Deutero-canonical / Apocryphal Books

  • Thread starter Thread starter dje101
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Well, just a short note…

At the Council of Rome in 382, the Church decided upon a canon of 46 Old Testament books and 27 in the New Testament. This decision was ratified by the councils at Hippo (393), Carthage (397, 419), II Nicea (787), Florence (1442), and Trent (1546).
 
Rightlydivide said:
Well…someone did not tell the bishop from Alexandria Athanasius that. In around 360 or 370 AD he said there were 22.
Now if you are talking about 30 AD ish…what is your source for that?
Click to expand...
There were many books and opinions floating around, just as, apparently, opinions do today.

I have the source but not at my fingertips. I will post it soonest.

Peace.
 
Rightlydivide said:
Well…someone did not tell the bishop from Alexandria Athanasius that. In around 360 or 370 AD he said there were 22.
Now if you are talking about 30 AD ish…what is your source for that?
Click to expand...
No, Athanasius said the JEWS of his day recognized 22, and according to him, the count of 22 was arrived at by counting the 12 “minor prophets” as all one book, four books of Kings (that would be our Kings and Samuel) as one, and two books of Chronicles as one, and Ezra-Nehemiah as one.
Athanasius, 39th Festal Letter
There are, then, of the Old Testament, twenty-two books in number; for, as I have heard, it is handed down that this is the number of the letters among the Hebrews; their respective order and names being as follows. The first is Genesis, then Exodus, next Leviticus, after that Numbers, and then Deuteronomy. Following these there is Joshua, the son of Nun, then Judges, then Ruth. And again, after these four books of Kings, the first and second being reckoned as one book, and so likewise the third and fourth as one book. And again, the first and second of the Chronicles are reckoned as one book. Again Ezra, the first and second are similarly one book. After these there is the book of Psalms, then the Proverbs, next Ecclesiastes, and the Song of Songs. Job follows, then the Prophets, the twelve being reckoned as one book. Then Isaiah, one book, then Jeremiah with Baruch, Lamentations, and the epistle, one book; afterwards, Ezekiel and Daniel, each one book. Thus far constitutes the Old Testament. (He then goes on to enumerate the books of the New Testament)
Click to expand...
But for greater exactness I add this also, writing of necessity; that there are other books besides these not indeed included in the Canon, but appointed by the Fathers to be read by those who newly join us, and who wish for instruction in the word of godliness. The Wisdom of Solomon, and the Wisdom of Sirach, and Esther, and Judith, and Tobit
Click to expand...
In other writings Athanasius quotes Tobit, Sirach and Wisdom as Scripture, indicating that he accepted the “appointment by the Fathers.” And most Protestants, I believe, still accept Esther as canonical?
 
NHInsider said:
No, Athanasius said the JEWS of his day recognized 22, and according to him, the count of 22 was arrived at by counting the 12 “minor prophets” as all one book, four books of Kings (that would be our Kings and Samuel) as one, and two books of Chronicles as one, and Ezra-Nehemiah as one.

In other writings Athanasius quotes Tobit, Sirach and Wisdom as Scripture, indicating that he accepted the “appointment by the Fathers.” And most Protestants, I believe, still accept Esther as canonical?
Click to expand...
He states the canon is 22. The other books are not canonical. This is just one of many quotes from early church fathers prior to the Catholic Church adding books to the Old Testament around the year 400 AD that support my view.
He does say the church has people read other books. But the wording absolutely supports my view. Thanks for posting it!
 
Rightly,

If the Catholic Church did not decide - albeit and readily admitted through the power of the Holy Spirit - the canont of the NEW Testament, who did?

And please name me ONE person who lived before the protestant revolt in the 1500’s who is considered a Father/Doctor of the Church or who held a high level of authority (such as a bishop) in the Church, who held the same views as protestants either today or at the time of Martin Luther?

P.S. - As an aside, Martin Luther ALWAYS venerated the Blessed Mother. He adhered to the decrees of the various Church Councils and dogmas of the church, and he believed that Mary was a perpetual virgin and the Theotokos,or “Mother of God”. Thus, 300 years before Pope Pius IX, in 1854, proclaimed the dogma of the Immaculate Conception, Luther believed in Mary’s life-long sinlessness AND with the perpetual virginity of the Blessed Mother.

