Deuterocanon question

[JeffersonD]

Thanks guys. That’s pretty much what I have been going after. I feel giving him a list of quotes would at least settle him on this issue although I believe his problem is not with the Deuterocanon at all but with the Authority of the Church. I’m trying to show him that his problem is not with the canon but with the Authority. This is just a means of showing that. You guys have given me a lot of help on this issue and I feel I can get back to my debate.

Thank you all

 

[Barbkw]

The “story of Hanukkah”, at least as Mary Fairchild describes it, is not found in 1 Maccabees at all, but is from the Talmud–specifically Shabbat 21b.

The Encanaea described in John 10:22 is actually the festival Sukkot, where the dedication of the temple was celebrated, and which constituted one of the three mandated pilgrimage festivals for Israelites, which would explain why Jesus went to Jerusalem for the festival. (Hanukkah never has been a pilgrimage festival.)

I double checked that source material concerning John 10:22 against the USCCB’s website at:

usccb.org/nab/bible/john/john10.htm#foot9

“The feast of the Dedication (9) was then taking place in Jerusalem. It was winter.
23
10 And Jesus walked about in the temple area on the Portico of Solomon.”

In the footnotes concerning John 10:22-23, the USCCB writes:

9 [22] Feast of the Dedication: an eight-day festival of lights (Hebrew, Hanukkah) held in December, three months after the feast of Tabernacles (John 7:2), to celebrate the Maccabees’ rededication of the altar and reconsecration of the temple in 164 B.C., after their desecration by Antiochus IV Epiphanes (Daniel 8:13; 9:27; cf 1 Macc 4:36-59; 2 Macc 1:18-2:19; 10:1-8).

10 [23] Portico of Solomon: on the east side of the temple area, offering protection against the cold winds from the desert.

 

[MarcoPolo]

I have never stated that quotation=canonicity.

Correct. The guy talking to the OP did. And I mentioned to you it’s specious criteria anyway. Do you agree?

 

[ctkrcia]

Also, remind your friend that, before 1599, Protestants had the same “extra” books in their Bible as well! So even by his own tradition, the Deuterocanonicals were accepted until they were later taken out. So, no matter how you slice it, it is the Protestants that changed the Bible, and, in the words of Ricky Ricardo, they have some splaining to do.

Actually, Protestant Bibles included the “extra” books up until around 1920. At first they were placed between the OT and NT. Then they were moved to the back, behind Revelation. Then the font was made smaller. Then they disappeared all together.

I have a KJV published in the early 1900’s that includes them.

To be fair, they were never claimed to be on the same authoritative level as the rest of Scripture. They were included because they were part of salvation history (Maccabean revolt) and they included lessons that were good to learn. But they were never part of any formal theological stance.

But they were considered an equal part of the canon until the 1500’s. How is it that they were authoritative at one point and ceased to be so later? On whose authority were they omitted?

 

[JonNC]

Actually, Protestant Bibles included the “extra” books up until around 1920. At first they were placed between the OT and NT. Then they were moved to the back, behind Revelation. Then the font was made smaller. Then they disappeared all together.

I have a KJV published in the early 1900’s that includes them.

To be fair, they were never claimed to be on the same authoritative level as the rest of Scripture. They were included because they were part of salvation history (Maccabean revolt) and they included lessons that were good to learn. But they were never part of any formal theological stance.

But they were considered an equal part of the canon until the 1500’s. How is it that they were authoritative at one point and ceased to be so later? On whose authority were they omitted?

Certainly not by everyone in the west, Cardinal Cajetan among them:
“Here we close our commentaries on the historical books of the Old Testament. For the rest (that is, Judith, Tobit, and the books of Maccabees) are counted by St Jerome out of the canonical books, and are placed amongst the Apocrypha, along with Wisdom and Ecclesiasticus, as is plain from the Prologus Galeatus.

Of course, this was before Trent.

Jon

 

[cfrancis]

Good thread.
The discussion as to what constitutes the canon interests me, as it rests on one’s understanding of what does it take for a writing to = canonical.

 

[pablope]

pablope: I know that the DC is in the canon of the CC but it’s not in most Protestant canon. I’m trying to answer my fellow debater’s questions so that I can show that essentially his problem is with the Authority of the CC. It will take time and a lot of prayer.

Yes, it is a problem of authority. Just to clarify what I was saying, the ECFs may have had different canons, but when the Church spoke, all fell in line. It was like this till the reformation came along. Actually, I learned from another thread (I will try to find it thread and post it here), that the DCs were removed sometime only in the middle to later 1800s.

I will offer prayers for you also, and yes, it will take perseverance.

 

[You]

Also, remind your friend that, before 1599, Protestants had the same “extra” books in their Bible as well! So even by his own tradition, the Deuterocanonicals were accepted until they were later taken out. So, no matter how you slice it, it is the Protestants that changed the Bible, and, in the words of Ricky Ricardo, they have some splaining to do.

The story goes that the books were included in the protestant bibles but were removed by a printer who tried to save himself some money by dropping those books from the bible.

So the protestant/Catholic canon battle is between those who stand behind the One Church founded by Christ and those who stand behind the one printer trying to save money on printing costs.

 

[MarcoPolo]

Certainly not by everyone in the west, Cardinal Cajetan among them:
“Here we close our commentaries on the historical books of the Old Testament. For the rest (that is, Judith, Tobit, and the books of Maccabees) are counted by St Jerome out of the canonical books, and are placed amongst the Apocrypha, along with Wisdom and Ecclesiasticus, as is plain from the Prologus Galeatus.

Is there a better quote from Cajetan? He doesn’t mention Baruch. And according to this quote, he’s relaying this is what Jerome said (which itself is begs context considering some of the ways Jerome quoted the deuteros.)

