there was a push back against the Catholic Deuterocanon, and the Greek translation of the Bible generally, because the Deuterocanon speaks quite clearly of things like Heaven and Hell. It contains astoundingly clear Christological prophesies. For example, Matthew 27:41-43 is clearly written as a fulfillment of Wisdom 2:12-22, in which the Just One was to die a shameful Death (see also Philippians 2:8). By purging Judaism of the Deuterocanon, you could slow the mass movement of Jews into Christianity. This, by the way, is why many scholars who support the idea of some sort of Jamnia canon think that the canon was formed: to purge the Hellenists and the Christians.

Of course, the irony here is staggering. Despite all the talk about Galatians, it’s Protestants here who are playing the Judaizers, attempting to force Christians to follow the dictates of an insular group of vehemently anti-Christian Jewish rabbis from the first century. To put it another way, if a Christian in the first century raised the argument that we should reject the Old Testament used by Christians in favor of the one being advanced in the Jamnia school, the followers of St. Paul would denounce them for their legalism. It’s just fundamentally not a Christian answer to the question

1. The Councils of Hippo and Carthage were provincial Councils which did not have the authority to establish the canon for the Church as a whole.

So what? The works of the Councils was presented to the Pope of the time for endorsement…who spoke for the whole Church.

There was an earlier council…the Council of Rome, where Pope Damasus proclaimed the canon and authorized Jerome to begin the LV. Hippo and Carthage merely affirmed what was done at C of Rome.

The Council of Trent, Session Four, would state: “If anyone does not accept as sacred and canonical the aforesaid books in their entirety and with all their parts, as they have been accustomed to be read in the Catholic Church and as they are contained in the old Latin Vulgate Edition, and knowingly and deliberately rejects the aforesaid traditions, let him be anathema.”

Trent affirmed the decision of the previous councils and it said…“they have been accustomed to be read in the Catholic Church.” One of the reasons for canonizing the canon was to have a standard set of readings during the Mass. The DCs were traditionally read during the Mass.

1. The majority view of the leading theologians from the fifth century up to the time of the Reformation followed Jerome in denying the Apocrypha full canoniocal status

He is giving much weight to what variosu theologians or Jerome opined. Why does he not give equal weight to those who believed otherwise? How about the popes who affirmed the canons that came out of Rome, Hippo and Carthage?

Jerome, though he had doubts, dutifully followed and obeyed his pope and included the DCs in the LV.

And there is one fundamental difference between Jerome and the theologians (whoever they are) who had opposing views versus those of the Reformers:

Jerome and the Church theologians dutifully followed their bishops, did not disobey or cause disension in the Church, despite their views. They deferred willingly, even joyfully, to the authority of Pope and council. They could maintain the biblical ideal of doctrinal unity without claiming to be the source of that unity.

Contrast what the Reformers did. The Reformers foistered division with what they did with the Canon.

 

[malambo]

Septuagint was the Bible used by most of the Jews outside Palestine, and so it became the Bible used by the Apostles, by the writers of the New Testament and by all Christian communities. When the council of Jamnia took place, the Christians had been expelled from the Synagogues and had suffered the terrible persecution of Nero. By then, Jerusalem and the Temple had beed destroyed and the judaizing section of the Church, based there, had been scattered and lost influence. Surely, we cannot expect that a decision made at Jamnia, with anti-christian motives, could have any impact on the Christian Church.

 

[MarcoPolo]

Michuta’s book will likely cover most of what Webster advances upon glancing at his stuff. Another topic I happened to touch on myself (see link below) is the idea that Athanasius rejected the deuterocanon. What Webster does is assume that if Athanasius lists certain books received at a certain time, he therefore “rejects” those books he did not mention, which is a false leap, since a particular region could receive X number of books at a particular time in the early Church, but not necessarily “reject” those that were common use elsewhere. Webster commits the fallacy of confirmation bias, filling in a blank with his own theological position where Athanasius articulated no such thing. As well, Athanasius had a layered view of divine inspiration, and he also explicitly identified text of the deuterocanon as divinely inspired Scripture.