Rather odd for a protestant to believe such things about Mary, wouldn’t you say?
 
Rightlydivide said:
He states the canon is 22. The other books are not canonical. This is just one of many quotes from early church fathers prior to the Catholic Church adding books to the Old Testament around the year 400 AD that support my view.
He does say the church has people read other books. But the wording absolutely supports my view. Thanks for posting it!
Click to expand...
There was no existing “Old Testament” at this time to “add” anything to as there was no single closed Jewish canon. Different Jewish groups accepted different sets of books.

The first Christian “canon” was at the Council of Rome in 382 A.D. This council agreed on the same 46 OT books and 27 NT books that are in the Catholic Bible today. These same 73 books were agreed upon at every succeeding council that addressed the matter; Hippo (393), Carthage (397, 419), II Nicea (787), Florence (1442), and Trent (1546).

Sure, there were different folks with different ideas. However, what matters is what the Magesterium of the Church, guided by the Holy Spirit decided. And that was the same 73 books, every time.

Just for fun, a couple of quotes from St. Augustine:

“If you believe what you like in the gospels, and reject what you don’t like, it is not the gospel you believe, but yourself.”

“He cannot have God for his Father who will not have the Church for his mother.”

🙂
 
Can you tell me why you do not believe the canon was closed at the time of Christ? I do not want to hear about scholars think this or that. Simple question. What evidence is there that it was not closed?
 
Rightly,

First, you do not say what canon you are referring to. But considering NO NT book was written while Christ was alive, I assume you are referring to the OT canon.

Second, I DO believe the OT canon was closed at the time of Christ. The people at that time simply had not had a “council” or “church” to say so.

Go back to my analogy regarding the granting of a nullity of a divorce or the promulgation of dogmas about Mary’s Immaculate Conception and Bodily Assumption into Heaven. ALL of these events are FACTS (to Catholics) and occurred BEFORE they were recognized officially as so.
  1. A decree of nullity does NOT nullify a marriage - it declares that, based on the evidence presented, a valid marriage did not occur.
  2. The dogma of the Immaculate Conception did not state that it occurred as of the definition by the Church in its infallible decree. That dogmatic pronouncement simply recognized what had already occurred.
  3. The dogma of the Assumption did not state that the assumption had just occurred when it was defined. That dogmatic pronouncement simply recognized what had already occurred.
Well, the same goes for the OT canon. No more OT books were written after the birth of Christ. Thus, the OT canon WAS closed. Simply because no one had definitively ruled on the contents of that canon does not mean it did not yet exist. The Church’s decree on the canon simply defined it OFFICIALLY so that its members could definitively rely on the books in that canon to reflect the official sacred word of God.

Third, and this is one thing that is so overlooked, and yet (at least to me) so obvious: do people really think that Jesus Christ did not know what the OT canon was at the time he was alive? Good grief people! He was one of three persons in one God-head, another of which was the author of the OT and the NT!!!
 
Rightlydivide said:
He states the canon is 22. The other books are not canonical.
Click to expand...
Not canonical FOR THE JEWS. Of course, neither was the NT. And the Jews didn’t set their canon until after the birkat ha-minum which was in about 90.
This is just one of many quotes from early church fathers prior to the Catholic Church adding books to the Old Testament around the year 400 AD that support my view.
He does say the church has people read other books. But the wording absolutely supports my view. Thanks for posting it!
Click to expand...
Give some evidence of “adding books to the Old Testament around the year 400” or some evidence of a Christian OT canon from an earlier date, please.
 
At the time of Christ, the Sadducees only accepted the five books of Moses, the Law, while the Pharisees accepted the Law and also the Prophets and the Writings. Obviously there was no single closed Jewish canon at this time. Even if a few Rabbis did meet at the dubious Council of Jamnia, anything they decided on could not be considered setting a Jewish canon for all Jews. There was no “single Jewish canon” by the time of the Council of Rome, either. Therefore, to try to claim that the Christian OT should have been based on the Jewish canon is absurd. Again, the first Christian Bible contained 73 books agreed upon by the Council of Rome 382 A.D., guided by the Holy Spirit and these same 73 books have ratified by every following council following that looked at the matter until the canon was “officialy closed” at the Council of Trent in 1546.