 

[JonNC]

Is there a better quote from Cajetan? He doesn’t mention Baruch. And according to this quote, he’s relaying this is what Jerome said (which itself is begs context considering some of the ways Jerome quoted the deuteros.)

I think he is just as much relaying his agreement with Jerome.

I’ll look, but the point was that not all Catholics, prior to Trent, were of one mind regarding the canonicity of the D-C’s, dating back to St. Jerome In fact, said canonicity was even debated at Trent.
But then, I’m one Lutheran who looks at the fact that Luther felt strongly enough about them to translate and include them, and the fact that the Lutheran Confessions do not exclude them (they don’t mention specific books at all), and wonder if we need to lend them more credence than we do.

Jon

 

[MarcoPolo]

I’ll look, but the point was that not all Catholics, prior to Trent, were of one mind regarding the canonicity of the D-C’s, dating back to St. Jerome

I see. I would agree with those people, however, that by and large the deuteros were embraced for 1000+ years prior to Trent by most. And for most of those years, I would suggest that the majority was large enough to meet St. Vincent of Lerins’ definition of universal consent.

 

[JonNC]

I see. I would agree with those people, however, that by and large the deuteros were embraced for 1000+ years prior to Trent by most. And for most of those years, I would suggest that the majority was large enough to meet St. Vincent of Lerins’ definition of universal consent.

Perhaps, Marco, as we move closer to unity, further agreement on the deuterocanon will occur.

Jon

 

[Big_Dummy]

"The story of Hanukkah is recorded in the First Book of Maccabees, which is part of the Apocrypha. The Feast of Dedication is mentioned in the New Testament Book of John, chapter 10, verse 22."…en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deuterocanonical_books

both of those could have been passed down via culture, oral teaching thus one does not have to take the source of those stories as inspired or assume that those books were even read by the average jewish person.

 

[Big_Dummy]

The criteria is specious anyway. If quotation = canonicity, then we’d all have to throw out Song of Songs, Ecclesiastes, Esther, Obadiah, Zephaniah, Judges, 1 Chronicles, Ezra, Nehemiah, Lamentations and Nahum—none of which are quoted in the NT. And we’d have to add Enoch, the Assumption of Moses and maybe some pagan poets—which are quoted in the NT.

are Enoch, the Assumption of Moses cited as being scripture?

 

[Big_Dummy]

If your friend really believed debate disqualified something, then the debate in Acts 15 cannot be resolved, no? And your friend would also have to discard other books the ECFs debated on like Esther or Revelation or 2 Peter, etc… In other words, your friend is positing a made-up criteria that would disintegrate his own Bible if he adhered to it.

I never thought of that, interresting.

 

[Big_Dummy]

Thanks guys. That’s pretty much what I have been going after. I feel giving him a list of quotes would at least settle him on this issue although I believe his problem is not with the Deuterocanon at all but with the Authority of the Church. I’m trying to show him that his problem is not with the canon but with the Authority. This is just a means of showing that. You guys have given me a lot of help on this issue and I feel I can get back to my debate.

Thank you all

From our perspective, that list of quotes from scripture catholic discredits your case because when we look at the NT references, we find them in most cases making reference to OT passages. You would be better off going through that list yourself, narrowing it down to the few references that can not easily be links to an OT passage.

From our perspective both the “extra book” and NT are simply making reference to the same OT passage in most of your examples. It is poor scholarship like this that discredits the Scripture Catholic site.

 

[Big_Dummy]

I double checked that source material concerning John 10:22 against the USCCB’s website at:

usccb.org/nab/bible/john/john10.htm#foot9

“The feast of the Dedication (9) was then taking place in Jerusalem. It was winter.
23
10 And Jesus walked about in the temple area on the Portico of Solomon.”

In the footnotes concerning John 10:22-23, the USCCB writes:

9 [22] Feast of the Dedication: an eight-day festival of lights (Hebrew, Hanukkah) held in December, three months after the feast of Tabernacles (John 7:2), to celebrate the Maccabees’ rededication of the altar and reconsecration of the temple in 164 B.C., after their desecration by Antiochus IV Epiphanes (Daniel 8:13; 9:27; cf 1 Macc 4:36-59; 2 Macc 1:18-2:19; 10:1-8).

10 [23] Portico of Solomon: on the east side of the temple area, offering protection against the cold winds from the desert.

John 10: 40 Then Jesus went back across the Jordan to the place where John had been baptizing in the early days.

Would not the water be ice?

burrr

 

[Big_Dummy]

Correct. The guy talking to the OP did. And I mentioned to you it’s specious criteria anyway. Do you agree?

I guess it depends if a passage is quoted as scripture. It would at least prove that the passages quoted as scripture are scripture. But, if a book is not quoted then I would agree it really does not say anything about books not quoted as being scripture or not being such. It is like trying to prove a negative in the absence of data.

 

[Big_Dummy]

Good thread.
The discussion as to what constitutes the canon interests me, as it rests on one’s understanding of what does it take for a writing to = canonical.

Then check out The Oracles of God: The Old Testament Canon
by Steinmann, Andrew E

he goes through all the data on this.

 

[Big_Dummy]

I think he is just as much relaying his agreement with Jerome.

I’ll look, but the point was that not all Catholics, prior to Trent, were of one mind regarding the canonicity of the D-C’s, dating back to St. Jerome In fact, said canonicity was even debated at Trent.
But then, I’m one Lutheran who looks at the fact that Luther felt strongly enough about them to translate and include them, and the fact that the Lutheran Confessions do not exclude them (they don’t mention specific books at all), and wonder if we need to lend them more credence than we do.

Jon

Let me know if I understand this correct. Catholic scholars, fathers would debate a topic until it was settled by a council. Can one show the dates of the disputing fathers in reference to councils that addressed old testament canon? What are those dates?