See Did Athanasius Reject the Deuterocanon? I hope this article satisfies the reasoned and detailed argument you are looking for at least with regard to Webster’s Athanasius claim.

Other fathers that Webster claims rejected the deuterocanon are also not necessarily “rejectors.” For instance, Jerome also varied at times in what he cited as Scripture and sometimes referenced the deuterocanon as such. Michuta has a whole chapter on Jerome because that’s who Luther appealed to (well, only select works of Jerome - not the ones where he embraced deuterocanonical texts).

See also apologist Dave Armstrong’s site under the sub-head Deuterocanon. Armstrong will deliver the resources and reasoning you’re looking for. He addresses many of these arguments if you skim through. But certainly check out Michuta’s if you’re really interested in the subject. His book is basically a catalog of what ECFs had what to say about the deuterocanonical books. It is chock full of references and quotations from them.

 

[po18guy]

Bear with me here: Disciples of Christ? Why not Lutheran? Here is why I ask: If one single man in 16th century Germany had the Divine illumination to decide the true and correct canon for all time, why not trust him in all other teachings as well?

Yet, his 66 book canon was not pared down to 59 books only because of the insistent persuasion of fellow reformer Melanchthon. Otherwise, James, Jude, Hebrews, Revelation, 1 and 2 John and at least one other book might also be gone.

The 39 book OT canon is the canon of the Pharisees! The Pharisees! Where does it say this? In the introductory notes of the (Protestant) Revised Standard Version. Our Lord condemned the Pharisees sevenfold!

Frankly, the books were not “included” at Trent. They were set in concrete by that council. Sirach (Ecclesiaticus - “Church Book”) was so named as it had been used in the Divine Liturgy since it was written. And, it is unique in the OT, as it is first to call God “Father” as Jesus was soon to teach.

In just one of those “non-inspired” books (2 Maccabees), you may read about the pre-Christian conquering and oppression of Israel by the Seleucid Kings; of the imposition of the death penalty for the practice of Judaism (the Mosaic law); of the Jewish Maccabean (“hammer”) revolt, which restored freedom, self-rule and the practice of their faith to the Jews; of the rededication of the Temple in Jerusalem, which had been defiled by pagans. The re-dedication of the Temple was the first celebration of the Jewish holy days we know today as Hanukkah. In that book, you may read about the goodness and holiness of praying for the dead that they may be loosed from their sins. In that book, you may read about the promise of the resurrection and about eternal life - written 175 years before Christ! Remember that Christ had to be born under the Mosaic law in order to fulfill that law. This book documents the re-establishment of that law, and of the promised resurrection and eternal life. If that was not inspired by God, then just who did?

As well, to hold to the 66 book bible is to agree with the unusual doctrine of the “Inter-Testimental Period” which attempts to explain the void in the scriptures made by excluding the Deuterocanon books. Look at this bible time line and see how it is alleged that God suddenly and inexplicably stopped talking to man just before the Incarnation. This void had to be named to explain why no scriptures exist to document the immediacte pre-Christian era. Yet, our Lord said “The law and the prophets prophesied until John” (Matthew 11:13). Well the 66 book bible disagrees with our Lord. Of note here is that 6 of the 7 excluded Deuterocanonical books were written in this exact time frame.

Something to ponder.

 

[jbeck43]

Truly a fantastic question.* Just some thoughts before I turn in.

The Babylonian Talmud references Sirach as being divinely inspired as late as the fifth century, meaning that the question of the Canon had not been settled even this late in history by the Jews.* H. E. Wright’s reference to any earlier council concluding the matter (Jamnia) was simply to lend credence to a protestant canon at the turn of the twentieth century.

Since a unified Hebrew authority did not exist in determining the Canon, the only other authority that existed with which protestants can use to support a belief that a definitive Christian canon existed must have been a Christian one.* And there was only one.* Otherwise their belief in such an ironclad table of contents for the Bible is specious for this reason alone:* if you can’t know that you have all the books, then there really isn’t any reason to believe that you have any of them, because if the mechanism used to determine inspiration is faulty (say, by not being able to identify inspired books as inspired), then one cannot know for sure if any of the books you believe are inspired truly are.* Then the only reason left for any belief in canonicity is really just the belief itself–a burning in the bosom if you will.* An “inspiration” of the Holy Ghost.