If there is any evidence for a single closed Jewish canon before 382A.D., I’d like to see it!
 
Rightlydivide said:
He states the canon is 22. The other books are not canonical. This is just one of many quotes from early church fathers prior to the Catholic Church adding books to the Old Testament around the year 400 AD that support my view.
He does say the church has people read other books. But the wording absolutely supports my view. Thanks for posting it!
Click to expand...
So does that mean you don’t accept Esther as Scripture, but do accept Baruch?
 
Rightlydivide said:
Can you tell me why you do not believe the canon was closed at the time of Christ? I do not want to hear about scholars think this or that. Simple question. What evidence is there that it was not closed?
Click to expand...
The MT (Masoretic Text) dates, at the earliest, to the second century (oldest extant copy, since you seem to think that’s essential, is 9th century).

As has been pointed out, at the time of Christ there was no definitive Jewish canon, and since the Church didn’t address the issue for almost 3 centuries, there is no basis for suggesting the OT canon was closed before the birth of Jesus.
 
Clarification: When I say the “canon was closed”, I mean that, at a given point in time, no more PUBLIC revelation occurred so as to be considered for inclusion as part of Sacred Scripture.

So, given the above “definition”, both the OT and the NT canon were actually “closed” by the time St. John died on the Isle of Patmos. The OT books that came to form the OT canon had closed a long time before. The NT books that came to form the NT canon closed, most scholars believe, with the writing of Revelation (although some scholars think a couple of epistles may have been written after Revelation, with Revelation being written earlier than first thought).

To sum - the canon being CLOSED is not the same as the canon being DECLARED DEFINITIVE. Closure ends when the last book of revelation is written. DETERMINING WHAT BOOKS SHOULD BE IN THE CANON always came later.

Just an fyi . . .
 
Salvatore123 said:
Clarification: When I say the “canon was closed”, I mean that, at a given point in time, no more PUBLIC revelation occurred so as to be considered for inclusion as part of Sacred Scripture.

Just an fyi . . .
Click to expand...
I understand what you’re saying now. But still, before the “canon” can be closed, it must first be determined. There were quite a few texts, both Jewish and Christian floating around. There was not a list or canon determined until the Council of Rome 382 A.D.
 
Poco,

I agree - I think we are saying the same thing, but we are using different wording.

As I said, when I say that the OT canon was closed, I meant that before Christ was born, no more books were written that qualified for inclusion in the OT canon when that canon was debated and infallibly declared. The same goes for the NT canon by 150 AD (at most). By that date (and likely, much earlier), no more books were written that qualified for inclusion in the NT canon when that canon was debated and infallibly declared (which, for both canons, did not happen infallibly until Trent, although the Church maintained and “taught” a stead, unwaivering list until Trent’s infallible declaration.

I like to think of “closed” as turning the handle on a water spigot until the water stops flowing. The same occurred with the Holy Spirit. At a certain point, the Holy Spirit stopped inspiring humans. When that inspiration stopped flowing, the canon-books ended.

It then became just a matter of determining which books would be part of the canon.
 
Poco said:
I understand what you’re saying now. But still, before the “canon” can be closed, it must first be determined. There were quite a few texts, both Jewish and Christian floating around. There was not a list or canon determined until the Council of Rome 382 A.D.
Click to expand...
It is my understanding that the list from Rome in 382 is not considered legitimate. The only internet link I can find confirming this is Wikipedia though.
 
Rightlydivide said:
It is my understanding that the list from Rome in 382 is not considered legitimate. The only internet link I can find confirming this is Wikipedia though.
Click to expand...
Considered legit by whom? Who could consider something legit?
 
Rightly,

I answered YOUR questions, and I would please answer mine:

You say that you do not accept my contention that Christ and his Apostles quoted from the Septuagint because you say that we have no idea of what the Septuagint said at their time.

Given your limitation on me,

What book do YOU rely on for quoting scripture, considering no original books of the bible survive from the date they were originally written?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top