But think about it for a moment.* How would you, without a shadow of a doubt know that a book was inspired by God?* Because an apostle wrote it?* So what.* They wrote many things not divinely inspired.* Because you saw them write it?* That also means nothing.

If Christ simply left it then to the reformers to identify what the true Canon was, and not His Church which he clearly established (Matt. 16), then there can only be two reasons really.* His Church either didn’t have the power, or it didn’t have the will.* If it didn’t have the power, then the reformers were greater than Christ since His Church failed to do what they did.* If however it didn’t have the will,* then the reformers were better than Christ since they did what His Church wouldn’t.* Either way, the reformers were better than Christ–an untenable position.**

The most reasonable conclusion seems to me that if Christ is truly the author of Scripture, then He must have set up a way that we can know that truth absolutely.* Anything else would betray an imperfection in Christ.* And there is only one Church that believes this.* I’ll give you three guesses which one, and the first two don’t count.

 

[po18guy]

1. The majority view of the leading theologians from the fifth century up to the time of the Reformation followed Jerome in denying the Apocrypha full canoniocal status

Jerome Jerome Jerome! Cherry picking! I have yet to read of a Deuterocanon denying theologian who also agrees with Jerome that the Pope is the head of the Church, that the Eucharist is the Body and Blood of Christ, as well as virtually each and every other belief that Jerome held dear.

For MattofTexas: Here is a very good and fairly quick read: 5 Myths about 7 Books.

 

[LegoGE1947]

Jerome Jerome Jerome! Cherry picking! I have yet to read of a Deuterocanon denying theologian who also agrees with Jerome that the Pope is the head of the Church, that the Eucharist is the Body and Blood of Christ, as well as virtually each and every other belief that Jerome held dear.

For MattofTexas: Here is a very good and fairly quick read: 5 Myths about 7 Books.

My favorite Catholic Bible book is Sirach. If I’d never become Catholic I’d have never discovered that book:thumbsup:

 

[pablope]

Jerome Jerome Jerome! Cherry picking! I have yet to read of a Deuterocanon denying theologian who also agrees with Jerome that the Pope is the head of the Church, that the Eucharist is the Body and Blood of Christ, as well as virtually each and every other belief that Jerome held dear.

For MattofTexas: Here is a very good and fairly quick read: 5 Myths about 7 Books.

Yes…but what does who cite Jerome fail to cite is what he said also…" he’s willing to submit to the “judgment of the churches”:"…he will submit to the judgement of his bishop or Pope.

catholicdefense.blogspot.com/2010/06/st-jerome-on-deuterocanon.html

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?

So the question is…why don’t the Reformers submit to the judgement of the churches, as Jerome did?

 

[po18guy]

Yes…but what does who cite Jerome fail to cite is what he said also…" he’s willing to submit to the “judgment of the churches”:"…he will submit to the judgement of his bishop or Pope.

catholicdefense.blogspot.com/2010/06/st-jerome-on-deuterocanon.html

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?

So the question is…why don’t the Reformers submit to the judgement of the churches, as Jerome did?

We are called to follow the words of our Lord, as recorded in Matthew 16:24 and Luke 9:23, but that requires humility. It is far easier, it appears, to simply add lanes and widen the narrow path.

 

[Fr_of_Jazz]

Hey,
So…something’s that been giving me some trouble as I explore the Catholic faith is the inclusion of the deutercanonical books in the canon of the Old Testament.

Yes I know…
-They are accepted by Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, Coptic, etc i.e. like 75%+ of the Christians in the world.
-They were cited by the Church Fathers and sometimes numbered among the canon.
-They were often included in the LXX
-There are some POSSIBLE paraphrases of these books in the New Testament (with Hebrews having the strongest case for an allusion to 2 Macc.)

But I have heard it said that:

1. The term canonical was understood in two senses in the past. In one sense a canonical book was a Divinely inspired book that is part of the Word of God. In another sense it was a “good” religious text that was useful enough to merit being read in church (a later work like Summa Theologica might be comparable). Many people such as St. Jerome and Pope Gregory understood these books in the latter sense.
2. There was considerable disagreement about the canon until Trent (even if the books were accepted by some they were not by all, and at some points in history perhaps not even most)- thus when Luther removed the books from the canon he wasn’t actually removing anything but simply going by an older tradition supported by Origen and St. Jerome.

If someone could give me some great reasons FOR the inclusion of these books, and knock down these arguments- I’d really appreciate your insight.

Important: This is an apologetics thread. That means providing a reason for your faith (1 Peter 3:15). What follows are arguments put forward by a Protestant apologist, and these aren’t Jack Chick cartoons- they’re detailed essays. If you don’t want to interact with well thought out arguments against Roman Catholicism, proceed no further. I am posting these here not with the intention of trying to make anyone lose their faith, but rather 1. in the interest of seeking Truth, and 2. because, to speak frankly, I’d like for someone to take these arguments apart and falsify them. They are stumbling blocks for me as I consider conversion.
I’d say that one of the main sources of the stumbling block for me are articles that have been written by William Webster such as:

christiantruth.com/articles/apocryphaintroduction.html
christiantruth.com/articles/canon.html
christiantruth.com/articles/sippocanon.html

I know they’re long, but if someone would respond to these, or direct me to a Catholic apologist’s response elsewhere, It’d be really helpful.

Peace in Christ,
Matt

Hi Matt,

I would suggest the work of a key contemporary researcher, the Protestant scholar Albert C. Sundberg, Jr., which pulls the rug out from under Websters claims.

His conclusions are essentially these: at the time of Christ Israel certainly had scriptures: the Torah, Prophets, and Psalms were universally considered to be inspired and authoritative. However, Israel did not have a canon understood as a fixed, closed list of inspired scriptures.

Sundberg writes that “the church received ‘scriptures’ from Judaism but not a canon.” “The Bible and the Christian Doctrine of Inspiration.” Interpretation 29 (October 1975): 356, 358.] He goes on, based on evidence amassed in this article and his works below, “we now know that the Jewish canon [post-90 AD] was not the scriptures of Jesus and the apostles.” (358)

Further, he notes elsewhere, “Two different communities [the Jewish and Christian] were involved in defining canons out of the common material of pre-70 Judaism.” “The Old Testament of the Early Church,” Catholic Biblical Quarterly 28 (April 1966): 201] “In the days of Jesus and the apostles, the status of the Jewish canon (and this prevailed throughout Judaism) was that of a closed collection of Law, a closed collection of Prophets, and a large undifferentiated number of Jewish religious writings consisting of a later defined collection of ‘Writings,’ the books later called Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha, other books known to us only by name, and perhaps other books unknown and lost. And it was this canonical situation that passed from Judaism to Christianity as the Scriptures of the early Church.” (199)

You can find an essay of his online here.

I would also point out that although the infallibility of the decree from the Council of Florence listing the books of the canon may be debatable, several things are significant about it.

(1) The list itself is identical to Trent’s.

(2) It’s 75 years before Luther’s 95 Theses; and over 100 yrs before the Council of Trent even began.

 

[LegoGE1947]

Hi Matt,
I would suggest the work of a key contemporary researcher, the Protestant scholar Albert C. Sundberg, Jr., which pulls the rug out from under Websters claims.

His conclusions are essentially these: at the time of Christ Israel certainly had scriptures: the Torah, Prophets, and Psalms were universally considered to be inspired and authoritative. However, Israel did not have a canon understood as a fixed, closed list of inspired scriptures.

Sundberg writes that “the church received ‘scriptures’ from Judaism but not a canon.” “The Bible and the Christian Doctrine of Inspiration.” Interpretation 29 (October 1975): 356, 358.] He goes on, based on evidence amassed in this article and his works below, “we now know that the Jewish canon [post-90 AD] was not the scriptures of Jesus and the apostles.” (358)

Further, he notes elsewhere, “Two different communities [the Jewish and Christian] were involved in defining canons out of the common material of pre-70 Judaism.” “The Old Testament of the Early Church,” Catholic Biblical Quarterly 28 (April 1966): 201] “In the days of Jesus and the apostles, the status of the Jewish canon (and this prevailed throughout Judaism) was that of a closed collection of Law, a closed collection of Prophets, and a large undifferentiated number of Jewish religious writings consisting of a later defined collection of ‘Writings,’ the books later called Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha, other books known to us only by name, and perhaps other books unknown and lost. And it was this canonical situation that passed from Judaism to Christianity as the Scriptures of the early Church.” (199)

You can find an essay of his online here.

I would also point out that although the infallibility of the decree from the Council of Florence listing the books of the canon may be debatable, several things are significant about it.

(1) The list itself is identical to Trent’s.

(2) It’s 75 years before Luther’s 95 Theses; and over 100 yrs before the Council of Trent even began.

Right now my wife and I are watching on EWTN a program about the book of Tobit (another deuterocanonical book)

 

[Eruorto]

Hi Matt,

I would suggest the work of a key contemporary researcher, the Protestant scholar Albert C. Sundberg, Jr., which pulls the rug out from under Websters claims.

His conclusions are essentially these: at the time of Christ Israel certainly had scriptures: the Torah, Prophets, and Psalms were universally considered to be inspired and authoritative. However, Israel did not have a canon understood as a fixed, closed list of inspired scriptures.

Sundberg writes that “the church received ‘scriptures’ from Judaism but not a canon.” “The Bible and the Christian Doctrine of Inspiration.” Interpretation 29 (October 1975): 356, 358.] He goes on, based on evidence amassed in this article and his works below, “we now know that the Jewish canon [post-90 AD] was not the scriptures of Jesus and the apostles.” (358)

Further, he notes elsewhere, “Two different communities [the Jewish and Christian] were involved in defining canons out of the common material of pre-70 Judaism.” “The Old Testament of the Early Church,” Catholic Biblical Quarterly 28 (April 1966): 201] “In the days of Jesus and the apostles, the status of the Jewish canon (and this prevailed throughout Judaism) was that of a closed collection of Law, a closed collection of Prophets, and a large undifferentiated number of Jewish religious writings consisting of a later defined collection of ‘Writings,’ the books later called Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha, other books known to us only by name, and perhaps other books unknown and lost. And it was this canonical situation that passed from Judaism to Christianity as the Scriptures of the early Church.” (199)

You can find an essay of his online here.

I would also point out that although the infallibility of the decree from the Council of Florence listing the books of the canon may be debatable, several things are significant about it.

(1) The list itself is identical to Trent’s.

(2) It’s 75 years before Luther’s 95 Theses; and over 100 yrs before the Council of Trent even began.

Apologies for reviving an old thread, but I was recently presented with these exact Webster articles (in the OP) and, after much searching of the CA forums, ran across this. It seems to be the most relevant of the many canon-related threads that I’ve seen here. I can’t tell you how helpful it is to find information that directly addresses this issue!

I’ve read Michuta’s “Why Catholic Bibles Are Bigger” and just started his new one, “The Case for the Deuterocanon.” I’m hopeful that, between Michuta, Sundberg, and some of the other links here, I can make a good response to Webster’s articles.

I found the “Old Testament… Revisited” essay to be quite fascinating and informative, but I’ve had trouble tracking down Sundberg’s other works. Does anyone know where I can find them?

Also, I’ve seen some names such as James Barr and John Barton (from Oxford?), Hendrickson, Silva as Protestants who hold that the shorter canon was not the canon at Jesus’ time. Is anyone here familiar with these writers and their works?

 

[AKDee]

I don’t see any reason to defend the “inclusion” of the deuterocanonicals, books that had been considered canonical for a millenia. I think that Luther erred in taking it upon himself to meddle with the canon and remove them, and we should consider ourselves fortunate that he didn’t get his way and take 3 books out of the NT as well. If anything, I think that protestants should defend excluding them. As a former protestant, when I realized that one man decided unilaterally to take them out, I felt he had impoverished all protestants. I didn’t even know my Bible was incomplete until last year, when I joined RCIA.

 

[Eruorto]

It took a while, but I finally tracked down the pieces by Sundberg online. Posting here for any who can use them:

The Old Testament of the Early Church - (Harvard Theological Review, Vol. 51, No. 4, October 1958) - at www.jstor.org; requires free registration to read, or pay to download.

The Bible Canon and the Christian Doctrine of Inspiration - (Interpretation, Vol. 29, No. 4, October 1975)

I’d still like to find Barton, Barr, Hendrickson, and Silva to see what they have to say on the matter of the open/closed canon in Jesus’ time.

 

[Erich]

-There are some POSSIBLE paraphrases of these books in the New Testament (with Hebrews having the strongest case for an allusion to 2 Macc.)

Way more than just “some.”

scripturecatholic.com/septuagint.html

http://scripturecatholic.com/deuterocanon.html

 

[Duane1966]

Hey,
So…something’s that been giving me some trouble as I explore the Catholic faith is the inclusion of the deutercanonical books in the canon of the Old Testament.

Yes I know…
-They are accepted by Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, Coptic, etc i.e. like 75%+ of the Christians in the world.
-They were cited by the Church Fathers and sometimes numbered among the canon.
-They were often included in the LXX
-There are some POSSIBLE paraphrases of these books in the New Testament (with Hebrews having the strongest case for an allusion to 2 Macc.)

But I have heard it said that:

1. The term canonical was understood in two senses in the past. In one sense a canonical book was a Divinely inspired book that is part of the Word of God. In another sense it was a “good” religious text that was useful enough to merit being read in church (a later work like Summa Theologica might be comparable). Many people such as St. Jerome and Pope Gregory understood these books in the latter sense.

Except if you read St. Jerome, he himself calls them scripture in some of his writings. Here are some answers to the Jerome question:

shamelesspopery.com/st-jerome-on-the-deuterocanon/

matt1618.freeyellow.com/jerome.html

The second blog is long but read it carefully, it goes into the double meaning of canonical in the early church.

This one has Origen and Pope Gregory the Great and many others in detail.

matt1618.freeyellow.com/deut.html

1. There was considerable disagreement about the canon until Trent (even if the books were accepted by some they were not by all, and at some points in history perhaps not even most)- thus when Luther removed the books from the canon he wasn’t actually removing anything but simply going by an older tradition supported by Origen and St. Jerome.

Just not true.

catholicapologetics.org/ap030700.htm

If someone could give me some great reasons FOR the inclusion of these books, and knock down these arguments- I’d really appreciate your insight.

Important: This is an apologetics thread. That means providing a reason for your faith (1 Peter 3:15). What follows are arguments put forward by a Protestant apologist, and these aren’t Jack Chick cartoons- they’re detailed essays. If you don’t want to interact with well thought out arguments against Roman Catholicism, proceed no further. I am posting these here not with the intention of trying to make anyone lose their faith, but rather 1. in the interest of seeking Truth, and 2. because, to speak frankly, I’d like for someone to take these arguments apart and falsify them. They are stumbling blocks for me as I consider conversion.
I’d say that one of the main sources of the stumbling block for me are articles that have been written by William Webster such as:

christiantruth.com/articles/apocryphaintroduction.html
christiantruth.com/articles/canon.html
christiantruth.com/articles/sippocanon.html

I know they’re long, but if someone would respond to these, or direct me to a Catholic apologist’s response elsewhere, It’d be really helpful.

Peace in Christ,
Matt

And some more good ones defending the deuterocanon book by book, short and interesting.

shamelesspopery.com/defending-the-deuterocanon-book-by-book-part-i/

shamelesspopery.com/defending-the-deuterocanon-book-by-book-part-ii/

shamelesspopery.com/which-books-were-in-early-christian-bibles/

 

[Duane1966]

Did I really just spend a half hour answering on a thread that is two years old?

 

[Eruorto]

Did I really just spend a half hour answering on a thread that is two years old?

Yes, and I thank you for it!

I hope the OP got what he needed at the time, but I revived it as I’ve been confronted with the exact same essays. Of all the various “canon” discussions here, this is the thread that directly addresses the situation.